Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 6 December 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward W Hayter[edit]

Edward W Hayter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable person, runs a firm in Brooklyn catering to "small and mid-size" clients. A recent google search turned-up no entries other than this WP article. See here. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read here http://www.answers.com/topic/edward-hayter
your claim is in correct and wrong you didnt do much looking at who this person is and what they are involved in Thank you
Not so person is also the CEO of IBAC Corporation http://www.ibaccorp.com and several other company's you didnt let me finish the page
  • Delete - An unfinished page consistently edited by only one person. Edward W Hayter is non notable. No entries in Google apart from this very Wikipedia article. Debaser23 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Luck I removed my work but a google on someone dosent mean he is non notable so good luck to you all I wont waste my efforts here again.
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, as very little can be found about this person through Google, and I can't find any press mentions either, except for a few press releases. Jayden54 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically per nom...I could not find anything through google. — Seadog 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The person is non notable. NeoJustin 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and good luck to the editor who will no longer be with us. Danny Lilithborne 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and as my keyboard shortcircuts from the vale of tears at the loss of a great author. SkierRMH,09:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kielbasa (with small "merge" copy edit). —Doug Bell talk 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kovbasa[edit]

del foreign language dicdef. "Kovbasa" simply means sausage in Ukrainian language. `'mikkanarxi 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delicious, er, delete or redirect to sausage. If someone can show that this is a particular style of sausage (like Italian sausage) rather than a generic term, I might reconsider. Agent 86 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A quick google search came up with many showing the uniqueness. Here's a few:

Recipe

Martha Stewart weighs in

Kovbasa Eating Festival

Apparently one of the distinguishing features is a heavy-garlic taste. Drew30319 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In these articles the word "kovbasa" is used for ethnic exotics and quite interchangeable with "sausage". Qouting: "Our specialty kovbasa is the hot Cajun. And we brought a traditional sausage..." Cajun kovbasa!...? Wow! ROTFLMAO `'mikkanarxi 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Martha Stewart is simply ridiculous in her ignorance: "kovbasa siekana sausage": hehe, one word Ukrainian, another Polish (and third=first). Google is helpful only when you have at least a minimal idea of the topic. `'mikkanarxi 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sausage. The term appears to be a general translation. TSO1D 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sausage--M8v2 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on kielbasa: I've seen this page. But even if some Polish colleaguse see me as a Polonophobe, I did not put it for deletion, for two reasons: (1) the article indeed describes Polish sausage and (2) the term has significant English presence, just look into your dictionaries. Not to say that the article is well-written and clearly ditinguishes national and American usage. `'mikkanarxi 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect to kielbasa. A sausage from the Ukraine is more like a sausage from Poland than a general sausage. Plus, the words are clearly cognates. OBriain 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sausage from Ukraine and from Poland is exactly like a general sausage, only in America brains are a bit twisted when borrowing a word. It just happened that Polish immigrants branded the word in America. Ukrainian ones failed to do so. Examples abound. Take Kasha, for example, which in origin means simply porridge. Concluding, kovbasa is not a brand (yet). `'mikkanarxi 04:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge or redirect (still) I'm not certain you understand what I wrote well. I made no claim that either a 'kovbasa' or a 'kielbasa' is a brand. A 'kielbasa,' however, in English, is different from generic sausages. It's not a matter of anything being twisted in America because the same is true in Ireland, and Britain, and in non-English speaking countries for that matter. 'Kielbasa,' in English, means a fatty smoked sausage that recalls the sausages that Polish immigrants once made. As such, one can certainly have a 'Cajun kielbasa' by adding Cajun spices to the usual ingredients just as one can have a Hawaiian pizza. OBriain 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to kielbasa -- Whpq 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kielbasa.--Húsönd 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kielbasa. — Seadog 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kielbasa. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kielbasa. Cbrown1023 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there's a clear consensus to redirect. This article should be unlisted from AfD and redirected per the consensus.

  • Comment Kielbasa is Polish; kubassa (and who the he** put a V in it??) is Ukrainian. They are significantly different - Ukrainian sausage is a unique item and is sold as such and should have its own article or, if it's considered not notable enough for a separate article, should be mentioned under sausage, not under kielbasa. Kubassa is a sausage, but it isn't a kielbasa. --Charlene 07:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge with Kielbasa as an Ukranian version with iots own speling. Everyone knows Kielbasa RaveenS 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Note that just because there may be a conflict of interest by the person that creates an article, this is not in and of itself reason to delete the article. —Doug Bell talk 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Symes[edit]

Ruth Symes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article about a children's writer, created by Ericwainwright who is the subject's husband. Article appears to be little more than an excuse to list Amazon links for her books (there are 10 Amazon links in total). Saikokira 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author appears to be notable enought. TSO1D 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Article made to help push a book. That makes it a ad. Plus considering it's author it's also vanity--M8v2 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. Jpeob 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete notability not clear from what was there. Just H 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear conflict of interest. MER-C 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is absolutely an article to keep, but it should be WIKIFIED! Just because an ed didn't know how to create Wikipedia articles doesn't mean it's not worth having an article on a worthy subject. OBriain 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just notable children's author, and vanity and conflict of interest are no reasons to delete --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prolific children's literature writer, for both print and national TV. --Oakshade 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not all authors are necessarily notable. The article makes a number of claims including that she wrote for The Hoobs. However, she does not have a writing credit on IMDB [1]. It claims that her book was nominated for the Carnegie Medal. However a search of finalists for the medal does not pull up her name [2]. Finally, The Master of Secrets, the nominated book, has a rather low rating on Amazon.uk [3]. if more substatiation for her notability can be provided I will gladly change my vote. Amazon may not be the best source for sales of UK books so I am open to other sources. WP:COI concerns don't help.Montco 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May need some wikification, but there's no reason to delete the whole thing. Kundor 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean basically this seems notable and check here for more info...I doubt that this site is directly linked to her. — Seadog 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean per above (espcially Seadog). Cbrown1023 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per Montco. Google News Archive comes up with one reference in The Independent's What's On in London. [4] Gale's Literature Resource Centre claims to have information on 120,000 authors but doesn't have anything on her. If material can be found to establish notability, I would be happy to keep. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She writes under the name of 'Ruth Louise Symes'. Not a very well known author, scoring 174 Ghits, most from sites selling books. Most of her books rank in the six figures per Amazon. Mitigation is per assertion that one of her books has been read out on the BBC, and that some of her books are available in other languages (eg Polish). The most reliable source appears to be the BBC article, which is pretty bare. Her publishers' site contains a bit more info, including a lot of trivia. Ohconfucius 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has published books for Puffin (an imprint of the Penguin Group) and Chicken House (an imprint of Scholastic, the most well-known children's publisher in the industry). --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Oakshade, Jeff. Not Jan Mark or Philip Pullman, but Carnegie award-nominated and PAWS drama winner. Published by Penguin and Scholastic. Probably sneaks over the WP:BIO hurdle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems cleaned up now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09 11 December 2006 (GMT).
  • Keep, but still needs some cleanup IMO. JamesMLane t c 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep after its been given a cleanup.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taqiyya Libel[edit]

Taqiyya Libel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fixing malformed nomination by 24.62.167.158 (talk · contribs). Apparent nomination reason: "Taqiyya Libel is just an editorial comment on Taqiyya." No vote —Wrathchild (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC

  • Delete Only 891 google hits for the term--M8v2 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - make that 17 ghits. Fails WP:V in English, but we need someone literate in Arabic to perform the verification in that language. MER-C 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article seems to be authored by the same writer who is the origin of the term (of course, it could be someone else using his name). But those few hits all return to articles by or responding to a single person, D. Esmay.JKMan 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mer-C — Seadog 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. Cbrown1023 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's notes. SkierRMH,09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no such thing as "Taqiyya Libel". EliasAlucard|Talk 21:15, 09 Dec, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The JPStalk to me 22:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and information at this article: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014351.php --Scb steve 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Beit Or 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JKMan. Article author is the inventor of the term. Azate 03:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fluff peace created by the inventor of this neologism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EliasAlucard, Briangotts. --Loundry 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taqiyya is enough.--Patchouli 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of Phrases[edit]

Origins of Phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Random and unsourced list of phrases. Edison 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Indescriminate collection of trivia that is of indeterminal length. Lead me to see how much work is required over at Catch phrase. Worse-case resolution of this discussion: redirect to List of snowclones. Agent 86 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without reservation; the article has no use whatsoever. TSO1D 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I would suggest transwiki to Wikiquote Wiktionary but they don't want this sort of stuff either. As per Maxwell Smart, worst-case scenario would be a merge and redirect with list of snowclones. riana_dzasta 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, arbitary, trivial, woefully incomplete - thus useless - and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a bizarre article with no meaningful or unifying content. OBriain 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the examples are Snowclones per Agent 86 --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely indiscriminate. Godbless everyone for pointing out List of snowclones to me; I've been grasping for such a term for quite some time now. Postdlf 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is stupid. The editor who created it must've been drunk or something. —Chowbok ☠ 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy per WP:SNOW if appropriate - speedies should err on the side of caution, but the outcome is very, very clear. --Kizor 17:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. Although I don't suggest redirect to List of snowclones as per other meanings of "Origins of Phrases". Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has only like 5 and these quotes can be found eleswhere but Chobok please be kind to other editors by not calling them drunk. — Seadog 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a little joke, please look at the article history. —Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I see...Then it was hilarious. — Seadog 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Kizor. It should probably be speedy. NeoJustin 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and "We are all X now" is pretty generic). Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... and
Comment; seems like pretty good consensus - close & let's move on... SkierRMH,09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software Disk Jockey[edit]

One sentence descriptor, uncited, I don't believe there is enough for a stub. PWdiamond 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give My Regards To Broadway[edit]

Typical fancruft nonsense. Make up a cute title and add every single famous person associated with Disney nowadays. No sources backing this up. Mad Jack 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mad Jack 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any proof of existence, reads like a fan made it up. – Elected 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources. TSO1D 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like it was made up by someone. Random summary and every notable disney channel actor you can think of on the cast list. No sources to back it up either. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Redirect here as I did a double-take when seeing the page listed on AfD. SliceNYC 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Hello32020 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not nonsense, it's just extraordinarily poorly written, probably by someone under 12.--Dmz5 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per nom and redirect. This nomination gets a star in my book as an example of a nomination with enough reliable sources to qualify as an article. —Doug Bell talk 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koreatown, Chicago[edit]

Koreatown, Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Koreatown is not a recognized or generally accepted neighborhood in Chicago. A stretch of Lawrence Avenue is known for its concentration of businesses that cater to Korean-Americans. As such, the city gave it the honorary street name of Seoul Drive. But the article also mentions the Korean Festival on Bryn Mawr Avenue, which is several blocks north of Lawrence. Some can consider this to be a "Koreatown". There is no definitive or recognized Koreatown in Chicago like there is in Manhattan and Los Angeles. Also, the content is not correct. Chicago may not have one of the world's largest Korean population outside Korea, if you include Zainichi Koreans in Japan. Besides, the article is supposed to be about a Koreatown, which does not refer to all Koreans scattered about in the large city of Chicago. Also the sentence about Naperville is not true. While (according to the 2000 census) Naperville has 1,141 Korean American residents (scattered about, not concentrated in one or two areas), that's just 0.9% of the population. One can argue with more authority that the northern suburbs has a bigger and more noticeable population, concentration, etc. Glenview, which is smaller, has 1,866 / 4.5% of the population, still not significant enough but more so than the example of Naperville. Besides, inclusion of these trivial nonsignificant tidbits further points to the fact that there really is no Koreatown in Chicago yet. The article should redirect to Albany Park, Chicago, which better explains the Korean community in Chicago, because that is the most commonly used and accepted name for the neighborhood a few may call "Koreatown". Though Lawrence Avenue (or Bryn Mawr Avenue to the north) may be a "Koreatown", it's not called Koreatown. The listing under Koreatown is sufficient. Someone once listed Arlington Heights, Illinois on a list in the Japantown article. The only "Japantown" there is a Japanese shopping center (Mitsuwa Marketplace (Chicago Store)). This is a similar example of mislabelling. Wizmo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom...catch your breath there Wizmo--M8v2 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well researched nom.--Dakota 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - good work, Wizmo, all AfDs should be made this easy ;) riana_dzasta 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect to Albany Park, Chicago. There's certainly Koreans living up there, and a Korean American community center, but it's not like Chinatown in its concentration of Korean American population. I always thought of the neighborhood as a good place to get shishkebobs, myself. Tubezone 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect to Albany Park. It's not one of the officially designated community areas, but a quick search through the Chicago Tribune archive shows that the term is in use. (I got 16 mostly relevant hits with UMI Proquest, including a 1998 article with the headline "KOREATOWN CRAWL: A NEW GENERATION OF ASIAN-AMERICANS CARVES OUT A NIGHT-LIFE CIRCUIT OF ITS OWN") Zagalejo 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list says Albany Park is community area #14. I think gentrification and recent immigration has diluted the concentration of Koreans in the area a bit, IIRC, a number of the popular Korean clubs and restaurants are in other areas, and the Korean community center offers ESL courses for Spanish as well as Asian language speakers. Tubezone 06:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant (if I'm reading you correctly) is that Koreatown is not one of the official communty areas. No matter how many Korean people live there now, however, they're still a part of the area's history and merit some attention at the Albany Park page (or at least a redirect there). Zagalejo 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, there's not much more in this article than what's already in the Albany Park article, so we might as well just redirect it Zagalejo 07:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Sorry, I misread the comment, thought you meant Albany Park.. Tubezone 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/(merge) per nom and others. DrKiernan 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge per above. Either way is fine. — Seadog 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise Drive[edit]

The Promise Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability - music wp:not PWdiamond 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prodded it. MER-C 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman's Power[edit]

Wonder Woman's Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The page includes information that already exists on Wonder Woman, and it's enough to move past a short article. Best to keep it on the WW page. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPACTS[edit]

IMPACTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article seems to be advertising. Google returns one result. Was created by single-purpose account, registered today. Speedy tags were removed by another single-purpose account, registered today. Accounts are Executive Assistant and CEOCEO. This is suspicious. Notability claim was added that is backed by article that doesn't seem to refer to IMPACTS, but I'm not an expert. As such I nominate this for Deletion as non-notable and/or advertising. AubreyEllenShomo 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable conflict of interest. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable, unverifiable, probable conflict of interest shown by accounts which have edited the article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for corporate marketing. Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. hateless 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Antandrus.--Dakota 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Antandrus, stole the words outta my mouth. riana_dzasta 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NeoJustin 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; corporate buzztalk. Noclip 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete treet. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as canned spam. SkierRMH,09:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Abeysekra[edit]

unsourced, non-notable, all contributors to the article have contributed a total of one other edit to any other page Drunken Pirate 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article had been incorrectly nominated for Speedy deletion before. However, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion per Admin Stifle [[5]], Drunken Pirate 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely non-notable. Teacher, now a school administrator. Like millions of others in the world. What else?: Individulas have drawn "a parallel to him and the late Leonardo da Vinci". Same here. I've been told I'll never paint like Leonardo! Also a failed-at-the-first-obstacle actor. Interviwed by a magazine: well..... No, nothing to make this gentleman an encyclopaedia entry. Emeraude 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zomgmyteacherisawesomecruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gee-can-i-get-brownie-points-in-class?-cruft. SkierRMH,09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, attack page, no assertion of notability. Also falls under WP:SNOW here. —Cuiviénen 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUP[edit]

FUP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and WP:NEO. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

501st Military Intelligence Brigade, - Republic of Korea[edit]

501st Military Intelligence Brigade, - Republic of Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article exist, in virtually identical form, at the more appropriately named 501st Military Intelligence Brigade. I don't think this meets any of the speedy criteria, and doesn't seem like a real candidate for a merge and redirect, so Delete. (I think this is the right place for this, but feel free to move it if need be. Carom 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant duplicated content and unlikely redirect. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, merge unnecessary, not a search term. MER-C 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd recommend a redirect but no one's ever going to search for this. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article already exists. There is no reason to merge since the information on this article is already on the better named one. NeoJustin 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no merge, basic search would pick up original article. SkierRMH,09:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of problems solved by MacGyver[edit]

List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is an expansion on plot summeries, which is a nono according to WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE with regards to plot summaries. Dstanfor 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article contains, as far as I've seen, the most complete list and descriptive lits of MacGyver's solutions. As such, it's a resource. It took me quite a while to find it this morning after finding out it had been deleted. Finog (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Sourcing is a problem here, but this doesn't seem at all indiscriminate. The MacGyver solutions are the heart of the show, in fact, and have popular currency in a way that lists of Star Trek starships don't. Keep. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Contrary to nom, the article isn't an "expansion on plot summaries". Highfructosecornsyrup 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:FICT suggests that plot summary articles should not routinely exist. However, 1) It recognizes exceptions, and, 2) This is a single article collecting, distilling and summarizing information not present elsewhere. This article is much better at showing the essential nature of MacGyver's character than the main article, and it does it by showing instead of telling. It is also an inspiring insight into his traits of intelligence, perseverence, and education which is broad, in depth, scientifically sound (mostly), and daring. — EncMstr 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. Cbrown1023 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft with OR issues. Take it to Wikia, but not appropriate for encyclopedia Bwithh 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page List of MacGyver episodes already exists. Information should be on a MacGyver wiki. Marcsin 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep WP:NOT a directory, but neither is this. The article needs cleanup, but the information is valuable and of substantial pop culture importance. I don't think sourcing is problem; the episodes themselves can be used as references in accordance with policy. — brighterorange (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The problems solved by MacGyver are the central aspect of the series and have given rise to pop-culture references and a linguistic expression. The collection of information is not indiscriminate, though it may also not be entirely complete. Sourcing is not a problem as the episodes themselves can be referenced in accordance with WP policy and not be considered OR. I do, however, suggest a cleanup/reformatting so as not to be so similar to an episode list. Perhaps organization by the main scientific principle used would be better.LaMenta3 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep article is encyclopedic, and highly notable. MacGyver was known for his problem solving skills, and everybody knows who MacGyver is. I also agree with User:Brighterorange, WP policy allows episodes to be used as references/sources. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — nice article which is encyclopaedic, from a notable show, as a side note WP:NOT is never a good reason to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I'm going to add his favourite fans/cameo appearance - The Bouvier sisters in The Simpsons! SkierRMH,09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that these are just plot summaries, and I think this is one of the many cases where "indiscriminate collection of info" is used as an excuse to eliminate anything you don't like. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is the kind of systemic bias (things that white american college kids find interesting) that will be the death of wikipedia. L0b0t 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm citing WP:BIAS. If you like, I can also cite WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:EPISODE. L0b0t 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a wikiproject, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay. BIAS also says their goal is fixing systemic bias by filling in the gaps, not removing stuff in the effort to reduce the amount of stuff "white college guys like". ("In general, this project focuses on remedying omissions (either of entire topics, or of particular material within the potential scope of existing articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions") I couldn't find a wp guideline on systemic bias, is there one? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it means more that we should get to work on List of characters in Escrava Isaura "g"--T. Anthony 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. However, that does not change my opinion regarding useless fancruft such as this article. There is nothing here that can't be covered fully by the MacGyver, or is not already covered in great detail at the MacGyver wiki. There are many, many places for this sort of information, the general purpose encyclopedia is not one of them. L0b0t 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: MacGyver's ingenuity is indeed key to the show, but can be demonstrated through a handful of examples; an extensive list isn't required and seems to me to be WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE trivia. (On the other hand, I don't see significant WP:NOR or WP:V problems; the entries seem to be almost exclusively simple description of events that are verifiable through watching the show.) Jordan Brown 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NOT: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I believe this qualifies. —Trevyn 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This interesting article is more than plot summaries, as it focusses on the science and technology used in the tricks in each episode. A plot summary would pay more attention to motivations or the fate of the characters, which is prety much ignored in this article. Since they are sourced to the episode, they are not original research per se. If comments and observations about which are plausible or implausible are added and have no source other than the opinion of the editor, those bits of o.r. can be edited out. Some of the plausibility comments are sourced to independent third partiey sources such as Mythbusters, which is acceptable. There is no good reason why hundreds or thousands of other articles about books, plays, movies, TV shows, and video games can describe their content sourced only to the work and this article cannot. The point of the article is not to show that the McGyver character is clever, it is to cover the technology and science. It would benefit from Wikilinking to articles covering the scientific or technolological bases of the gimmicks. Edison 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Put it on a TV wiki of some sort, not here. RobJ1981 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a MacGyver Wiki that covers this pretty well already. L0b0t 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It's covered in another place" seems like a pretty weak reason to not cover something in Wikipedia. After all, everything on Wikipedia is available somewhere else or it'd be OR... one of the points of Wikipedia is to bring information together and organize it, so that you can look in one place to answer many questions. The question in my mind is where you draw the line for notability. Jordan Brown 06:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • send to the mc.gyver wiki aka delete while it is a very interesting and factual article, it dosn't really belong on wikipedia, it's fan stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CchristianTehWazzit (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as per EncMstr. - Peregrinefisher 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat keep, somewhat delete It looks like this will be kept from the response so far, or at least a non-consensus. I'm a bit torn about this myself, being a big fan of the show. However, I'm concerned about the level of detail that the article is diving into. One could almost call it a derivative of the original show, and somewhat of a copyvio. Yes, I know, the chances of us getting sued over something like that is next to none, but not getting caught is no reason to leave the article as it is. I think if we change the list so that it is more of a list of examples, and/or notable problems solved, that would be an improvement. There's no reason to include every single problem solved by MacGyver, as that's a MAJOR part of the show. We shouldn't be working to recap such major elements point for point. We got some really good info here, but there is a problem when you try to include every little detail. Keep for now and improve, I'd say. -- Ned Scott 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how much weight this will carry, but I'm inclined to vote DELETE. Some of the examples of problems MacGuyer solved can be included in the main article, but other Web sites — including the MacGuyver wiki and fan sites — ought to be covering these topics rather than Wikipedia. [[Briguy52748 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep per Brighterorange, Edison, and per Jordan Brown's response to RobJ1981 and L0b0t. JSarek 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, all this information could probably be used to set up a series of articles on every single episode of MacGyver, similar to those of Star Trek or Simpsons. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what we need less of. Wikipedia is not a fan's guide to television episodes, there are many resources out there for that. For a show, let alone a season or individual episode, to have an article it has to assert the relevance and importance of the show in a real world context. Did the show change the format for its genre, did it bring about cultural change or spark discussion or legislation on any topic? Please try to remember that this is a general purpose encyclopedia that is trying to present a worldwide perspective. Start with an article on the seasons of the show, put this crufty effluvia there. L0b0t 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so true. But rather that than this list. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elise K. Fortunato[edit]

Elise K. Fortunato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod and contested speedy. Film producer with below average notability. 27 unique GHits. Of the 56 Ghits for "Elise Kelly" + producer, most referred to someone in the reggae music field. 1 IMDB credit, for a film which is only due for release next year. Notability is not inherited. Ohconfucius 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete No notability at all. Sole IMDB credit is a 1 second charity film ANYONE can get a producer credit on if they pay money, see The 1 Second Film. It's really not that hard to get on IMDB. There are many small film projects with producer-credit-for-sale schemes like this that have listings on IMDB - the 1 Second Film is just a particularly well known charity one with thousands of producers credited. Bwithh 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete So if I just give a few bucks to be in the credits of a movie, I can get to have my own page in Wikipedia? Neat! --Supermath 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Incidentally, I'm also a producer on the same film, yet I've never met this person! (Though, seriously, donate to The 1 Second Film- it's a great cause.) -- Kicking222 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I contested the prod, but having looked into it subsequently, this producer is not notable enough in my opinion. --Canley 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noble as it is to contribute to independent films, it does not notability make.-- danntm T C 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Supermath. NeoJustin 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social commerce[edit]

Social commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page is more of a brief essay than an encyclopaedia article. Little encyclopaedic content, no direct citations (just links to external sites), and little to expand upon. --NMChico24 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--M8v2 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, an essay, zap it! James086Talk | Contribs 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and likely and essay.-- danntm T C 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. The other article will need to be nominated separately. ---J.S (T/C) 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekial 25:17[edit]

Ezekial 25:17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO - In particular, I don't see why this bible passage is independantly notable from the main article on Ezekial, let alone why it is important (other than the quote, which I don't consider that important either. --Sigma 7 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Thou hath not shown thine notability. -WarthogDemon 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Under what standard? We have no notability guideline for bible verses. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nor do we have any way of saying this verse is any more notable any other verse from the Bible. -WarthogDemon 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For some reason I didn't notice the mispelling until now. I change my vote. Speedy Redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs).
  • Redirect to Ezekiel 25:17. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Ezekiel 25:17. MER-C 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Seems like reasonable misspelling. --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need redirects from every possible combination of Bible chapter and verse. Ezekial already redirects to Book of Ezekiel. Just get rid of it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ezekial. Can't we delete Ezekial 25:17 also (and while we are at it Genesis 1:1 and other quotes in Category:Bible Verses)? It is not one of the more important bible quotes like John 3:16 that could be expanded to warrent its own page. Cnriaczoy42 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Definately no to Genesis, that page is huge and it's like the first verse! Cbrown1023 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ezekial 25:17. It seems to me that this article exists only because someone didn't know how to spell "Ezekiel" -- Ben 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Ezekiel 25:17.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect to Ezekiel 25:17, this can be considered a plausible misspelling.-- danntm T C 00:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete along with Ezekiel 25:17 given that both of these only exist for an extraordinarily stupid item of film trivia (which arguably wouldn't be kept in Book of Ezekiel) both of these can go. as above, we often do need, serious, articles on particular verses to keep down the size of the book article. the 'notability' standard for biblical verses is just an extension of the ussual: does it get a lot of mentions  ⇒ bsnowball  07:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Ezekiel 25:17 though I'm too lazy to nominate it. Some Bible verses deserve their own articles but this one doesn't. JamesMLane t c 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to Keep. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryphotos.net[edit]

Militaryphotos.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

2nd nom. 1st nom here. Still fails WP:WEB. - crz crztalk 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Operation Enduring Freedom or other sites that the article "captures." Bearly541 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - alexa = 12,157: [6]. MER-C 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has produced mainstream, international media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website esp in light of Finnish incident. NeoFreak 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Fox Man of Fire 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; Notable for North Korea photos linked from many other sites Noclip 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. Cbrown1023 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the above statements. --63.252.66.227 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some of the keep comments here, and in the first AFD, would meet the standards of WP:WEB if they were sourced, nothing relevant is sourced. Where is the sourcing to the coverage by external media? Where is the evidence (as opposed to the claims) that the content is redistributed? GRBerry 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::► 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiahs in fiction[edit]

Messiahs in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page nominated previously, but critical corrections have not been made. Page is now 60K of original research, violating WP:NOR, without a single citation. Much of the content appears to be fancruft and notable messiahs-in-fiction are better served by having it in the individual articles, rather than this long list. JRP 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and Move to BJAODN. Messiahspeculationcruft / OR list. An appropriate list could be created (better to knock the current version down completely and restart though) if a very particular definition of "messiah" was used that could prevent the mishmash of vague OR speculations here. As it is, we have no Life of Brian - a highly notable and famous comedy about someone whose literal Messiah status-or-not is the whole point of the plot - on the list but we do have a whole bunch of vague musings about video game and anime plots which fit in the excessively broad "single protagonist who is expected to save the world and has special powers - kind of like Jesus!" category (this sounds like the majority of video games out there...) rather than messiahs as such. Bwithh 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these entries appear to have been made by people who have no idea what messiah means at all e.g.[7] (and don't get me started on the ridiculous entries like the ones comparing the Samurai Jack and Lego BIONICLE characters to Jesus Christ? And I'm not even religious). I would recommend this article for BJAODN. Bwithh 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, come on, I can totally see the Samurai Jack-Jesus thing! TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "list" does seem redundant, as all Messiah characters would theoretically already be categorized by Category:Fictional messiahs and could therefore be found easily. But I'd vote yes to a strictly-defined LIST, without any descriptions (thereby discouraging all the blather) TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. I get the general impression from recent AfDs that articles of the form "(motif/device/archtype/whatever) in fiction" are considered unencylopedic. Or that they are required to be part of a heirarchy under the works that use them rather than being top-level articles of their own that use individual works as examples. Is there really is consensus on that, or are recent deleted articles along these lines special cases somehow?
This article in specific is in bad shape. It is a big list of examples with little explanation of how they are all tied together. It is in need of sourcing. But these are usually not sufficent for deletion on their own. Cleaned up, this seems like the sort of article that should exist on Wikipedia, unless there's some reason to believe that no reliable source can be found to back it up. That seems unlikely--don't most universities have entire departments dedicated to the art of fiction? BCoates 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. There's a lot of nonsense and OR here, but the page is interesting and potentially useful. AndyJones 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup per above. The topic is good, and the examples are good. The article just needs some massaging and de-POVing. 23skidoo 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag for cleanup, tag as OR if you must. If somebody was too lazy to add proper references, it's not a reason for deletion. Laziness of the original editor is not an excuse to destroy informative, interesting article. Or is it. Valters 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, definition of messiah is blatant original theorising and completely contradicted by the messiah article, which states categorically that a messiah is one who is annointed by God. Looking at the list, only Aslan comes close to this. --Nydas(Talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the messiah article does actually say it's used to describe a 'saviour or liberator' - although this raises the question of why the article isn't named Saviours in fiction. Nonetheless, this article is essentially a collection of personal musings more suitable for blogs, forums or personal websites.--Nydas(Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmanageable OR listcruft. The problem is that there is no solid qualification for being Messiahistic. As a result basically every main character in videogames and shows who saves the world from evil can (and from the looks of things, has) be added to that list. I was about to say create a Category:Fictional messiahs if a standard can be set for what qualifies as a Messiah, not just "they saved the world" when I found out one already exists. That makes this page redundant. Koweja 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dstanfor 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list. Jcuk 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overabundance of people that have died and resurrected and a lack of actual messiahs make this article craptastic at it stands. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crufty and speculative. I also agree with Nydas that messiah definition in this article is too far from classical. MaxSem 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've been trying, but outside of individual fan readings of the films, games, etc. themselves there are very very few characters that have external, reputable, sources that make this comparison. Superman is one, but that's the only one on this list that I can find. I think many of these could be categorized as Category:Fictional characters who have returned from the dead and Category:Fictional characters who have saved the world, neither of which are speculative (nor encyclopedic, but that can be decided in a CFD down the way). Being a "chosen one" is such a common fictional conceit that it's hardly worth making a list of. JRP 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Probably an encyclopedic topic, but this is idiosyncratic DIY exegesis and thus textbook original research. An article like this needs secondary sources, and this doesn't have any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This article is so crufty, it's insalvageable. Since so many others have provide reasons to delete for me, I'm going to debunk some of the arguments of the "keep" votes:
  1. There may be reliable sources.
    Actually, aside from blogger rants, there are no reliable sources about this topic, emphasis on reliable.
  2. "There's a lot of nonsense and OR here, but..."
    These are actually reasons to delete (see CSD:A1 and NOR)
  3. "...the page is interesting and potentially useful"
    Useful for what? An argument with your friend about why Sailor Moon is stronger than Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Also, "interesting" is not a reason for having an article.
  4. "topic is good... examples are good"
    How so? Potentially every single being in fiction could be included in this list since saving the world seems to qualify someone as being a messiah. That would make this the longest page on Wikipedia with rampant OR and POV.
  5. "if it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list"
    Apparently not. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 7#Category:Fictional messiahs. Besides, that argument makes no sense. If it has a category, then a list would be redundant anyway.
Well, I think that's it. Oh yeah, last thing, the article is so POV it makes my eyes bleed. Just thought you'd like to know. Axem Titanium 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep
  1. First of all, it is a compilation and not OR, being obviously based on the descriptions of the books given in WP, with links provided. Links are documentation. The events in the book are documentation. It would be possile to do a much more scholarly version, but I don't think it would add much here. The citations to such discussions should be at the original articles, not here.
  2. It brings useful material together, and is therefore notable
  3. I cannot perceive any POV whatsoever--the heros are diverse, and the readers are obviously expected to form their own opinions from the material presented, which is just what an encyclopedia should do. Of the works I know, I consider some of the instances very clear, some more remotes, and Iannticipate a good deal of interest in adding others, as it is one of the great themes in story-telling.DGG 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out to you that interpreting characters as messiahs "based on [their] descriptions [in] the books" is the very definition of original research. I don't see how being a "compilation" has anything to do with the fact that it's original research. Also, being useful does not equal being notable. My shoes are useful. They keep my feet dry in the rain, but I'm not going to write a Wikipedia article about them. Finally, are my eyes bleeding? Yes, they are. Therefore, the article must be POV. In all seriousness, if you can't see the inherent POV of calling someone a messiah when you're not God (who seems to be the only person who can anoint messiahs), then I suggest you reread WP:NPOV. On second look, no one seems to have mentioned that this article is unverifiable by reliable sources so I'd just like to throw that into the mix. Axem Titanium 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP and {{db-corp}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet Airlines[edit]

Hornet Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:AUTO (as suggested by the username of the author), currently non-notable // I c e d K o l a (Contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per above. AND, you can't access the link provided on the page. Bearly541 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Earth Angels[edit]

Environmental Earth Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-noteable environmental group. A Google search] for "'Environmental Earth Angels' -wikipedia" yields 194 results. A Google news search yields zero. Compare to 2 million for Greenpeace, 33,000 for Taiga Rescue Network, or 707,000 for The Nature Conservancy. Consequentially 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no media coverage except directories and press releases. Please don't consider # of google hits a qualifier for deletion, but evaluate what the hits are. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut S Gaugers[edit]

Connecticut S Gaugers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable model railroading club. A Google search yields 185 results minus Wikipedia mirrors, thirty more than my name. The page claims that it hosted a successful national convention, but I can't find anything in the Google results to verify the claim. In-line citations from the article lead to articles about model railroading, not the club. Consequentially 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I hate to see it go, I had S gauge American Flyer when I was a kid (tells you how old I am), but sadly, nowadays S gauge is barely notable enough for an article by itself, let alone articles on individual state clubs. Tubezone 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I favor HO gauge, but WP:ORG is pretty clear that individual state clubs are usually not notable.-- danntm T C 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Might be of some historical interest. Though that might not be sufficient. -WarthogDemon 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::► 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Select militia[edit]

Select militia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • Delete, I am unable to find any serious scholarly or major publication discussion of this entry's title. it appears to be the creation of a handful of right-wing militia proponents. Delete as fringe POV.--Cberlet 04:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree. Delete, or redirect to National Guard or other widely accepted version of this topic. Nimur 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though, Google Scholar[8] pulls up nearly 10,000 references, most of them do not treat this subject as a distinct topic of military or political science. Nimur 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, term appears real but the article is strictly original research. Dragomiloff 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply --

On the contrary, it was a major topic of discussion among the American Founders, who emphasized the distinction between "militia" and "select militia" as conflicting concepts. Most of the partisan armed groups to which the term is so often applied today would have been considered "select militia" by the Founders, and clear examples of what they did not want for the United States. This would include, by the way, organizations such as the National Guard.

To be historically and etymologically accurate, we should move much of the content from the "militia" entry to the "select militia" entry, leaving the latter to discuss only the original concept, which is now understood in Switzerland but is being misused almost everywhere else.

The terms are terms of law, and while we can recognize contemporary departures from original, correct usage, the emphasis should always be on the legal meanings. Consider, for example, the effect of replacing the meanings of constitutional terms like "due process", "jury", "crime", "speech", "press", "probable cause", or "right" with some modern slang usage that has a quite different meaning. We have a responsibility to preserve the meanings of legal terms on which the integrity of government and law depend.

For more on this see

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/penn_min.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar03.htm http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/48senh.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/43hala.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/37val-.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm

For more just go to http://www.constitution.org/search.htm and search on the phrase "select militia", either on constitution.org or across the WWW.

Jon Roland 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Select_militia"


  • Reply -- pseudo-scholarship and original research from a marginal right-wing libertarian pro-militia POV. Find a cite to a serious scholar who discusses the concept.--Cberlet 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Cberlet -- The reply by Cberlet is an ideological rejection rather than a proper scholarly one, as shown by his use of such pejorative terms as "pseudo-scholarship" and "marginal right-wing libertarian pro-militia POV". I have provided an abundance of links to scholarly research of others, and such primary sources as Madison's Report on the Constitutional Convention, the constitutional ratification debates, several law review and history articles, and a five-volume set of treatises by James Whisker, a professor of history at West Virginia University. But since the article has already been deleted, I won't argue further, but merely add the material to the main article Militia.

I should point out that I am considered a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian, often cited by others, and my work is hardly "marginal". Jon Roland 18:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD Researching[edit]

JD Researching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not verifiable; the article even declares this is the case. Also, it is not clear that this is a notable company. Ginkgo100 talk 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above - Cybergoth 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V with 15 ghits. MER-C 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -WarthogDemon 05:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Austin2040 11:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company is notable, it just is not well known to the public but very well known amongst investment firms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.18.68 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment The comments, afd tag, and article's talk page were all removed by User:67.36.18.68. -WarthogDemon 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment Fixed everything up. If I know the policy good enough, they just sealed the deal on the article's deletion haven't they? -WarthogDemon 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not necessarily; the behavior of a user — especially a newer user who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy — has no real bearing on the notability of the article. However, continued disruption could eventually lead to blocking. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for the deleting, didn't mean to do it, I am kind of new to wikipedia. -Austin2040
  • Comment I just got word of this post. JD Researching is a very popular firm on wallstreet. And it is true that you won't read much about them in any public articles. Investment firms pay top dollars to keep companies like JD Researching out of the public eye. I have even witnessed a few of their members speak at some gaming development conferences. These guys are real and very influential in the investment community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.61 (talk • contribs).
  • Do not delete. This company is very big and very popular. Also, I did not delete anything, someone edited this thing to make it look like I apologized for deleting something. That was not me. Anyways, I wouldn't delete this article, JD Researching is huge on wallstreet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk • contribs). -WarthogDemon 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strange that your IPs are quite similar. -WarthogDemon 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There I fixed it. I was the one that accidently deleted it, dunno who the other person is. IP's can't be the same. Mine is from the midwest while theirs is from NY. Still goes to show that someone knows who they are. -Austin2040
  • Comment I was actually referring to the two IPs. Wasn't thinking either one was yours. Regardless I was just making an observation. No way I can tell if its the same person so I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. Forgive my sight paranoia. -WarthogDemon 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgive and forget. We all make mistakes, I am proof of that. Lets just stop all of this debating and let the article stay. I want to become a good contributor to wikipedia.org. I will make sure that any new company articles in the future are more notable then this one, but I still think that this article should stay. I agree it is on the borderline of being a non-notable company due to its nature of work but it is still a rather large company and this company has done a lot behind the scenes on wallstreet and the video game industry. -Austin2040
  • Keep - Well known company when it comes to research and analysis. The main article needs more detail but it has the proper "under work" tags. Keep this article around and see who links to it. I would probably change the title to "JD Researching Consulting Group" as that is their real name.--Sdlang 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand Based on the comments here from those who might know, and from the list of clients, it i clearly notable. Tho documenting the activities of such consultants is not easy, a really thorough search should find something more in industry magazines.DGG 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 100% I learned about these guys in one of my graduate math classes. My professor said he knows the president and he often helps them out on a contract basis to create formulas for their research. My professor is a huge video game freak and he often uses the formulas he created for them in our class. Some seriously advanced stuff, the majority of the class can barely understand that they mean (and this is a MBA graduate program). Keep this article, I am sure it will get expanded. --DDstrike 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines at WP:CORP. Legion of sockpuppets deployed in support certainly does not help, either. A Train take the 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consensus to Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stashspace[edit]

Stashspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-a7}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case, the article has several non-trivial sources. I am not sure if that is enough to leave it in this encyclopedia or not... but it does not deserve a speedy delete. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Only 13K Ghits. Googlehit testing is relevant in this case because it's a web-based service. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (almsot a weak delete, but not quite.) I'll say it's not spam- but if it's not notable enough to have a 'real' article, instead of a list of features, I'd say it's not notable, either.Cantras 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. --MECU≈talk 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Stance (Original Article Creator) Article has been expanded (history + Operation Enduring Love) with new sources added. GoogleHits are low because it is a newly-launched site (September) of an existing company. Alexa Rankings are increasing rapidly, and site is in top-10 of most search engines under relevant searches for Video Sharing, Share Video, Online Video Editing, Online Video Storage, etc.
  • Weak Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia Notability Criteria for companies, a company is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself". This includes newspaper articles and television coverage, both of which have been attained by this company, including NY Times, NewsWeek, Parade Magazine, Washington Post and NBC Universal News, and TechCrunch (see references in articles).--Lugnut22 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rewriteThis might never have been an Afd if it were rewritten to be like a WP article.DGG 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an interesting one. The article references the New York Times and Dallas Morning News, but the two articles do not mention Stashspace. A Seattle Times article that does mention the company is clearly a local interest piece, and the The Washington Post article cited is dead. I was also willing to take Stashspace's involvement with "Operation Enduring Love" as a fair claim to notability, but again, the cited articles make no mention of the company. As it stands now, it's closer to advertising than it is to encyclopaedic material. A Train take the 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - StashSpace is a re-naming for Home Movie Corporation, which is cited in all the articles referenced as well as the WP article. The corporate website redirects customers to their new home on the web.Lugnut22 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3D Global Solutions[edit]

3D Global Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ok, this should fix the broken nomination ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 3D Global Solutions I'm not sure how this malformed.....anyway, article is not sourced. External links refer to other companies. Half the article is off topic and refers to other companies such as Wackenhut and Triple Canopy, not 3D Global. Reads like an advertisement. WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Destruction (Wrestling)[edit]

Eva Destruction (Wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable wrestler, she hasn't done anything notable, nor has she wrestled for any notable promotions. --James Duggan 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DS9 Voyager 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Results 1 - 10 of about 1,200 for ("Eva Destruction" wrestler).

Profile on Glorywrestling.com There is clearly a wrestler/diva (more manly than woman!) here, who has accomplished some stuff. The question here is how extensive do you want the wikipedia to be. I don't mind the article and can see room for improvement. On the other side of the coin, I can easily see reasons for deleting it. I wouldn't call her a well known wrestler by any means. But I am a person that likes to keep everything on the evidence so far I would say. Keep Govvy 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Never been in WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW or any others. Not famous. 86.20.53.195 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui DII 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deemi[edit]

Deemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Signed up for 8 years before releasing an album (though article still says "scheduled to be released". Emeraude 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as neologism. —Doug Bell talk 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundseeing tour[edit]

Soundseeing_tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This 'soundseeing tour' idea is not mainstream enough to be on Wikipedia. --Amanduhh 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not widespread or dominant enough a term.--Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added to the article citations showing use in the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun. Also "soundseeing" gets 240,000 Google hits, so it is a very common term used in relation to tourism and art appreciation worldwide. Museusm have long rented audio players for $5 to comment on the exhibits, now podcasts do the same thing free. Edison 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's real, but I can't see how it could ever be more than what the article already is. Maybe merge into podcasting? --MECU≈talk 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or perhaps Merge per MECU. Another possible merger: Listing under Special forms of tourism in Tourism -- underneath or incorporated into the "Audio tourism" listing already present on that page. -- Antepenultimate 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Antepenultimate. Noclip 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, clearly falls under WP:NEO. Transwiki content to wiktionary and nuke it already.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, does not appear to fail WP:NEO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NEO specifically states:
"We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."
Seems clear that both references are merely instances that use the term, and are not dedicated to discussing the term, so... seems like a cut-and-dry failure of WP:NEO to me. I recant my vote for "weak keep" but still support merger, both to Podcast and Tourism. -- Antepenultimate 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The world of the shining prince[edit]

The world of the shining prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- This is a book review, not an encyclopedic article.. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Stone[edit]

Gemini Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP: is not MySpace. P.S.: That's a man!?!?! Bearly541 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. He does look like a woman...NeoJustin 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently NN, article even states subject is only 'up and coming' Marcsin 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per winner of the first Miss Gay pride tittle of the milennium. ;-) Ohconfucius 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Brandeis University. I'm also closing the similar AfD on "The Justice" with the same result and redirecting The Blowfish and The Louis Lunatic on the same reasoning. —Doug Bell talk 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoot[edit]

The Hoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidlines for notability of WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brandeis University. Bearly541 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn student paper. MER-C 06:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Brandeis University or possible Delete. I would rather it be merged though. NeoJustin 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Cbrown1023 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable per plenty of precedence, or Redirect to owl. Brandeis has no particular claim over "hoot", but owls do. ;-) Ohconfucius 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above including the other student paper The Justice. --EarthPerson 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename it to The Brandeis Hoot...which is the name of the paper and redirec The Hoot to an owl or whatever. The beauty of wikipedia is that you can find information about everything even if its a college paper. Why delete it or remove information? Also, reading the discussion on notability it says student newspapers cannot be used to assert notability but not that they themselves aren't notable. That is...one can't claim he's notable because he appeared in a student newspaper but there's nothing there about student newspapers not being notable to have an entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep i don't get it. wikipedia should have more entries not less. and i don't even like the hoot.--129.64.99.48 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename Google news picks it up. Also, why remove information? Just rename it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joe Somar[edit]

Joe Somar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only achievement seems to be answering questions absurdly at the end of an episode of People's Court. —Perceval 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn internet celebrity, only 256 ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original article even called him a "minor internet celebrity". --Calton | Talk 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt as it has been four times before. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please. Too many 1-day-youtube-etc-"celebs" these days.. 00:49, 8 December 2006 84.133.168.103
  • Delete per above, and add plenty of salt per Danny. Ohconfucius 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE What is you guys' problem with this entry existing? Some kind of bandwidth shortage? Why are you eager (and embittered it would seem, based on the tone of the above comments) to delete so many articles? Who are you people who give a crap so dang much, and what puts you in a position of any authority anyway? I quarrel with the motivation and the execution of the new Wikipedia deletion surge. If Wikipedia isn't a suitable place to record and explain these passing pop culture phenomena, then where is? This guy's clip has appeared on several national TV shows, many many many people saw it, his existence is a curiosity of a much higher magnitude than many other subjects who have somehow found their way into the hallowed halls of Wikipedialand. All this lingo of "salt" is nothing if not mean-spirited and elitist. To deny the public the right to write about this (or any subject) -ever-again- reeks of a betrayal of what this thing is supposed to be about - a democratic submission policy about collecting knowledge - in all its pros and cons messy splendor. That a Wikipedia cabal has been deputized to delete and ban the submission of certain subjects (and that anyone would applaud the act) seems to serve little purpose, and certainly not a democratic one.24.199.84.215 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nonsense. Wikipedia is not many of the things you say it is, particularly not a democracy, which is explicitly listed in WP:NOT. And to constantly recreate the article despite it being deleted four times is a violation of what Wikipedia is all about. Get off your high horse and learn a bit about process. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calm down, friend. Before you throw stones, get off of your own high horse and realize that the aspects most people -in-the-real-world- value about Wikipedia are its thoroughness and democratic ideals. Democratic ideals are not the same thing as "a democracy", by the way, I -never- said that Wikipedia is a democracy. I seriously doubt you would stake your argument on a claim that democratic ideas are not central to Wikipedia. I think that you folks who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia are losin' it, seriously. I mean, read the comments above, these comments are borderline hateful and bitter. Why are you wasting your lives, folks? There are actual -important- and positive things to do in the world. Reveling in the censorship and removal of other's Wikipedia entries is not an important or valuable use of your time or energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.84.215 (talk • contribs) 20:09, December 8, 2006
  • Given your original rant above, with its hyperbolic talk of conspiracies and evil intentions, telling someone responding to it to calm down is a bit rich, as is your misuse of the word "censorship". If he -- or, I suspect, really, you -- want the attention of a Wikipedia article, he (or you) will have to earn it. Showing up on People's Court isn't it. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, I am not Joe Somar, and my "rant" above is 100% right on. You Wikipedia people are nutty little nerds, it's hilarious how much you guys shit your little pants whenever anybody disagrees with your groupthink mentality. I've read a bunch of these discussion pages, you folks don't address complaints or dissenting views, you just insult anyone who disagrees - as if these minor league barbs you throw manage to put all questions to rest. Friend - you aren't that clever or funny, sure as heck haven't changed my mind. The basics are still out there, awaiting a reasonable response - A) why do you think you're qualified to censor what info goes up on this thing, and B) even if you were qualified, what's the justification for bothering with this messy ugly process?

      If you want to have a constructive debate, please explain your argument further than stating it as if it were self evident. Beyond that - again - please explain why it's A) become such a priority to delete so much and so speedily, and B) where the checks and balances are in your deletion policy in order to guard against bias. There is a definite slippery slope to worry about here when you're relying on the odd birds who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia to also be the arbiters of notoriety and relevance. Kindly explain why this collection of oddly motivated volunteers make up the ideal group to decide what is or isn't important information to share with the world. Seems pretty shoddy and arbitrary. More importantly of all - if the deletion process is so shoddy and arbitrary, and ripe for abuse and misuse, then wouldn't the drawbacks of instituting the policy outweigh the goals? 24.199.84.215 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you recommending that Articles for Deletion debates should be conducted by people who aren't Wikipedians? How would that work? Wouldn't anyone participating in an AfD debate by definition be a Wikipedian? Who else would be qualified and willing to judge the worthiness of articles, and how would such a person not qualify as a Wikipedian?
As for the article in question, you don't seem to have addressed any of the guidelines in WP:BIO. You accuse the AfD process of being "shoddy and arbitrary", but you seem to be the one whose comments are not grounded in some sort of logic or policy. Perhaps if you focused on defending the article, you would be able to convince others with your reasoning. I'm kinda on the fence about this one, and maybe if you actually explained yourself I could be convinced to see your side. --Maxamegalon2000 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't feed the anonymous attention seeking trolls whose votes don't even count anyway ^_^. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteThere are people who tend to feel certain ways, but anyone can join in, as I have. There is a certain level of content below which a separate article is more confusing than helpful. One comment in one episode is about as low a level as possible. it could well go in the main article, and a web search would findthe name in WP. DGG 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge fact to People's Court as trivia. Bearly541 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Let's avoid adding to trivia sections. MER-C 06:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteThere are people who tend to feel certain ways, but anyone can join in, as I have. There is a certain level of content below which a separate article is more confusing than helpful. One comment in one episode is about as low a level as possible. it could well go in the main article, and a web search would findthe name in WP.DGG 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hardman[edit]

Mark Hardman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod contested by User:Unfocused citing his cycling wins. University (non-professional) sportsmen are not notable per WP:BIO and per consensus. Ohconfucius 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:BIO states "...including college sports in the United States." However, earlier it also says "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." There isn't interest in cycling in the USA. --MECU≈talk 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (or speedy). Cbrown1023 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Common good. Agent 86 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collective good[edit]

  • Delete vague, seems like a dictionary definition/original research piece. Just H 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll join the gang and go for a Redirect. There's nothing worth saving in there. Just H 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Common good which is the more accepted philosophical term --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Steve. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Just like Steve says Jamesbuc
  • Redirect Steve is popular. --MECU≈talk 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hell, I'll jump on this bandwagon - redirect. Natalie 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more room on the bandwagon? Ohconfucius 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin - Just H has made the redirect, so this just needs be closed --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ---J.S (T/C) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fifi'i[edit]

Jonathan Fifi'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
This was originally deleted as a speedy under {{db-bio}}. At the time I objected to the deletion, stating

"The article makes a claim about initiating the Maasina Ruru revolution movement. I'm not 100% sure how notable that makes this guy (the article for the revolution isn't the best), however could I could have 15-20mins to see if this is correct (ie. WP:V it), and to determine how notable it is, before deleting?"

The original deleting administrator offered to undelete, however after I went digging for sources I came to the opinion that the deletion as a non-notable biography was correct. I hence withdrew my request for undeletion. Since, the article has been recreated (with slightly different content, with some more details), and I'm still not 100% convinced its' notable. Then again, the new version does assert more notability than the last. I'm gonna sit on the fence and abstain, for now. Eat your heart out :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, the article is a stub as yet and needs alot of work. Fifi'i is a very important historical figure for the Solomon Islands. Just check Google. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=jonathan+fifi%27i&btnG=Google+Search&meta= I will add more to the article when i have time but am very busy at the moment. Paki.tv 04:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for keeping an article. There are many examples where a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee for being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment some people, events or subjects were active in the days before the internet. Google is pretty fast engine full of many indexed pages, but sometimes some subjects does not have its own page or are not cited in any. But that does not mean they are not notable. And what is on google is not automatically notable. I understand it is hard to verify it online, but this article needs some more research and sources, otherwise delete. Tulkolahtentalk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless sourced per above. Tulkolahtentalk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - subject was member of national parliament, and was minister in government. Eludium-q36 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article verifies the biography see [10]. It would be useful to get a copy of the autobiography translated by Roger Keesing who was a respected anthropologist. This article requires referencing by someone who has access to sources on the Solomon Islands. Google Books comes up with reliable sources that indicate notability. This entry in The Pacific Islands:an Encyclopedia confirms that he was a Minister in the Solomon Islands Government and thus worthy of an article under WP:BIO. [11]. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMember of a national parliament meets WP:BIOGarrie 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CapitalistRoadster. JamesMLane t c 10:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Merge to List of transgender bartenders Speedy Delete under A7 or A3, your choice. - crz crztalk 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Peruvian astronomer[edit]

List of Jewish Peruvian astronomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

What can I say? This is a one-man "list" of some completely unnotable guy who doesn't have a wikipedia article, and it's not even linked to by anything other than List of Peruvian Jews. The "list" is basically limited to one person because "astronomer" is singular, but even if it wasn't, it'd still never grow because this is such a specific category of people. Descendall 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unintentionally humorous ("list of astronomer" I find very amusing) indiscriminate collection of information. If the astronomer is independently notable, he can have his own article and realistically that's what should be linked to from the list of Peruvian Jews - having a sub-list only makes sense if there are large numbers of Peruvian Jewish watchmakers or Nepalese Scientologist politicians. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've been bold and merged all the sub-lists into the generalist "List of Peruvian Jews" page, preserving links to the sub-lists. We're left with a longish list of predominantly redlinks (there are more journalists and businesspeople than I'd thought there'd be, for example). An españolhablante or two should probably search in Spanish to establish the notability of these individuals - I feel as though the entire Peruvian Jewish population above age 21 might be represented - at which point we can see whether the businesspeople, journalists or anyone else needs to be hived back off again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Add me to the "List of Scottish Wikipedians Who Find Ridiculously Specific Lists Funny But Who Acknowledge That They Should Be Deleted". -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:NOT#IINFO. MER-C 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and the aforementioned List of Peruvian Jews contains a host of single entry lists! List of Jewish Peruvian archaeologists anyone? --Steve (Slf67) talk 07:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was in Cusco I used to pass by some graffiti on Avenida El Sol pretty often that said "Judios Fuera del Perú!" ("Jews Out of Peru!"). I used to laugh at that. Peru has a lot of problems, and it's pretty amazing that anyone could believe that Peru's miniscule Jewish population is responsible for them. In a way, I think that all these one-man lists bares me out on that. --Descendall 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This list are very funny. --Folantin 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Engrished title and number of entries in list (the only person on the list was one Abraham Levy, astronomer). wowee.....Question: does Peru have a minyan, or is the population too small or dispersed for that? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One-person list (and a non-notable person at that). It did raise a laugh, though. Squeezeweasel 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MATSES

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

The result was delete. It seems to me that some of the information in the section "MX-3 Modifications" can be merged to Mazda MX-3 or one of the other related articles. If anyone needs to get at this deleted information in order to merge it just ask me. —Doug Bell talk 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mx-west car club[edit]

Mx-west car club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable club. Conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gosteli. Contested prod. MER-C 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Relative web links to MX-West’s website and MX-3.com support the submitted information. Notability can be confirmed through external links and Google searches. A listing can also be found here. 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.99.10 (talk • contribs) 15:03, December 7, 2006
  • Delete. "Communities" don't count as sources, and COI sources only count if there are other, independent sources, which there are not. -Amarkov blahedits 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Just 50 members? With all of the Western US & Canada in your membership area? --MECU≈talk 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of members should not depict its notability. The organization hosts sport compact events throughout Western Canada and the USA. Individuals do not require to be a member to attend these events. 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jgosteli (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per nom. The number of members does depict its notability. If there were a lot of members it would more likely be more notable. NeoJustin 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of the organization is the MX-3 vehicle. If millions of these vehicles were remaining in existance, the number of members would also be high. Unfortunately it is a smaller target audience compaired to "Honda Civic" for example, but it should still receive notability. Otherwise, what is the point of even listing an article about the Mazda MX-3 if organizations that highly specialize in this car are not referenced. Would it still be acceptable to keep the article for the useful information it provides on the MX-3? 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) User:Jgosteli (talk Double vote struck through. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This car was in regular production for 6 years, so tens or hundreds thousands of them were built and sold. And there are many collector organizations for it, to boot, so what makes this special. At 50 members, not much. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The MX-3 might be notable enough for an article, but a small club of people who've bought them? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V, not notable. Recury 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not think it failled WP:V, but obviously my article is loosing this battle. Perhaps I will have to try submitting this again one day when the club is a bit larger. Sigh.... Jgosteli 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 50 members is NN --RaiderAspect 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the 50 members everyone is refering to are similar to comittee members and do not represent all MX-3 owners. These comittee members get added benifits but are mainly responsible for planning and running events for the MX-3 community. That is why the 50 members should not directly represent the organizations notability. Jgosteli 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not blindly judge an organization's notability based purely on number of members. The Symbionese Liberation Army had only 13. I believe that most here are not doing that, but it will help the discussion when more of your thoughts are known. Dimitrii 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Dimitrii I agree with Dimitrii. I have now spent a lot of time to re-word the information in the article as well as site as many references as possible. This article may not be important to the average person, but to a sport compact enthusiast, this would be quite valuable. I personally feel that the article has been enhanced to have a nice clean professional look and shows that it can conform to WP:V.Jgosteli 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Additional information has been added (Dec 13, 2006). This provides additional details on Mazda MX-3 enhancements for sport compact tuners. Wording has also been cleaned up to conform to a more neutral point of view Jgosteli 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gs Motor Works[edit]

Gs Motor Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marked as non-notable since October 2006 with no reply Brianhe 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any independent sources, so not verifiable. Trebor 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Branch[edit]

Geoffrey Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unverfiiable. Impossible to know if true or a prank. -- Chris is me 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. Once I got past the Wikimirrors I found a Geoffrey Branch who died of a job-related fall in 2004 and a Geoffrey Branch who was/is(?) the CEO of Cartoon Network. No mention of the suicidal axe-murderer. Redirect to Cartoon Network until someone decides to write an article on the CEO Geoffrey Branch. B.Wind 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources cite, and googling finds no indication of an axe-murderer by that name, nor is there any evidence through google news. -- Whpq 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an an article whose title is that of known living person, this should be speedy deleted as an attack page per WP:CSD G10. If the author returns with an article with verifiable sources, it can be restored. Tubezone 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, there are probably dozens or hundreds of people throughout history who have been named Geoffrey Branch, in the same way as there are many people called Susan Graham. My stub describes one of them who was a local axe murderer. Construing it as an attack upon a completely different person is irrational. Secondly, the murder and suicide took place in the 1970s so it's unsurprising that there are few or no internet sources. Newspaper clipping libraries, court records, and coroner's verdicts are the only likely source at present, but I don't have the time to search them at the moment. This is the case with many events from that era. Thirdly, I invite anyone to look at my editing record to decide whether or not I'm a serious editor or a prankster. Nunquam Dormio 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has very little detail: it lacks the year he committed suicide, for instance. No implication whatsoever that it is a hoax or attack (I can't see how one could attack a living person by claiming they are a homosexual axe murderer who successfully committed suicide!). But to keep this stub is to invite others to stick in little hoaxes about historical figures. If you have a chance in the future to find the newspaper record of it, the article could be recreated. But Wikipedia is not a memorial, and it is not a police blotter covering every murder. The murder, trial and suicide might have achieved enough notoreity to justify an article, especially in a country less murder prone than some.Edison 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have added a reference to his committal (not his suicide or his motive). But I'm in favour of deletion on the basis of lack of notability. That single source is the only one I could find. DrKiernan 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as source has now been provided. Again, while Google may be a valuable tool, it is not the be-all and end-all. Material in article establishes some level of notoreity. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting as a source (The Times) was added towards the end of the discussion. Sandstein 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, most murderers get at least 1 newspaper mention and this article does not say what makes him notable. TJ Spyke 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, fails WP:MURDERER ;) --Steve (Slf67) talk 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE This is a non-notable murderer. There happened to be a double-murder suicide in my home town (Fargo, ND) a few years ago when an ex-husband killed his ex-wife's new boyfriend in his(the BF's) home, then drove to the ex-wife's work to murder her, then turned the shotgun on himself. Big news concidering we might have one murder every 5-10 years? Anyway, it made it to a few big-name papers (small articles though), however the murderer and the event is non-notable...just like Geoffrey is. If he turned out to have been a serial killer, then that would be notable but just murdering someone with an axe is NN (no matter the sexual preferance of the killer). --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to delete this one. No reliable sources means it can't be verified (per WP:V). ---J.S (T/C) 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gin-Sung[edit]

Gin-Sung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion as probable hoax was overturned at WP:DRV and is now thrown out to the hoax sleuths at AfD. No opinion from me. trialsanderrors 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Only source listed is non-working page from Occultopedia. Doesn't look good. More: These few pages are all that google finds. This is the Occultopedia page, which identifies this with the Dzu-Teh, which in turn identifies it with the Yeti.If kept, merge into Yeti as Heuvelman's darkfurred variant; deletion acceptable. Septentrionalis 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably hoax. Gnusmas 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't know the reliability of occultopedia.com (if it's got pedia in it, we must accept!). The link in the article had a bad link, here is the valid link (I've fixed it in the article as well): [12]. But it does sound like something made up to scare kids, or of the sorts. --MECU≈talk 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Leibniz 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Atheist Council[edit]

Scottish Atheist Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
View single debate

This is a virtually unknown organisation, and the Wikipedia entry seems to be only publicity for it. For further details please see the talk page of the article. Slackbuie 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Information about them is not verifiable using reliable sources. Most of the 26 unique ghits seem to be blogs, SAC's own website, or on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 17:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably speedyable, 26 unique ghits [13]. From the book of Talkpage, Chapter 1, Verse 1: "This page is a self-promotional page authored by the body it promotes. The creating user is the organisation's convener. Visiting the website, there's nothing to indicate anything other than a one-man band". Amen. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this interesting at first. But it was only founded this year, and there is noting except its website and some bulletin-board posts. So you would be best deleting it for now. --Sandy Scott 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite a source. W.marsh 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Life (US sports journal)[edit]

Sporting Life (US sports journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
View single debate

Not notable. Only notable thing is that it shared the same name as a paper in the UK that made it. MECU≈talk 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An historic periodical publication that ran for over 25 years is worthy of an article. --Oakshade 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no external links, no assertion of notability, no information. Chondrite 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lids for legs[edit]

Lids for legs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

search for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Lids+for+legs%22&btnG=Search produces 19 hits. Possibly a hoax. Josh Parris#: 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 07:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--I remember some of my classmates collecting soda tabs to donate to some charity to make wheelchairs with. I can't verify any of the article, though. Lmblackjack21 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up I too remember collecting the lids off cans while at school to make wheelchairs. It is not a hoax but it may be known by a different name, I don't know.Firelement85 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like other hoaxes where people collect pop tabs for some good cause, like this one at Snopes: [14]. Sounds like complete bollocks, on the theory that somehow if the artificial legs were made out of whole pop cans they would be various colors. Pull the other leg, it's got pull-tabs on it. God bless good hearted people who love to collect things of little value for a good cause. Edison 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has all the weird complexity and detail of the urban legend. (e.g. the precise ratio of tabs to artificial legs--bollocks!) The Snopes article shows ther pervasiveness of the pop-tab myth that had people in your schools uselessly collecting all those tabs for people in wheelchairs. Darkspots 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison. NeoJustin 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMRadio[edit]

MMRadio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Web radio station. Alexa rank of 5.096 millionsths .This article is borderline spam, and fails WP:NOT, as wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Ohconfucius 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. There's no assertion of notability here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Islay. So tagged. MER-C 06:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Guys from Albany[edit]

3 Guys from Albany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

{{importance}} tagged for almost two weeks. An NN performance poetry group. Going on the the username of the creator, his first edit summary [15] and the entirely OR content of the article, this seems a pretty clear case of COI. The only specific mentions of media coverage are on this (very) local radio station and on NPR, whose website doesn't seem to have heard of them [16]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced, needs a rewrite to fix the advertising tone, and without secondary sources we can't really have an article about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can be remade once they get a bit more than 30 people at a "performance." --MECU≈talk 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Stone[edit]

Rob Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

"Extreme" UK porn director with 41 hits in BGAFD and 253 unique Ghits. I also nominate Miyah (BGAFD listing) as failing WP:PORN BIO. Ohconfucius 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. The Google test is applicable here because the director is sufficiently non-notable to have been googlebombed. MER-C 07:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the mercifully strict WP:PORN BIO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Failing WP:PORNBIO, unless it can be proven that Rob Stone has been noteworthy in his niche (which the article claims). Jayden54 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral it lacks sources, it is hard to verify by the name only. Tulkolahtentalk 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohatch[edit]

Mohatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism or suspected hoax. 23 unique Ghits, none relevant. Ohconfucius 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:V and WP:RS. --Quirex 07:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move To Wikidictionary. Seems it would be more use there Jamesbuc
  • Delete rather than move. No verifiability exists. Darkspots 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made-up word. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as recreation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A plane on a conveyor belt). —Doug Bell talk 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroplane-conveyor belt question[edit]

Aeroplane-conveyor belt question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am sure I have seen this posted before but I cannot find it. Someone please find the previous version and redirect this as a fork or mark it for the same deletion treatment. -- RHaworth 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This topic is somewhat notable as quite a popular internet meme, covered by several well-known bloggers and other high-traffic websites (such as PhysOrg). Jayden54 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a resurrection of this, which was deleted. Delete per G4. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reference. I would disagree with the deletion of the article under this clause as it states "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject." I believe this is to make sure it is only applied to deleted material simply being copied and pasted back into Wikipedia. I never saw the original article, nor was I aware that it had existed, so this would qualify as a new article on the same subject. I can't read the old article as it was deleted, so I can't comment on how similar the content is to this one. Looking at the discussion on the previous article, much of the trouble with the article was that it was considered to be badly written and referenced, and also there were people who wanted it deleted because they believe the plane wouldn't take off. For what it's worth I don't think it would take off either, but it's not a valid reason for asking for the article to be deleted.D-Angle 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete get this trash off Wikipedia. Planes fly because air flows over the wings. If its velocity was stationary because the conveyor belt prevents it's acceleration from achieving velocity compared to the air, it can't take off. Delete delete delete and fast. --MECU≈talk 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original author so I declare my bias. But the fact that you do not believe the aircraft will take off is not a reason for deletion. The discussion about deleting the previous article seemed to degenerate into "vote delete of you don't think it will take off, and vote keep if you think it will take off." Also the previous article was named badly in my opinion.
The subject is notable and can cite sources to prove that - it is the widespread and viral nature of the debate that makes it relevant to Wikipedia, not the answer itself. Deleting the article on the basis that more people believe it will stay on the ground than believe if would take off, or vice versa, would not keep with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. -- D-Angle 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable question in popular physics. The Straight Dope column is carried in dozens of newspapers, and has covered it extensively. Numerous physics websites have covered it, and it has been a problem assignment in many college physics courses. There are lots of Google hits, but it is hard to sort out those for this problem versus general questions about aircraft and conveyor belts. The issue is not the sometimes defective sense of how things work on the part of editors here, but whether it has multiple independent sources talking about it, which requirement is most assuredly met. Edison 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you have a source of these video's correct? This would also create the notion of notability... if someone were to actually try it and record it? -SAO123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.40.159 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's no interesting physics here. If this topic is notable at all, it's only as an example of the tendency of people to express firm convictions about subjects that they don't understand. But I could point you to a dozen debates on Usenet just as long as this one, with just as little meaningful content; I don't see what's so special about this one (unless you count its being mentioned in The Straight Dope). I do think Wikipedia should have an article on this general phenomenon, of which the airplane debate would be a good example. (For some reason I want to call it "false expert syndrome", but that has no Wikipedia article and hardly any Web or Usenet hits, so I'm not sure where I got it from. Oh well, I'm no expert on this subject.) So why the keep? Well, Wikipedia has some surprisingly well-written and educational articles about other stupid debates, like 0.999..., and I can imagine this article becoming an equally good excuse to teach some interesting physics. It would have to be completely rewritten, of course. -- BenRG 21:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I stated my views on this in the previous AfD about a month ago, so I won't restate them - but I think we should delete.--TheOtherBob 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources given are insufficient to establish notability. Nick Graves 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While moderately interesting, this simply doesn't have enough notability to justify an article. All sorts of hypotheticals like this exist. --The Way 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some people had some arguments, an answer was published a website. I'm really not sure what drives people to write articles here sometimes. Recury 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepenough of an intenet phenomena to record.DGG 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the question was today featured on Boingboing.net in reference to a NYT blog [17]. Both widely read sources. An encyclopedia should attempt provide reference for widely asked questions. --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I can't believe that such a simple question is being posed as a "conundrum" here on Wikipedia. Go back to school if you can't figure out this "question" in a few seconds. Get this nonsense off of Wikipedia. --Imroy 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the previous version of the article reference above by Baccyak4H. There were 10+ sources, including an airline pilot newsletter written by a nationally recognized airline industry columnist AVweb.com , Mentioned on a Neal Boortz Radio Show AM750 Atlanta on December 8, 2005 Source, Articles have been posted on Experts.about.com, MadSci.org, and ask a scientist. There was plenty of information to establish notability. I still suggest everyone claiming that this is not notable, should read the Wiki guide to notability. Wiki: On Notability The primary notability criterion The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable. Notability is something that is judged by the world at large, not by Wikipedia editors making personal judgements. If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable. Wikipedia simply reflects this judgement. There are other portions of this argument to long to print here, but also read subsections Notability is not fame nor importance, Notability is not verifiability and Notability is not subjective for further relevent guidance. - SAO123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.40.159 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think some of the comments on here are drifting into what I mentioned before, i.e. "I don't think the plane would take off, so delete delete delete." The article already says that the question polarises opinion, and at this rate we will be able to quote this page as a reference for that. The article isn't really about giving a definitive answer, but about the widespread debate over the question. If people want to give their reasons why the plane would take off or not there is a discussion page for the article. As for notability, a quick Google for "airplane conveyor belt" will show it is even more widespread than the references already quoted. If you don't think they are enough then add some more, there are plenty available. I appreciate where people are coming from, as a similar article has been deleted before, but I think differing opinons about the actual answer to the question colour the debate. Looking at the article again though, I think it could do with 2 sections for 'Arguments For' and 'Arguments Against.' There are several other articles on Internet memes on Wikipedia, and this one can cite its notability very well IMHO. D-Angle 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination also withdrawn. Agent 86 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Walker (writer on music)[edit]

Alan Walker (writer on music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Does not meet Verifiability or Notable Biography requirements. Further, the article seems to have no useful information other than to identify that the man exists and he published some works. This article is over a year old and I don't see it evolving. Alan.ca 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: Note that Alan.ca has withdrawn his nom, below, and voted Keep. --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The infomation here seems solid enough to warrant a page. Jamesbuc
What makes the information solid? There are no references! Alan.ca 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added a couple of references including a NYT profile/review. His multi-volume biography of Liszt is considered a major work in music history, certainly monumental within Liszt scholarship. --Dhartung | Talk 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:BIO states Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The article now has one citation that isn't even associated with a statement in the article. As you can read, the notability requirement states multiple citations. It has been over a year, and now we have one on the stage of deletion? I still think it should go. Alan.ca 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alan.ca, do you honestly believe that a book reviewed in the New York Times has never been reviewed elsewhere? I submit that you are arguing in bad faith. The goal is to improve the article, not to prove that you were correct in making the nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what you honestly believe, show me the sources. If they're so easy to find, why don't you and the rest of the objectors take the time to integrate a few of these 'excellent sources' into the article? Alan.ca 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel it is germane to point out that your name is "Alan Walker" as well, at least according to your User page. What exactly is your motivation for this nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have also placed Alan Walker (academic) on {{prod}} here. Is this a little project of yours? --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I decided to search my name to see for entertainment value if any other people whom I have met with my name have articles on here. In reading the articles I found them to be poorly source and lacking verifiability. How I am to find the articles is not relevant, I started this afd for the purpose of a fair debate and detracting from that debate to make accusations is counter productive. Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Seems to be a recognised authority on his specialist subject. Grutness...wha? 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recognized based on what citation? Alan.ca 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? if it's good enough for the Hungarian Quarterly, the Canadian Encyclopedia, The University of Georgia... Have a look at what some of those sources say: "The first volume won two international book prizes: the James Tait Black Award for the best biography of 1983, and the Yorkshire Post award for that year's best book on music. In 1974 he was made an honorary fellow of the GSM. He received medals from the American (1984) and Hungarian (1986) Liszt Societies and in 1986 was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada." (from the Canadian encyclopedia); "Dr. Walker is the author of a three-volume, prize-winning biography of Franz Liszt, published by Alfred A. Knopf (New York), and Faber & Faber (London), a project which took him twenty-five years to complete, and for which the President of Hungary bestowed on him the medal Pro Cultura Hungarica. The biography also received the Royal Philharmonic Society Prize, presented by HRH The Duke of Kent in London. Time Magazine hailed the biography as "a textured portrait of Liszt and his times without rival". The Wall Street Journal called it "The definitive work to which all subsequent Liszt biographies will aspire." The Washington Post selected it as a Book of the Year." 9from UGA). There's even a Book of essays commemorating his 65th birthday! Very notable. Changing vote to strong keep. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can start by editing the article and integrating these supposed citations. I looked at some of what you've listed here and many are self published articles. They don't seem to say much, but to indentify that the man published some works. In fact, his article says about as much. He's alive, he worked at a university and he published some works. I can think of numerous university profs that meet this criteria. Are you suggesting that every published university professor should have a bio on here? Anyone who has a Ph.D will have written something, as they have to be published to get their Ph.D! Alan.ca 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I know that - and it takes a lot of effort. no, I'm not suggesting every PhD or professor deserves an article. But one with multiple international awards? That's a different matter. As to "supposed citations", are you suggesting that the Canadian Encyclopedia would make these things up? And yes, one of those articles (a strange definition of "many") was by Walker himself, it is true - perhaps simply picking the first three of the many articles on him online was not the wisest choice on my part, but there are many more. Her's clearly very notable. This is beginning to have the faint whiff of bad faith nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gruteness, bad faith would imply I had no basis for the nomintation. The article was short and wasn't verifiable. Since the nom, and this debate, the article has improved substantially. Please remember that a biography of a living person must be well sourced. This is not my POV, this is a well established view on wikipedia. The fact that the participants in this debate were able to solve the problem is clearly the result of good faith contributions.Alan.ca 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article could be cited more thoroughly and expanded, he is notable enough as a writer. An Amazon search proves the existence of these books. The JPStalk to me 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 245 JSTOR hits for "Alan Walker" + Liszt, which include many reviews of his work. Seems like he would also met WP:BIO criterion #2, The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. One year is nothing. Nobody's paid to write these articles; they write them whenever they have free time. Just be patient. Zagalejo 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, thank you for contributing a productive point. Although, it would be nice if people would do some leg work before creating these low quality articles.Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an apparently accomplished writer on music. I found 210 references in Lexis-Nexis using "Alan Walker" and Liszt. Although, I would like to see a better disambig parenthetical.-- danntm T C 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Times review cited demonstrates notability, I think. For the disambig, perhaps (musicologist) would serve. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of crappy articles on Wikipedia on topics which really are unverifiable, or where most of the content is junk. Attacking brief and factual stubs on people who are obviously notable and clearly verifiable, as was the case with both Alan Walkers (and both these articles were in fact referenced), looks suspiciously like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Upp◦land 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out other crappy articles is not a fair argument for keeping one. In fact, by pointing out the article is crappy, you offer support for deleting it.Alan.ca 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say that this article was crappy. It is a stub. It needs to be expanded. But what is in there is easily verifiable and was sufficiently sourced at the time of your nomination. Upp◦land 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, pointing out an article is 'crappy' is to support cleaning up and expanding the article, not deleting it. Pointing out that an article is not notable or is unverified would be to support deletion. Anyways, I would support a Keep here for all the above reasons. --The Way 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, an unverified, crappy article should be deleted, see wp:v.
  • There is a world of difference between a "crappy" article and a properly-formatted, wikified, and categorized stub. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Dhartung Caknuck 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page contains more effort and contribution than the article we're debating. This article, after you remove what is not verified by independent sources only contains:
  • A name
  • A list of publications
  • A link to a biography on another site

wp:v clearly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Would someone please tell me, what verified information is in this article other than what I just stated. If the article only contains what I have explained it seems to be it is not worthy of keeping. Again, remember, the person and the article are two different things. We're not discussing deleting the man, but only his poorly sourced, non encyclopedic article. What value do we get from this entry?Alan.ca 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This page contains more effort and contribution than the article we're debating." That is exactly why nominating such an article for deletion is a really bad idea. First of all, the article was perhaps not ideally, but sufficiently sourced (just as the article on Alan Walker (academic) which you prodded). It was sourced with a link to a web page at the McMaster University Library. And finding more sources which verify the information is easy if you bother to look. (There is even an article in Grove on this Alan Walker, but, as has already been demonstrated, you don't need access to Grove to find additional verification.) Secondly, by wasting your own and other people's time and energy on debating this article you are in effect diverting attention from useful tasks, such as expanding this article or finding and discussing those other articles which we do need to get rid off. Upp◦land 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same answer for you as I did for Dhartung. I prodded the article, this didn't prompt anyone interested to improve it. This is not my area of expertise, I am merely challenging an article based on wikipedian principles. Those 3 pillars we all read about when we began editing here. You guys don't need to argue with me here, modify the article, include the sources and this AfD process will be moote. Alan.ca 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debating an AfD is not disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Everything I stated in my nomination was in good faith. Alan.ca 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've basically just admitted that the article should have been given an {{expand}} or {{unreferenced}} tag. You're the one who dragged this into AFD, so suggesting that we're being counterproductive is nonsensical. You started the process. On my presentation of two excellent citations from the New York Times and the Canadian Encyclopedia, the honorable thing to do would be to withdraw your nomination so as not to waste any more of our time. I'm quite happy to add to the article, but I honestly have other things going on in my life at any given moment and Wikipedia is a pleasant hobby for me rather than a job, and you are not the judge and jury of your own nomination here, so please don't act in an obstructionist manner. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if someone would do the work, you apparently have no time to do. As much as we have had discussion on what can go into the article, I have yet to see these changes to be implemented. Please refrain from the personal attacks. Wikipedia will be a better resource if people are encouraged to cite the sources.Alan.ca 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it has already been demonstrated that this person meets verfiability and notability requirements already shows that the article should not and will not be deleted. Just because the article needs work and needs expansion does NOT mean that it should be up for deletion; that's not what AfD is for and it really is nothing more than a disruption in order to make a point, which can get you banned. This looks more and more like a bad faith nomination... --The Way 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD debate is not a trial for the nominator. Everytime an AfD debate results in keep it does not imply the nominator should be banned anymore than every unamious result for delete should result in the editor to be banned. Through this process many improvements have been made to the article. Please remember, Verifiability supercedes subject notability. If an article is not verifiable, it should be deleted. However, in this case, the article was greatly improved and therefore I now agree that it should be kept. It is, in fact, bad faith to assume a participant in an AfD debate with a viewpoint contrary to your own is not acting in good faith. Deletion is a reality of this project and I hope you will keep an open mind to contrary view points in the future.Alan.ca 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I withdraw my submission as the article is now well sourced, verifiable and an excellent contribution to wikipedia. Thank you to all for taking the time to make this article encyclopedic. Alan.ca 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In the future, though, please don't treat AFD as WP:GA with a five-day deadline. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dhartung, I keep repeating myself, you keep making the same assertions. I started the AfD because the article was not well sourced or verifiable. This is a basis for deletion if the subject is notable or not. Once again, I tell you, there is a difference between a notable person and an article about them. You assert the man is notable, now the article proves this to be true. When the process started, I believed it did not. You will also note that the speedy deletion criteria does not apply because the article asserts notability. I never tagged the article with speedy deletion. Prod and AfD are the avenues for editors who believe the asserted notability is not verifiable. I appreciate the debate we've had here, let's not close it on a bad note.Alan.ca 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, fair enough. Tell me why it is that nominators almost never say, "OK, I'm open-minded, that sounds promising, can you find more sources?" Once in a blue moon, perhaps. Usually they say, "Nope, not good enough, work your butt for this article if you expect it to be saved, I will not be moved by your puny NYT citation." I like to "save" articles from the axe when I can see that they deserve it, but I run into this stonewall attitude all the time. Sometimes I think the thing to do is just ignore the entire frickin' AFD debate and silently improve the article, but I've done that too and "lost" because I didn't add my voice to change the consensus. I would dearly love this to be less adversarial. What are your suggestions? --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability well established in this article. --Oakshade 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI continue to feel that those who want to delete it should simply add the reviews instead. It should not be necessary to defend such a work as this. The argument that a NYT review alone is not enough is wrong in any case, because it shows an inability to judge the weight of sources. all newspapers and the reviewers are not equal. When its a question of having one review from a very non-notable paper, we'd be justified in asking for another (at least). DGG 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable author per WP:BIO. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources of "multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work" can be provided—currently this requirement is not satisfied. Highest Amazon sales rank of any book is 157,888. Note that WP:AUTO should not be used as a reason to delete biographies—the arguments need to be based on actual notability, not on who created the article. WP:AUTO is a guideline discouraging the creation of an autobiography and editing of your own biography, but does not prohibit nor provide a rationale for deleting autobiographies. Also note that although Ohconfucius (who is not the nominator) has stated the nomination is withdrawn, this is only a reason for speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and no other arguments to delete have been made. —Doug Bell talk 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ellis[edit]

Ralph Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography by user:Ralphellis who has done few other edits. Does this look like spam to you? -- RHaworth 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maintain - Ralph Ellis is mentioned in Wiki in a few locations, examples being the Tempest Stele and Exodus Decoded. Externally, there appear to be many more links for his books than the author himself. Try the Jesus book or the Solomon book. --- In addition, the Chinese editions of his books promote a great deal of comment in the Republic, but this is not readily apparent with a Google search. (If you are not familiar with Madarin, look for the 'K2' logo, it being the only Latin title on any of the series.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphellis (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - autobiography. MER-C 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:AUTO since I can't find anything else on this person on Google. Jayden54 10:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published books, no actual Wikiquotes on him. Vanity. CSD? --MECU≈talk 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per autobiography. Also, the use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI.NeoJustin 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity :P Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COI. Most his books languish below at least a hundred thousand others per Amazon.com figures. No sign of any reviews. When I looked in worldcat, I found a number of authors whose two first names were Ralph Ellis. Books by this one are kept in a very small number of libraries in the world. Searching for book titles does generally produce a large number of hits for in-print books by the majors (usually online bookstores), so it's no surprise. The overwhelming part of the 438 Ghits in Chinese for 拉尔夫 • 伊利斯 are for booksellers, and blogs. The issue of conflict of interest can be overcome by a well-sourced encyclopaedic article, which is not the case in the present form - it too much resembles a soapbox for the subjects' theses/theories. If User:Ralphellis or anyone else can provide reliable sources to back up the information and assertions, please do - it's the only way to change opinions around here. Ohconfucius 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain There appears to be no difference between this entry and he entries for Robert Bauval, Christopher Knight or Laurence Gardner, who are all authors of similar works. Perhaps those, and others besides, should also be deleted. In addition, the number of sales for any author should not be a factor, as that would exclude any verbose scientific work. We also have a catch-22 working here, where bookshops no longer take works from small publishers and their 'top-10' lists are decided upon the level of publisher sponsorship, not the number of sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphellis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment There are two issues: the lack of proper sources which would indicate the subject passes WP:BIO, secondly, the article is mainly about the theories of the subject and not the subject himself. Ohconfucius 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review Here is a review from Ancient Egypt Magazine in their review section. There are other reviews here and there in various magazines, but it will be a job finding them all. As to the content of the Wiki article, it can be changed, but having looked at all the other author entries on Wiki, they are predominantly about the author's works and ideas (that being, of course, the very reason for the author's renown in the first place). I can place more personal material in the item, but to me that makes the article sound very pretentious and egotistical. Ralph Ellis.
  • Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ohconfucius 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:V non-negotiable. Proto::► 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver Video Review[edit]

This article contains no third-party sources whatsoever. I requested on November 29 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Previous AfDs (1, 2, 3) have been riddled with sockpuppetry and ignored the sourcing issue. Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:WEB so I don't see why this article should be kept. Jayden54 10:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I gotta agree with Jayden here. Couldent have said it much better myself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notability was well established in previous AfDs, and the sockpuppetry was all on the delete side. SirFozzie 15:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established in the article. Sounds like advertising as well. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably speedyable, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB and is unverified/OR. The editors have had literally a year and a day to produce reliable sources and have failed to do so. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with what Centrx said above.BooyakaDell 19:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will respcfully disagree with Centrx, being not all to familiar with all of the source material, I do know that there is verfiable content. If given some time I would be able to dig up the necessary sources or request undeletion. The mere fact that I have located independant translations of the newsletter, leads me to believe that the information is truly out there. A quick google search is showing me that some of the third part sites that did reference DVDVR seem to be no longer functioning and/or unavailable. NegroSuave 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.pro-wrestling/browse_thread/thread/e06e785bfd3c7d5/9689d5c222a840c9?q=DVDVR&lnk=ol& Is the thread in which it mentions Lance Storm's opinions of the newsletter. By acknowledging and taking the time to discuss its faults he has deemed it somewhat of note. Take of that what you will. That is already in the article but it was an argument successfully used for another AFD in which the only way to verify its notability was via the site of a movie director, before which there was no way to verify the notability of the particular item. Further more doing a search on the founder of the Newsletter's name pulls up links to many different websites and forums that link to and or repost the information in the Video reviews. Therefore further verifying its notability as far as in the minds of its intended audience, wrestling fans. To further this point other Columnists in the wrestling community read the reviews as well as post on the site. More information can be seen in this particular Google SearchNegroSuave 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Are there any other websites out there that do VIDEO reviews on such a wide scale? I don't think so. Therefore this is unique, and therefore notable. And I also say give NegroSuave some time to get the sources. Curse of Fenric 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NegroSuave has had 1 year to get sources and he didn't.BooyakaDell 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not been involved with the article anywhere near that long. This account has not even really been active that long. I am merely discussing the facts and adding them where they are neccessary and as a member of the Pro Wrestling project attempting to help a pro wrestling related article.NegroSuave 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either get sources up now, or remove it. Once it hits AFD there is no option to 'give me more time' to get sources. There are many things in the world that are Unique but being unique does not make them inherently notable. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A quick search for Death Valley Driver puts the review site as the number one item on the list, even above any reference to the wrestling move bearing the same name. According to Alexa right here It has several thousand page views. I know that google and Alexa tests are not the be all end all but it is comparable to other sites with defined Notability. My main problem with the nomination is that from the time that it was first happened upon to when it was nominated was very quick. Not to mention the request to clarify which statements needed sourcing. As of this posting I am at work and cannot really acess many of the sites that would have the information you are looking for. NegroSuave 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only unique Google hits appear to be the website and this Wikipedia article. Any uniquely named website will show up as the first item on a search.
        • Death Valley Driver is also the name of a wrestling move that has been used in Professional wrestling for well over a decade. It is listed as part of the list of wrestling moves in the encylopedia. As for unique non website hits there are several that are listed as the Review is linked to several sites dedicated to professional wrestling gossip and insider news. Smarkschoice, Slashwrestling, wrestlingdownloads, heck they are even cited one the National Wrestling Alliance news page right here , sited as a source for an about.com expert here spanish translation of a moves list published by DVDRhere Is there anything I am missing? NegroSuave 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there are multiple reliable sources that cover this wrestling move non-trivially, then a separate article on it could be created, but that is not what the above article is about. (Also, the sources you mention do not meet that standard.) —Centrx→talk • 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think due to the nature of the wrestling business it is hard to discern what is fact and what is fiction leading to difficulties in getting verifiable sources. That being said being recognized by the NWA as a source for match reviews and the like, I believe that is about as good as we are going to get. I can attempt to pull up the archive.org of Lance Storm's website where his column appears. Outside of that seeing as the fanzine would only appear as a wrestling interest item, which is already in and of it self a niche group that doesn't have the mainstream appeal of many other types of entertainment. With my shaky sources I have pulled together an entire grouping of people who are indeed interested in this newsletter and have trusted its opinions. I am not really an editor of this article, I've only done a few reverts here and there since I am not familiar with the actual newsletter and such. All I can offer is google searches. However I do think this AFD is lacking influence from the editors of Pro Wrestling Articles, that have a better grasp of the nuances of the newsletter and could probably speak on it better than I can. NegroSuave 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and per the comment above, Death Valley Driver needs an article or at least a redirect (I actually wanted to find out what it was yesterday and had no luck). Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Death Valley Driver is on the list of finishing manuvers most moves save for the most popular american wrestling moves do not have their own page.
  • Merge with the Death Valley Driver move article. I deeply suggest this could be put just as two or three lines in a triva section if possible. 86.20.53.195 17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trivia sections are only temporary holding places waiting for information to be included in the body of the article. Also, random tangential information does not belong in articles and would still require reliable third-party sources. —Centrx→talk • 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has no reliable sources explaining notability as required by WP:WEB. Can't spot any claim towards WP:WEB whatsoever. Also fails WP:V and WP:RS; only sources offered are the site itself. Article is a year old so has had plenty of time to try to come up to speed with policy and guidelines. Weregerbil 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Suburbs Rosellas[edit]

Western Suburbs Rosellas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. 'Sources needed' tag was removed at the same time. No evidence of notability. Google results are less than convincing. The JPStalk to me 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) It now resembles a useful article about a notable team. My delete is withdrawn, as is the AFD. The JPStalk to me 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Very little information of use to anybody who is not the team, or direct followers. And, I dont even know if they would find this useful. Let it go, let it go, let ig go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - Keep - lot of content added and article cleaned up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 10:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Could be notable and a worthy article. This falls into the gray area the AFDs cannot handle: Could be useful, notable, good article, but without more information it's hard to determine that. If the article is expanded to include basics (where, what league, players, etc), then it could be determined worthy of keeping, but until then, not. --MECU≈talk 16:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Keep has had hall of fame members and been around for almost a century. --MECU≈talk 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - unlike the other Newcastle rugby league team recently up for deletion, which was kept because of notable former players and good referencing, this one does not have that and is lacking in information to make it notable. If some references are provided to show that it is a notable team, I'll change my vote.Keep - now with notable players and an established relationship to the Newcastle Knights referenced, it is notable and worth keeping. JROBBO 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any club that produces 19 internationals as claimed would certainly be notable. Any club that Johnny Raper played for is certainly notable. Any club that Matthew Gidley played for as a junior is certainly notable. The Newcastle competition was the third strongest in Australia after Sydney and Brisbane and clubs who have played in it for the better part of 100 years is notable. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanox[edit]

Zanox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not exactly a very large company with only 230 employees. Badly written page with no sources or references Debaser23 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. May be speediable. MER-C 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure whether it can be classed as spam really because the company does in fact exist (it turns up a few Google searchs), its just that I really see this company as non notable. They haven't really put anything into world and have no historical significance. Debaser23 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but I'm putting out an additional reason for deletion. It's just a deletable corporate profile you'd expect to see in a press release. MER-C 13:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think it is just a spam, but in this case it misses notability. Fact that company has 230 emplyees only does not give less notability (Lagerfeld is one man only). But this company does not seem to produce notable product. So I vote delete this article. Tulkolahtentalk 12:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1.) The article makes NO assertion of why it is notable. 2.) The article is poorly written with little information that would be useful to anybody not looking to hire this company. 3.)Does not say it is industry leader or anything so I think it fails WP:CORP. Delete it I say! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP and no references to show notability. Jayden54 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP as stated above. NeoJustin 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest sentence using the longest words in the English language[edit]

Shortest sentence using the longest words in the English language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourcable, not notable, WP:NFT tgies 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NFT all apply here. Also, the existence of the word Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, and various other bizarre proper nouns, makes this factually incorrect in any case, so it cannot be regarded as self-verifying; I can also think of shorter examples using "longest" words. Might this also fall under one of the speedy delete criteria? -- The Anome 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I considered that, and indeed some try to call articles like this "test pages" and delete them on that criteria, but it's a stretch. tgies 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Perhaps this is a case for WP:SNOWBALL? -- The Anome 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Deb. MER-C 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piss roulette[edit]

Piss roulette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pointless page that cites no sources or references and was probably made up by the only editor. Could easily be counted as spam Debaser23 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies. Will use WP:PROD next time. Debaser23 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Milwaukee explosion[edit]

I fail to see the notability of this event. Many deadlier and more destructive incidents are not covered. Anyway, as the story developed the article didn't grew at all. I also welcome any merging options. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added this to the AfD log page. {{afd3}} had ended up on Piss roulette's AfD page instead. No vote. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately Keep - This story is currently unfoldiing, we should keep it. This event also made major national headlines, including a minute long spot on the NBC Nightly News.User:Millipedeman 8:56, 7 December 6 2006 (CST)
  • Weak Keep - 10,000 gallon propane tank? In all honsety, I have always wondered what one of those would do if it exploded. The article is poorly written, but should stay for now. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I agree with Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider). Although the article is poorly written the subject in hand was tragic and therefore should be kept for the time being.Debaser23 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I put the article up, seeing as it was a disaster of some size, but apparently it hasn't turned out to be as notable as I had thought it was. Moreover, I didn't have the time to expand it into anything bigger than a stub. Maybe we should merge it into some explosions page or something. OTOH, maybe we should leave it to stand and develop on its own merits. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "This article is a stub" is a terrible reason to delete. Also, one less was killed in the 2006 Rome metro crash, but it survived AfD, and the same with Airwork Flight 23.Blood red sandman 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article could easily be brought up to the standards of those in Category:Explosions and the subcategory Category:Gas explosions, or other disaster articles. Merging is an idea, but disaster articles actually make nice compact slices of history of their own. I can never resist pointing people to my all-time favorite: Boston_molasses_disaster. Carcharoth 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup — This article NEEDS to have some serious work done. Keep for now only assuming good faith that the article will be improved on. Wizardman 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to do some work on it as soon as I get long enough to do it. Blood red sandman 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot tonight, I intend to continue tommorow. Blood red sandman 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't have articles for every local disaster or accident, otherwise I'm going to go off an create an article called 1980 Saskatoon Queen's Hotel fire which is notable as causing the first-ever deaths of firefighters in that city's history. Had the loss of life been large, had it been a terrorist attack, or had it otherwise been anything more than a major local fire, I might look at it differently. But it hasn't even continued to be a major story on CNN. In response to the keeping of the Rome Metro crash, etc. cited above ... maybe there might have been mitigating factors that might have been involved. Put them up for AFD again and I might vote to delete or I might vote to keep. Each situation is different. If kept, this article needs to be renamed, however; surely it's not the only explosion of some kind that occurred in that city this year. 23skidoo 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Hotel Roosevelt fire (which I wrote, actually), which was not only notable but caused a large loss of life. I would say write that article about the Saskatoon fire. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Go write that article - I for one would be interested to read it. Blood red sandman 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to abstain from listing an outright 'keep' or 'delete' for this because I live in Milwaukee and might be a bit too close to the events to be neutral, but there are serious outstanding controversies about the explosion that ensure it's not going to be out of the headlines anytime soon, and it has already cleared WP:N with room to spare given news articles in the Chicago Tribune and Journal-Sentinal at least already, the day after. Furthermore I don't think the article is doomed to stubiness, there remain serious issues outstanding. I also think it's premature to AfD an ongoing event the day after the article was made and the event itself happened on the grounds of article quality and notability, sources will exist, but they may not exist yet the day after a major (literally ground-shaking, I felt the blast more than 20 miles away) event. Wintermut3 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been looking for similar stuff (using "what links here" on the "current event" template is one way) and I found London Tornado of 2006. There was also a big fireworks factory explosion in the UK a few days ago that killed two firefighters, but I've failed to find any coverage here or at Wikinews - see BBC article. The 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire is an example of something similar that is larger and obviously notable. Sometimes these things are covered better by Wikinews, sometimes an article on the event is created and survives here as well. While looking over at Wikinews, I found James Kim as an example of an article that has been dominated by the news of his being missing and then found dead. All these are examples of immediatism. Carcharoth 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That fireworks explosion is covered, at the East Hoathly with Halland and Festival Fireworks articles; it just doesn't as yet have an article of it's own. Just by the way, I'm a UK resident and Sky News (who are brilliant for breaking news coverage, and deserve their awards in that area) aired some very impressive footage of all the fireworks launching and exploding - there was a lot of stuff to explode in there. Blood red sandman 07:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no question about it. Three dead and 37+ injured. There are a lot of explosion disasters with lesser impact that have bigger articles. As the story develops there will be more to say about it. In response to 23skidoo: I agree that the article needs renaming, but you also woke my interest for the 1980 Saskatoon Queen's Hotel fire. If that was what you say it is, it should be created! --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why not compare this to the Mississauga house explosion. Surely, the Milwaukee explosion exceeds the importance of that article? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on 23skidoo's talk page to the effect that we would genuinly like to see that article, as you are the third editor including myself who has commented to that effect. Blood red sandman 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above, articles on lesser disasters have been kept, thus, this one should be kept. --CF90 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup I think this article has merit from an emergency management perspective, especially if information regarding possible mitigation or preparedness steps (possibly controversial discussion) are included. I would change the name to be more specific, perhaps including the Fauk name. It definitely needs to be kept current, though. Parradoxx 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I went by the explosion about five minutes after it happened on a coach bus, and I can say with no question that it was the biggest fire I have ever seen. It was enormous. The event made national news and was mentioned several times on Fox News Channel as well as hours and hours on Milwaukee TV. I made an article on the Falk Corporation the next day and included some of the info about the fire. The story is still being investigated, it's rather interesting because six of the people said there was no formal evacuation. I might have a picture of the fire, someone on the bus had a digital camera took a picture (I could only manage getting one on my phone). I believe this story is notable enough. Just think about it; a 10,000 gallon propane tank. I guess I'll clean it up a little bit. I just hope I can get that picture.++aviper2k7++ 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, of courseAre we really so unable to judge what news events will continue to have interest that we delete articles like this one?DGG 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An event being considered "unimportant" by one or more editors is not a good enough reason to delete it. Err on the side of inclusion. --SECurtisTX 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Necrosexual...I shutter. ---J.S (T/C) 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necrosexual[edit]

Necrosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a nn neologism, 1890 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be there only to plug the band, going by the references. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Googled it, found lots of refs to the band, couldent fimd any valid sources that it is anything other than a neologism. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • nn neologism; almost all hits refer to the band, but there are a few other references which use the term as a synonym of "necrophile". If this is to be kept at all, it should be redirected to necrophilia; otherwise, delete, and salt if attempts are made to create it. -- The Anome 12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the above comments pretty much nail it: non-notable neologism. Jayden54 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm agreeing with everyone else on this one. Debaser23 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-as failing WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. A new and rarely used term. In case the term is found to be official, redirect to necrophilia as it doesn't seem to differ much from it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with necrophilia. Necrophilia is somewhat taboo topic, so I wouldn't expect to have many call themselves necrosexuals, the usage is interesting though. Valters 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Noclip 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. NeoJustin 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C) 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mscei[edit]

Mscei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod (rapper)[edit]

Hot Rod (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with nom, fails WP:MUSIC. A single album is in the works but not yet released, and WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums. Jayden54 13:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Should the album article be AfD, too? -- Mikeblas 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure he will be vaguely famous in future but until then this page officially fails WP:MUSIC. Debaser23 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Nlu (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although a member of G-Unit, this artist is not notable at the moment. I'm sorry people, I with NIu on this one. Too many people ruin Wikipedia with fan based information. LILVOKA 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - C'mon, I hear his single all the time on my radio station, MusicChoice, and BET! Plus, he's signed to Interscope. Jayden54, by your logic, Chris Brown, Yung Joc, and Ne-Yo should also be deleted (they only have one album). And by everyone else's logic, Spider Loc should be deleted. The point is, give him a chance, and he will surprise you all. Tom Danson 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris Brown had a #1 hit on the Billboard chart (Criterion #2). Yung Joc's album was certified platinum by the RIAA (Criterion #3). Ne-Yo had a #1 hit on the Billboard chart (Criterion #2). Spider Loc received coverage from several non-trivial works independent from him (Criterion #1). So all of these pass WP:MUSIC. Hot Rod, regardless of the quality of his music, does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Keep in mind, Wikipedia can't make articles based on the quality of the subject since that would go against WP:NPOV. —ShadowHalo 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this article pass any of the other criteria? Has he had a #1 hit? An award? Gone on an international tour? I just mentioned the two albums criteria, because it's usually the most common criteria, but this singer doesn't seem to pass any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. —Doug Bell talk 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Cole[edit]

Jade Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality TV show. Previously nominated as part of the Train Wreck. Mikeblas 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I say they same to this as I did on Wendy Wiltz's page that is also up for deletion. Debaser23 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prior to being on the show she had been a model and in a MTV video. Afterwards she's signed with 5 companies and was eliminated from the final episode (meaning top 2, or runner up? I'm not familiar with the show). --MECU≈talk 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an agency takes few risks when signing on a model. There's usually no fee if there's no gig, so being signed by 5 agencies may increase her chances in landing a gig, but that's pretty much it. Ohconfucius 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite being a loser on the show it still holds enough merits to be kept. Jamesbuc
  • Delete. Reality show loser. Being in a music video does not confer notability, and neither does being signed to a "company". Kafziel Talk 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Somewhat more notable (and memorable) then the other contestants, but more assertion of notability is needed. Caknuck 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably one of the most notable non winners on Top Model ever because of her personality. Made it to third place on a NATIONAL TELEVISION PROGRAM. I think some Wiki editors seem to have issues with Reality TV contestants... HurriKaty
    • The Price is Right is a NATIONAL TELEVISION PROGRAM, too, but we don't need an article for the lady who came in third place today. Kafziel Talk 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because this is totally an equal argument. THOUSANDS of people have been on the price is right, none with disguingishable personalities or even memorable names half the time. If this were someone who was eliminated right off on ANTM, you'd have an argument. Jade, however, is one of the most memorable personalities of the show, even having been covered on Best Week Ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.7.137 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I originally prodded it but prod removed by User:Leon overee, who added some more weak justification to the page. The subject's known, but is still no Laetitia Casta or Gemma Ward. Ohconfucius 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She's still getting press; I remember reading an Asian newspaper article on her fairly recently. And she's certainly notorious for her ANTM appearance that's still referenced. I mean, if she doesn't do anything in the future, and if the article is left as is, then delete it then. SKS2K6 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're assuming she'll do something in the future, aren't you crystal balling? -- Mikeblas 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wiltz[edit]

Wendy Wiltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. Previously nominated in the train wreck. Mikeblas 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is such a pointless, non notable page. Nobody cares about a Wenday Wiltz... Debaser23 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Second girl sent home"... making the "top 13". --MECU≈talk 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reality show losers aren't any more notable than game show losers. Kafziel Talk 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable person. NeoJustin 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all my previous delete votes for the ANTM losers. Caknuck 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strange that a train wreck destroys the train but leaves the passengers unscathed. Even if she isn't forgotten this year, she will be next year (in other words, fails the 100 year test with decades to spare). ;-) Ohconfucius 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her Hurricane Katrina backstory MIGHT make her more notable than other contestants in her place, but that's definitely noy enough. Elcda0 23:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:WEB despite WP:ILIKEIT. ---J.S (T/C) 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOS TrekMUSE[edit]

TOS TrekMUSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Independent sources? None. Number of players? Not stated. Innovation? None stated. Non-trivial external coverage? None listed, and with only about 700 Ghits including Wikipedia and mirrors I don't see much evidence that any exist. So: this loks on the face of it like yet another generic online game, just like all the other ones we delete for the same reasons. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not another damn Star Trek page. At least the other ones stated their sources and references. This page is just pointless. I vote for deletion. Debaser23 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Never knew something like this existed and its pretty fascinating. Would like to see more. -Husnock 14:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously your referencing a non-existant policy and saying that "you are sure" I would find it interesting is sarcastic and bordering WP:CIV. I was simply voting. Why do you have to bash the vote and make a derogatory remark about my motives? Do you have something against me that I can't vote here without comments like that? -Husnock 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or you could answer the question. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not claiming any policy of Wikipedia "trumps" any other. Please refrain from sarcastic, judgemental, belittling remarks. Is there something going on here that you would like to share? -Husnock 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a vote. You must provide a rationale for your 'delete' or 'keep' for it to be taken into account by the closing admin. Your statement that you find this interesting is not a rationale. Morwen - Talk 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true (and it is still in some ways a vote), the comments above bite with sarcasim. The users should simple have phrased it in such a way where he asked for clarification of my reasons instead of saying I was "trumping" policy and saying he knew what I was thinking. -Husnock 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources for this. Goose eggs for Google News and Books and plain-vanilla Google only returns 416 unique hits, which doesn't bode well for something that exists only online. JChap2007 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, JChap2007; borderline {{db-web}} stuff. As for recording every last MUD, WP:WING, or the Internet Archive either. Perhaps if Husnock read WP:ILIKEIT, his keep votes wouldn't need glossing by editors who have. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TrekMUSE claims to have hosted two interviews with members of the original series' cast (Shatner and Nimoy on both occasions, with DeForest Kelley joining them on one). If this is true, it's clearly notable; not many online games draw that kind of attention from their inspirations. The problem is sourcing. The only source I can find that seems likely, aside from directly contacting an actor's publicist or something along those lines, is Net Trek: Your Guide to Trek Life in Cyberspace by Kelly Maloni, Ben Greenman, Kristin Miller, and Jeff Hearn. Published in '95, which is when those interviews occurred, by Random House. I am ill and unlikely to get to a library to check before this AfD expires, but the ISBN is 0679761861, if anyone would like to try. Shimeru 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that interviewing Shatner and Nimoy would make this thing automatically noteworthy. Based on the lack of secondary-source evidence I was able to find (it got some trivial mentions in sources about muds, that's about it), I would tend to delete. I would not be opposed to recreating the article if the Net Trek book provides a secondary source. Morwen - Talk 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that this appears to be a pro-forma comment which has been added to several different deletion debates within the space of a few minutes. Morwen - Talk 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Such comments, and obvious lack of analysis, are less than helpful. -- Satori Son 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurius FM[edit]

Mercurius FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page created and only textual edit by its subject, User:Mercurius fm and this is the only article he has worked on, so a definite COI issue. His album is free. Google search , apart from results from Wikipedia and its copies, mostly show mentions in forums but nothing substantial. Only external link to his own blog. Emeraude 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - An obvious vanity page. Why are people so retarded as to make a user name the same as the page they make? Debaser23 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:CSD A7 material, a non-notable artist with just a little popularity on MySpace. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --MECU≈talk 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. ShadowHalo 08:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing early, too many sock/meatpuppets. It's an obvious delete, so I'm nipping this in the bud. Proto::► 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatfatism[edit]

Fatfatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Very funny, but a neologism coined last week obviously does not deserve an article. Skarioffszky 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Use of a current politician Family name and associate him to bad comments by one person belonging to the opponent political party}} elibou
  • Delete - This is nothing but a try of the pro-syrian parties to ridiculize AHmad Fatfat an anti-syrian, pro-hariri politician. First of all the article doesn't represent a Neutral Point of View but just a caricature from the pro-syrian parties of their opponents. The source is Al-Akhbar, nothing but a Hizbollah (the pro-syrian party) newspaper that is very far from neutrality. So this article must be deleted. elibou— elibou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


  • Delete - I agree its funny but really its just plain non notable. Debaser23 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Fatfatism deserves an entry of course!!! It is an important concept, and it goes beyond Lebanese politics. That we are discussing it here PROVES that it is more than just notable... - Fatfatist — Fatfatist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Don't Delete - This definition has been shared all over the internet already, it is only normal that it's definition be found on a reliable source such as Wikipedia
  • Delete - It is very biased and it is a term that an anti lebanese pro syrian writer started, it is very insulting for a lot of lebanese, it promotes sectarianism , very bad decision Wikipedia 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Considering the source of this definition, I do not think it deserves any attention as it comes from the Alakhbar newspaper. I guess those who know what is the political inclination of Alakhbar will know that it is far from truth. Moreover, regardless of whether Ahmed Fatfat is doing a good job or not, I do not think anyone else in Lebanon is doing a better job!!! That might seem very sad, but if this term is to included in wikipedia then I suggest the inclusion of some other terms like Nasrallatism. A brief definition of Nasrallahtism is as follows: An ideology equivalent to that of the Nazists. A one minded ideology which believes in mere destruction and which gives no regard to human life. An ideology which only works in ignorant societies, and which grows stronger and stronger through the brain-washing of its supporters. An ideology which puts Nasrallah himself on a godly level, whereas in fact he is just such a fascist which wants political power. There is still more to say, but I would leave it to others to add more. Wikipedia please consider my suggestion. Thank you
  • Delete: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). This article is NOT neutral but represents ths political views of its author and contains much direct assault on the person of a widely respected political figure in Lebanon.
  • Delete there should be some more sources if it's "all over the internet already". And perhaps more than from today. --MECU≈talk 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise Would it be an acceptable compromise if the term is kept on Wikipedia, but the reference to politicians removed? it is a fact that the term now exists and has a definition that could be used universally. I do not think there is a copyright over the word Fatfat that is a common word in Arabic beofre being a Last name. so the word can be used in the context the creator seems fit for it Moonsear 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While babysitting this article today, I got a chance to really look at it; try again in a few months or a year and have references from then. We do not have articles on neologisms until they are very widespread and a couple of dudes with some blogs writing about a column from the day before is not enough to convince me this is a "real" word instead of a fad. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - it is a new concept introduced in a very original way, with real world examples. Keeping this article will lead people who refuse the concept to argue against it, and the other to support it. Eventually this process will lead to the reformulation of an objective, scientific concept supported by very well argued concepts and examples.
  • Delete - Please keep it in mind that Angry Arab Assad Abu Khalil is nothing but an anti Lebanese Anti American & Pro Hezbollah & Hamas. His views mean nothing. This is just another attempt to degrade the sunnis in particular & the Christians & Druzes in General. If Wikipedia wants to be another access for these radicals to express their contempt of the Lebanese system, sure go ahead
  • Delete - This is a very bad joke that is adding nothing but fuel to the civil war fire in Lebanon. keep insulting the Siniora government & keep supporting the Hezbollah Terrorists. This is insane I swear. I thought Wikipedia would at least check before they post this grabage on. This is ridiculous. Shame on you Wikipedia


  • Don't Delete - Would you delete it if there is a Fatfatist party in lebanon? Zabadani 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — Mabizeid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • No, we wouldn't. Or if there was a major faction following this politician referred to in the media by that term (e.g. the equivalent of Blairite) But this does not appear to be the case, unless you can provide us with verifiable cites to the contrary. Average Earthman 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for newcomers. Maybe Ahmad Fatfat is doing a great job, maybe not; maybe this neologism is an insightful satire of Fatfat's ideology, maybe it's a sick joke. All that is completely irrelevant to this discussion! The aim of the debate here is to establish whether or not the concept of "Fatfatism" is sufficiently notable and widespread to deserve an article - not to discuss its merits. Skarioffszky 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - Fatfatism is a current trend in the Arab world, I suggest you might want to remove the reference to Ahmad Fatfat, but keep the page.
  • Don't Delete - this is the process in which new ideas become validated, and fatfatism is a legitimate term being born today that will be used by historians and political scientists from here on after to help define shady political figures who share similar traits as fatfat. wikipedia should be enthusiastic about being the first encyclopedia in the world to have this very important term in their archive. Mabizeid 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — Mabizeid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't here to create and validate new ideas, it is here to reflect notable ideas. We are currently lacking any verifiable evidence that this term is notable. Average Earthman 12:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -

Finally, after decades without a word that describes the political trend and ideology of many arab leaders, "fatfatism" is here to help :)
I am not going to discuss Ahmad Fatfat. But to answer some earlier comments:
- The term "fatfatism" was not started by an "anti-lebanese pro-syrian writer", but by a Lebanese Professor at Berkley!
- Fatfatism does not insult Lebanese or promote secterianism. Fatfatism is merely a term that described a certain attitude in politics followed by many arab leaders (it neither attacks Lebanese nor certain sects).
- As for the reliability of the Al-Akhbar newspaper, this newspaper only mentioned what As'as Abu Khalil defined as Fatfatism. (Also, the newspaper has proved to be reliable by always providing proofs. Check today's paper for an example - 07/12/06.)
One thing is true, the term is very recent, and not much references are available yet. But the term is spreading like fire! It is widespread now in Lebanon, and mentioned in several news outlets. And it is the only term that describes these specific political traits and ideology. There is a huge need for the term fatfatism, which actually explains why it's spreading quickly :) --129.215.212.170 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete: This term now is used in the news that praised wikipedia for allowing it on their pages. People in lebanon started using this term wh9ich means it will soon become a tradition in lebanon. Please leave the term on wikipedia.



Comment - Watch out, socks about... Debaser23 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: The term Fatfatism is becoming a part of the everyday language in the streets of Beirut. It is to the credit of Wikipedia that newly developed terms in a spoken language are listed within weeks of their creation.--128.227.97.216 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a neologism and it doesn't have a neutral point of view. NeoJustin 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Given that Lebanon is hardly a primative backwater, 13 google hits for the term most of which are from one source suggest that this term has not achieved a critical mass that warrants its inclusion (usage of the term in a major national newspaper or a large number of blogs is needed, I feel). However, the requirement for neutrality does not require we avoid making any reference to notable attempts to discredit politicians by those who disagree with their policies, merely that we ensure that it is a report on the portrayal, rather than the portrayal itself. Average Earthman 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Definitely by now a widespread and much used term. It doesn't matter if some people don't like it! It's been published in many a newspapers and it is a standard phrase in many lebanese blogs! Homer58
    • Google can't find them. Please provide cites. Otherwise widespread use is non-verifiable. Average Earthman 12:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still a relatively non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is NOT a source for such terms, only for terms that are already established. Terms should not become important because they are on Wikipedia. Also, the shear number of sockpuppetry and other similar nonsense going on in this AfD is

ridiculous. --The Way 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Irrespectivly of whether we're pro or anti Ahmed Fatfat, the Fatfatism terminology is widely used in the Lebanese political scene. The 1st of December events including several hundreds of thousands of people included parodies of the "Fatfatist" school of politics. The term has been discussed in Lebanese newspapers as well. No reason to delete it.


  • DELETE - Homer58, Fatfatist, Mabizeid, Moonsear and Zabadani all smell like fake accounts to me for the pure reason that the only edits they seem to have made is on this page and the actual Fatfatism page. Look we're not stupid just making loads of fake accounts doesn't make this article notable. I'm still saying Delete. Debaser23 09:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think those are fake accounts or sockpuppets. Like me, they are probably readers of the Angry Arab blog, whose author directed his readers here ([18], [19]). That's why I tagged the page {{Not a ballot}}. Skarioffszky 11:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes but it doesn't matter how many readers he directs here, it still doesn't make this page notable enough. Debaser23 11:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment - I don't believe the users named above are sockpuppets (Homer58 has made contributions to an unrelated article sometime previously), but there are a number of new accounts that have so far only used to comment on this AfD. I'd also note that both delete and don't delete votes have come from accounts so far used only for this AfD. Average Earthman 12:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am forced to make a comment anyway, on the ground that I added this article (the one on Fatfatism) to BJAODN. It seems like the picture, which was also deleted, made up the joke. Because the joke consisted mostly of the picture, it does BJAODN a disservice to have dropped the picture. Should I remove it from BJAODN? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gray[edit]

Aaron Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There is a large section of athletes being added. However, many like this, are borderline notable. In addition, editors/authors are not getting the point. This leaves hundreds of borderline/not notable for review and deletion. This example should be used to clarify Wikipedia:Notability (people). On that, editors should be clear enough such that third-party editors, especially those unfamiliar with sports, may make appropriate choices. meatclerk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Current college basketball players could be listed in the article of each team, in this case Pittsburgh Panthers, but they shouldn't have an article to themselves unless they make a lasting impact on the sport. DrKiernan 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Considered a NBA draft prospect with sources from nationally published material. --MECU≈talk 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Above user's argument uses three words that indicate this person is not yet notable: considered, draft, prospect. Emeraude 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per WP:BIO "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." one of the criteria is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." --MECU≈talk 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's a major NBA draft prospect who plays college sports, and as such, fits into WP:BIO. This guy is on the banner of the Pitt basketball website [20] and is the Big East's Most Improved Player of the Year [21]. I fail to see how this is non-notable, and as such, he deserves an article. Also, though I am biased towards sports, I am not voting based on bias - I am voting based on Wiki policy which is sourced above by Mecu. Therefore, I vote keep. --NomaderTalk 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Mecu's reading of WP:BIO subtly distorts the intended meaning of the guideline. The complete sentence is: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." I think that the intention of this is to allow athletes who play amateur sports, who nevertheless compete at the highest level, to have articles. Basketball is not, from a notability point of view, a mainly amateur sport in the world today. I would argue that notable contemporary basketball players are the people who play the game professionally, and that's the way the guideline was written. Let Gray play a professional game, and then write the article. If he never goes on to put on an NBA uniform, there needs to be more notability than what is shown here. There are far too many college basketball players to give each one his/her own article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think I've distorted anything. I believe you have added additional meaning that isn't in the face of the policy. To say amateur athletes except when there is a professional league isn't in the policy. You are extrapolating meaning and guessing the intended meaning, when it's written plainly that a college athlete in the USA that has played is notable and worthy of an article. I would put some caution on that since some players (ie, offensive linemen) aren't as famous as the other players, but a star center in basketball on the #2 ranked team in the nation certainly is. This article talks about Gray scoring 15 points in a off night. --MECU≈talk 13:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think there is room for reasonable people to differ about this, but I think that the Delete votes are all pretty much arguing that he needs to be a pro to have an article, because he plays basketball, which is what I'm arguing. I don't feel like I'm adding any meaning to argue that basketball is not an amateur sport from a notability point of view. I think the standard of WP:BIO is heavily slanted towards amateurs who compete in non-professional sports and away from amateurs competing in professional ones, and I don't think that's an extrapolation at all. Swimming ain't basketball. That said, I definitely think that this argument that his college record warrants inclusion is a lot stronger than the first argument you made that he is "considered an NBA draft prospect". Darkspots 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will warrant inclusion when and if he gets drafted, but not now. PAWiki 13:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What American college basketball stars deserve pages? Any? Does Tyler Hansbrough deserve a page? Does Josh McRoberts deserve a page? Both are projected to go lower in the draft than Aaron Gray. [[22]]. I think they all deserve pages as being notable college basketball players. This seems to me in agreement with the spirit of the policy. -- Daveahern 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with other users that this does indeed meet the spirit of WP:BIO, if not the letter. Besides, when he is drafted in a few months (he's a senior) we'll just have to recreate the article. Although it's not difficult to create articles, it makes little sense to delete an article for the sake of adhering to the letter of a policy when WP:BIO demands that it be recreated in a few short months. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Ballia. Agent 86 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balia[edit]

Balia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There already is a page Ballia. This page was created by mistake P.K.Niyogi 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The links are to pages which mean Balia in Bihar and not Uttar Pradesh. The Bihar Balia page is not there. -- P.K.Niyogi 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep & Rename to CLOUDS (60s rock band) or something better if suggested. ---J.S (T/C) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLOUDS - influential 60's Rock Group[edit]

CLOUDS - influential 60's Rock Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not appear notable. See below Various Googlings of the names of the supposed band members' names in conjunction with "The Clouds" yield very few results. tgies 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A band which doesn't appear to be notable (fails WP:MUSIC), and I can't find any sources to show notability. Jayden54 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - appears to be more notable than I thought after looking at their website for a second time, which lists several news articles and interviews with the band. The article needs some serious work though. Jayden54 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the title of the article also needs to be changed to just 'CLOUDS', but that can be done once this AfD has been closed (if it doesn't get deleted). Jayden54 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment. This is stupid. Signed. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herculean comment. Article title does not meet Wikipedia standard style criteria. B&. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah mainly as per tgies. — flamingspinach | (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - :User: Matthew.hartingtonI don't accept your definition of Clouds not being 'notable'. If you read the sources I left at the foot of the page, you'd find all the sources and verification you need. A cursory glance at Amazon. com, both in the Uk and the Usa, will show you who Clouds were. If you checked the Clouds website (www.cloudsmusic.com) as I originally suggested, you'd find yet more articles and references, including the 4 page MOJO Magazine article about Clouds/1-2-3 which credited them with 'The Birth of Prog', and in which, David Bowie describles Billy Ritchie as 'an unrecognised genius'. 'The History of Scottish Rock & Pop' is a BBC book (Guinness Publishing) - there seems ample source confirmation of everything said in the article. Unless the criteria is something completely different than I understand it to be, I don't see how the band can be dismissed as 'not notable'. Thanks to tgies for providing info leading to WP: MUSIC info - Clouds pass on sections 1;4;5;6;12 11:55 7 December 2006
    • My "herculean comment" wasn't entirely in jest. Even if this band were notable, which you've done nothing to convince anyone of, the article is not written in a form suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, either in terms of the selection of content, the tone, or even the basic formatting which every other article has. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right on suitable form etc - I only joined an hour ago, and I haven't taken in enough information to be able to satisfy the criteria you mention, definitely fair comment; but your early assertion about not convincing anyone is a bit more debatable - all the articles and facts are in the public domain, and can be easily verified, especially at the website address I've given. Then again, it could well be that I'm falling down on that part of the formatting too.........sorry for the (hopefully temporary!) mess.."Matthew.hartington 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Guys this band does really exist. For starters I already knew they did because my dad has one of their early LPs on vinyl and plus their website is real. As Matthew.hartington said to search in Amazaon as well and you will find a few of their albums two of which named 'Scrapbook' and 'Watercolour Days.' This page just needs a bit of cleanign up the it shall be purrrrfect. Debaser23 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sure, it exists, but so does my band and the "band" formed by the kids down the street who make their music by scraping putty knives on fretboards. Is it really notable, though? tgies 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, but the band formed down the street didn't play at the Albert Hall or the Fillmore, nor did they make albums for 3 major labels. Clouds did. And their peers saw them as notable - Bowie, Dire Straits etc."86.136.14.186 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Rename and Rewrite article name is stupid and the article itself is full of peapoppycock. Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two albums on Island Records smells like a WP:MUSIC pass to me. Despite which, the article title needs changing immediately should it be kept and the article itself needs bringing up to standard, badly. QuagmireDog 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have cleaned the article up a little bit but the whole 'biography section of this article needs clearing up and split considering its basically all copied off Clouds website. Debaser23 09:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That needs to be fixed Right The Now, then, because it's a WP:COPYVIO. If someone doesn't fix it soon, it'll be up for speedy deletion. tgies 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]
    • Comment - Okay I've just deleted the whole biography section that was copied off the site. I will rewrite in a while when I gain the right information. Debaser23 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename - assuming the references check out. (Oh, and assuming some actual content's added, of course.) Quack 688 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Okay, I've put up their discography but it looks a little messy. If anyone has any time woudl it be possible to put this discography into a table because to be honest I'm not really sure how to do that. Thanks. Debaser23 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the claims in this article are true, this certainly passes the WP:MUSIC test: Keep if it can be verified from independent reputable sources (and, of course, rename it). -- The Anome 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very grateful to all of you for such generosity in taking this on board.....sorry it's all been approached rather basically..."[[Matthew.hartington 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]] 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Deletion nomination withdrawn -- keep, cleanup, & rename. Okay, this appears notable (albeit barely), and I was perhaps less than diligent in my investigation prior to this nomination. The article still needs a heck of a lot of wikification and such, though, as others have said. tgies 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's true what Debaser said earlier - I basically took the extract straight from the Clouds website, to be honest, I hadn't realised the significance of the encyclopedia. I had been browsing something entirely different, when I ran into two entries for bands called 'Clouds', none of which were the 60's band. The exclusion seemed unfair to me, the two included groups did not have the same impact on music history. I knew about the website because it's run by a friend of mine, and I thought I'd help - chaotically! I could write another article, but you all seem to be doing that very well without my interference! Many thanks - and despite any bias, I DO think the group is well worthy of inclusion - in fact, a properly-factual entry in Wikipedia ensures a better account of REAL history than music tabloid does. I agree about the article name too, but how best to change it? 'CLOUDS' on its own seems not distinctive enough for the particular subject. 'CLOUDS 60's'? Something to differentiate from the other (later) groups who used the same name. "Matthew.hartington 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment : Matthew.hartington is it possible for you to finish off the CLOUDS biography. I have done half of it. Its just you seemed to know alot about the band and it would be nice to see some other users contributing to the page except me!! Debaser23 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course, I'd be glad to. And thank you for all your help, and what you've done so far. I was just waiting for advice as to how to proceed. I'll study Wikipedia articles and form, and try to clean it up as much as possible, though I'm sure experienced users will still be able to contribute much more than I can. "Matthew.hartington 22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment - Okay I've realised some people have expanded on the biography. Do you have any information on the albums that we can put in? I think its decided that this page shouldn't be deleted now... Debaser23 09:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks Debaser23, you did the spadework! I did expand on what you did, unfortunately, I forgot to properly sign in when I did it, hence confusion over who did the editing - still a novice! But I hope it's going along the right lines for all the editors. Still not sure what to do about the title - any suggestions? What kind of info on the albums are you thinking of? "Matthew.hartington 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment - Yes, yes I realised that it was you who edited the page. What you have written is good and professionally done. If you have any information about the critical response of the albums and put in a mention of them in their biography like, for example, when the albums were released. Because this is a page is the articles for deletion page continue this discussion in the CLOUDS talk page. Thanks! Debaser23 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as attack page. Agent 86 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Evans (driving analyst)[edit]

David_Evans_(driving_analyst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Seems to be a hoax or subtle attack. --MECU≈talk 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly taking the piss out of someone's friend or acquaintance. Delete Emeraude 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Trader World[edit]

Game Trader World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Month old website with 2million alexa rating, fails WP:WEB in every way imaginable. Geoffrey Spear 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Not Notable, advertising. --MECU≈talk 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very advert-like but seems to be noticable. Maybe if it was presented differently id choose differently. Jamesbuc
  • Delete No proof of notability, and obvious WP:COI. SubSeven 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Agent 86 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just desserts[edit]

Just_desserts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will vote delete on the grounds that we are not a dictionary. (My journalism professor recently informed us that its is actually just deserts, but I'm not sure i believe her.) Cantras 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's absolutely a notable term, but the article is a dicdef and, in my opinion, could never expand beyond a dicdef. -- Kicking222 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - And by the way, your journalism professor is correct - see the Wiktionary entry. FreplySpang 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just weird though. :) Cantras 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny language, this English. :-) FreplySpang 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Karma. It's appropriate. Voretustalk 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikitonary or Wikiquote. The phrase seems better suited to their unless more infomation about is surfaces (such as its origins/place in media etc etc) Jamesbuc
  • Delete: No need to move to wiktionary as it already exists there. Wiktionary even spells it correctly. DCEdwards1966 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-author}}, the creator of the article applied the AfD tag, and fully meant to. The author also did the same at Spur of the moment. -- Scientizzle 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (G7).--Húsönd 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajagirya[edit]

Rajagirya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Entry name is incorrect Thusitha.kodikara 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - should have just been {{db-author}}. It was blanked by author, I put {{db-blanked}} on there now. --MECU≈talk 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesso's undersampling theorem[edit]

Lesso's undersampling theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This seems to be a hoax. No web of science hits for the author, and wikipedia provides the only google hits. But for some reason I though WP:PROD wasn't quite appropriate. Delete. Inner Earth 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No such theorem found on google scholar. No such theorem found in any standard DSP book.(I have got the notable ones by John G. Proakis and Oppenheim right here at my desk). Complete hoax. voldemortuet 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It certainly sounds plausible, and through Google I've found a Paul Lasso (See first creation of page) that has published a paper and lives in the UK. That said, the article isn't on Paul Lasso, and I cannot find anything about the undersampling theorem. It could be true, but without references or support, there's no way we know. --MECU≈talk 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not keep and see what develops? Valters 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The math is correct. That doesn't mean this is a valid stand alone theory, however. It seems like it's a simple extension of the Nyquist Theorem. Dstanfor 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be right, but I bet it isn't remotely original, and the lack of proof rather suggests it isn't. Average Earthman 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With no hits on Google and no references, even if the math is correct, this is original research at best and a hoax at worst. Either way it has no place in Wikipedia. Verkhovensky 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per voldemortuet FirefoxMan 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research at best. —ShadowHalo 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 0 google hits implies that he's created a new, albeit mathematically correct, theorem. But the proper place to publish this is a scientific or mathematical journal, not Wikipedia (until it achieves notability). Patstuarttalk|edits 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Our coverage of accounting-related article is a little sad... ---J.S (T/C) 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International payment[edit]

International payment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Short article defining a term that has no chance to be a real article. MECU≈talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggested speedy keep I don't want to thwack a dead equine, so I'll try to keep this brief. There is plenty to say about this topic and it's a little embarrassing we don't have a good article on it yet. (We do have an article on SWIFT, which is one component of the international payments system.) An article could discuss the mechanisms for making such payments, as well as legal issues involved. There are plenty of sources out there: I have a few books stored away on the topic and Google Books yields a host of material. JChap2007 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:JChap2007 and expand. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather notable topic in international relations and certainly far more than a simple dictionary definition. Needs a lot of work/expanding, however. --The Way 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a valid subject, sources available for expansion. QuagmireDog 04:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:CORP. ---J.S (T/C) 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The George, Wanstead[edit]

The George, Wanstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No real notability, page seems to be being used mostly for vanity entries Lost tourist 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Last paragraph has to go, and there's nothing left beyond a directory entry and no notability. Delete Emeraude 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trust me mate iv been to the george a lot. "piss head" bishai is always there and he basically is the reason it didnt close. hes pretty famous throughout east london. theres no need to take this down. J. Stevens— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)

  • Delete No sources cited to back up any claims, nothing in google searches bring up why this is notable. Does not meet WP:CORP, is not Neutral in it's writing, and provides no claims to international notability. Per WP:CORP....

1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories Nope, nothing sourced and nothing found online

2)The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. Um no...

3)The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. Being a bar/pub, I highly doubt this would ever happen.

Since this is a bar/pub, we could say it offers a service (serving alcohol) so...

1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.

Still no.

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization Nope. This hasn't happened.

Fails WP:Corp, is NN, Doesn't cite sources. Nuke it. --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE User 87.74.17.102 altered my comments above, inserting the sentence: "Even so, this is no reason for deletion" and changing my vote from Delete to Do not Delete. (Evidence is here: [[23]]. He has also been one of the main recent contributors to the article. Emeraude 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, as a gay man I find your comments very insulting. Gay people have the same rights as you, you biggot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)

If you must stoop to irrelevancies (what's gay got to do with anything), insults (by the way, there's only one G in bigot) and vandalising other users' comments then you have already lost the argument. Emeraude 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'v definately read articles about this character in the Wanstead and Ilford Guardian. Their website isnt brilliant but the article might be souced in there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)

Just noticed Whitemoron has been banned. Emeraude 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering-Islam.org[edit]

Answering-Islam.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

That is a hate-website against Islam. We have no idea who is running that website see [[24]]. The website is created for a reason to write against Islam and mix lies with other things to present their points. According to my understanding they have failed to meet WP:WEB, all the three points, you can check yourself. Should we create Answering-christianity.org article too. Obviously not, not at all. Encylopidia is not places for such things. Hence that page should also be deleted. Encylopidia should not be used to increase the number of hits on some hate-website. ALM 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but realize that with all your "hate website" stuff, you're going to get lots of reflexive keeps. -Amarkov blahedits 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, right. I count, like, one reflexive keep so far and plenty of deletes. LOL. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have heard of this website off-Wiki, and it is notable. Just because it is highly critical of Islam does not make it a hate website, and in any case if a hate website is notable there is an article on it on Wikipedia. See Godhatesfags.com. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think it meets WP:WEB all three points? Or not ? I have heard about many thing but we do not create articles about all of them. Should we? --- ALM 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a redirect to a notable organization. BhaiSaab talk 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable - Ozzykhan 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what the fuss is about. It is a non-notable website as per WP:WEB. The content and subject matter are not an issue. The article's creator/editors are free to write about the website on Criticism of Islam or related topics. The website, currently, is not notable enough to deserve its own article. - Ozzykhan 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Hearing about it off-Wiki isn't really a reason for inclusion. BhaiSaab talk 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when I said "heard of" I meant, has been used as a references in several books I have read, including Unveiling Islam, it is used by various evangelicals on religious message boards, and is linked to by hundreds of websites. But meh, it doesn't like Islam, it must be deleted. /sarcasm. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete views of the website is irrelevant, notability is the only issue. Delete, unless proof of notability is established.--Striver 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Striver. The contents of the site are irrelevant; the only issue is whether the site itself is so significant as to deserve its own article. Nothing here convinces me that this is so. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and weak delete. First of all, I notice that some, but not all, of the users favoring deletion are Muslims or somehow associated with Islam. (Note: I only mention this here because of the potential for a one-sided POV on the side of the deletion-favorers). That being said, so little has been said on the website, and so little defense of its notability has been done, that perhaps we should mention the website as being among the work of Islam's detractors or critics in the Islam and Criticism of Islam articles for now, and create an article when there is more reason to believe in the site's notability. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The article's contents are as follows: "Answering-Islam.org is website which contains the writings of some evangelical Christians who, according to the disclaimer, seek to demonstrate flaws of Islam using biblical arguments.", and the citation for that is Answering-Islam.org itself. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to even think of visiting this website from work, so I can't vote either way on this, but I'd recommend that the nominator reword his nomination. Even if you classify the site as a "hate-website", that has no bearing on its relevance or suitability for a wikipedia article. Your nomination above is almost hostile. And to answer your question above, if there were a website called answering-chrsitianity.org and it met any of the criteria on WP:WEB, you would be able to create an article on it, no problem. --DDG 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipidian 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to assert notability. NeoFreak 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WB:WEB, the article is flawed. --Palestine48 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable, Wikipedia is not a link farm.
Also, Comment. I tried to resist the urge of pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy in attempting to debunk someone else's belief system using only ideas from within the context of your own (competing) belief system, but yeah. Noclip 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB - crz crztalk 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:WEB. Hate websites can be on Wikipedia if they are notable. Look at Stormfront (website). NeoJustin 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. TruthSpreaderTalk 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete not much citing of the web site from other sites though if someone can find some stuff I'm happy to help build up the article. That aside - I would protect their right to say what they want so if this site is used as a link in other articles then I would keep the links in place BUT the site itself need not yet have its own wikipedia article. I love how they "seek to demonstrate flaws of Islam using biblical arguments." Oh boy - that cracked me up, talk about the Blind leading the blind. Both the Bible and the Quran are more or less fictional works interweaving allegorically interpreted tales from earlier works with historical events and contemporaneous knowledge. I think thats a neutral opinion. Ttiotsw 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, but I agree. Arrow740 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing admin, if you decide to delete, please indicate if your decision mandates that this site cannot be quoted in any article. The voters here seem to think, and I agree, that the fact that a website cannot have its own article does not mean it cannot be cited elsewhere. Arrow740 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the site cannot be quoted in articles because it is not a reliable-source. See WP:RS. --- ALM 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm for delete but don't you mean WP:RS#Partisan_and_extremist_websites ? This web site is anti-Islamic and so matches the criteria of Partisan_and_extremist_websites as opposed to say something scientific. This is religion fighting religion i.e. bigot verses bigot not some high-brow scholarly work. Ttiotsw 09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm talking about using it as a source of polemics, not facts. In an article about polemics such as Criticism of Islam the arguments of the critics at AI are very notable. Arrow740 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes indeed but I do not know why Arrow740 cannot understand that fact. --- ALM 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm referring to the "and their activities" part of the rule. Arrow740 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • NO! The site can ONLY be used in its own article and cannot be use as secondary source in Islam related articles or criticism of Islam article. It is against WP:RS. Find some books, published by good publisher and use them instead. --- ALM 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Primary source for its own arguments. Know the meanings of words before you use them. Arrow740 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • YES! The site can be used, Quoting from WP:RS in the "Non-scholarly sources" section "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template." (my emphasis). Each reference is discussed on it's merits. Ttiotsw 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree with Ttiotsw: it's okay to use unreliable or biased sources so long as it is noted that such sources are considered unreliable or biased. Meanwhile, reliable source usage is encouraged anyhow. WP:NPOV requires investigating all sides of the story and all POVs, and, if some POVs can only be gleaned from unreliable sources, then unreliable sources might as well be used. Forbidding usage of nonreliable sources may, in some cases, amount to making an article POV rather than NPOV, and abandoning NPOV ought to be avoided. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hi all, I think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings or some other pretty useless reason. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many more. I will start building article on this website organisation soon. Mak82hyd 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is essentially the same argument he made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International, with cut-and-paste techniques and taking out the Alexa number. I answered his assertations on the FFI AfD. I stand by my weak delete for Answring-islam.org and my keep for Faith Freedom International, by the way, since there is more of a case for the notability of the latter. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for making the stubs on that mate. I really appreciate it. it just shows there are people on wikipedia who have neutral point of view(copy n pasted. I dont like t write again if i have to say the same thing. why bother when we can make our lives easy, unless cheating or illegal stuff). Mak82hyd 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Aminz 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw[edit]

This site is included now included in the discussion section of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. You are invited to give your opinion. --Striver 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Lake National Forrest Campground[edit]

Aside from being misspelled, I'm not sure it belongs here. I removed the worst of the advertising bloat, but it is only a campsite. It has been marked as linkless since June. --Sandy Scott 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. --MECU≈talk 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; 42 Google results. Noclip 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T-media[edit]

T-media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kunjaan[edit]

Kunjaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable claims. The fact that this article claims that "Kunjaan" is a well known hindu term, a google search for "kunjan hindu" currently returns 3 hits. Similarly, an amazon or google books search for this term returns 0 books. This leads me to believe that either the author of this article has misspelled the term, or this is some kind of neologism/hoax. Furthermore, the article uses names like "Siddharth Gautam", which is clearly some kind of parody of Siddhārtha Gautama... Maybe the author is trying to be funny or something? It's not working. -- DDG 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect. Nothing is sourced, nothing to be merged. ---J.S (T/C) 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foodshake[edit]

Foodshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The name "foodshake" appears to be a neologism. The article itself is mostly recipes and original research, with a helping of POV about what should go into your particular foodshake. FreplySpang 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not very notable neologism, POV, and unverifiable. It's also not often that an article can make me want to puke (that "weenie smoothie"... I mean, seriously, what the hell?). Voretustalk 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with milkshake I propose it be merged with milkshake article. I have seen such smoothies and milkshakes in Punjab with all sorts of food put into them. --Logic20 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This AfD does not prevent renominating this article. —Doug Bell talk 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Challenor[edit]

  • Weak Delete Seems un-notable, but not sure. Just H 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Again seems slightly keepable but also seems un-notable. Erring on the side of caution here Jamesbuc
  • Weak keep Fifteen years reading television news on a significant station probably satisfies the "name recognition" clause of WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely known all throughout South-East Queensland and easily verifiable information. SM247My Talk 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern Movie: 2008[edit]

Green Lantern Movie: 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No citation whatsoever. Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To be fair, there is one citation about Jack Black playing the Green Lantern, but this rumor doesn't seem to have panned out. There is no IMDb page for this film, which is a pretty much done-for sign for a film article like this. Seems to be fancruft otherwise, so delete. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned on the articles talk page, there is no proof that it is an actual movie, and the storyline description looks fake and made up. So I say delete MasterGreenLantern 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The movie has been in development hell for almost 10 years, with several script drafts floating around. Whether or not the fanboy-esque treatment in the article corresponds to one of them won't be answered. Purely speculative crystalballery at this point. Caknuck 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly a fake. There is no evidence of this on www.imdb.com. This should have been up for Speedy Delete. Debaser23 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fancruft. Even if there was a film, it's clearly in development hell. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you provide a link to Wikipedia policy on this so-called fancruft? I guess the fans have overstayed their welcome here, but I am interested in knowing the how or the why. Thank you. Valters 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I laugh whole heartedly with a loud DELETE, as I am following the non extistent future of this character in the film world, and there has been nothing mentioned (minus Jack Black's rediculous "I'm going to be GL" rant). Bignole 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lost all credibility with the Jack Black connection, and the lack of any reputable sources indicating such a film is in production or has even been announced places this in to the Crystal Ball column. This can always be recreated (but correctly titled next time) if and when such a film is actually announced. 23skidoo 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At least needs sources about current development. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TSO1D 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, and because that level of POV biased cruft fiction writing should be eliminated from any wiki anywhere. Ever. ThuranX 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. NeoJustin 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone's been spamming Green Lantern forums, other GL entries on Wikipedia, and various other sites with this "Robert Taggett" hoax. As people debunked the claims that he was a character from an old comic book story, it shifted to the claim that he would be in an upcoming movie. This article looks like it was based on the one and only post at greenlanternmovie2008.blogspot.com (I'm deliberately not linking to it), which was spammed to a comment on my own site a week or two ago. Kelson 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Christianity[edit]

Conversion to Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I nominated this for deletion because: ~No new information

~Extreme POV piece

~It is just not accurate. It represents the Protestant Christian view as if speaks for all of Christinaity

~I think there could be an interesting article on converting to Christianity- and this is nowhere close to it.

~A few days after this AfD began a user reverted the article to a much earlier version. This is the article I nominated for deletion: [[25]] Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect as per below. Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a horrible, jumbled mess with little useful, non-POV content. The topic might be worth keeping with a drastic cleanup, but Christianity encompasses so many very different branches, each with varying degrees of institutionalized practices, that an overarching "Conversion to Christianity" article—that is properly inclusive and sourced—may be a pipe dream. Conversion to Judaism, on the other hand, looks like a decent, well-sourced article; Conversion to Islam simply redirects to Religious conversion; other religions don't appear to have such articles. The best solution, for now, may be a Redirect to Religious conversion with the hope that a few enterprising editors will use Conversion to Judaism as a template for the creation of a real article. -- Scientizzle 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - redirect to Religious conversion, with the right to recreate a Christian-specific article with no prejudice if they come up with enough well-sourced material. Quack 688 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems extremely biased to allow an article on conversion to Judaism but lump together all other religions conversions into one article, even though they have virtually nothing in common. The result would be an article with sections which have no connection to each other. This article was started a few months ago and examination of the development shows gradual expansion and improvement until some POV material was added around the end of last month. There is great commonality in the conversion process to many Christian denominations, with major break between the traditional liturgical ones (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, a few others) and the "evangelical" born-again religions. Edison 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As in Quack's statement, I've no prejudice against a future recreation of a relevant article...indeed, I think topic has sufficient merit and I would welcome a properly-sourced article. The current article, however, is awful in terms of meeting Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, & WP:NPOV) and simply lacking in quality prose. The September 22 version is the last NPOV version and had very few relevant improvements for the 5 months of its existence. Conversion to Christianity shouldn't be left as-is, and the last good version is practically empty. Therefore, a redirect to Religious conversion, which contains far more balanced, sourced, & relevant information than this article, seems like a good (temporary) measure. Perhaps the editors that frequent Christianity-related pages could be enlisted to work on a proper article (at, say Conversion to Christianity/draft until some semblance of a complete, sourced work is created)? I'll broach the topic on Talk:Christianity and see what I can scare up. -- Scientizzle 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as misguided use of AfD. If the article is broken, fix it by editing it. Jkelly 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep afd is not a cleanup. If necessary, revert to an NPOV version, like [26], but don't remove a clearly valid article. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if the ENTIRE article is broken? What if the entire article is a POV push?Sethie 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reverted to a clean version. Unless you think the subject is unencyclopedic, and that any mention of conversion to christianity is POV. In which case I still say speedy keep. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't think that, for clarification on my thoughts on this, read the top of this AfD. AND If that is the extent of the article... I would vote for merge. Sethie 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. I was just clarifying, not making accusations. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All articles start as stubs. We have to start somewhere. It's even got an interwiki Hebrew link. -Patstuarttalk|edits 06:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to see it deleted, just redirected, due to its small size. If this section becomes too large, I'd be happy to see it come back here as an independent article. Quack 688 17:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the same reasons as Edison. Equally uninterested in both, but that's no standard.DGG 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - the stubified version can be used to create a NPOV article, though I would suggest renaming to Christian conversion or something ... BigDT 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. —Mets501 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WITM8[edit]

WITM8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable slang term, dicdef. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to Internet slang. This is already done with many other similar words, such as LOL and ROLF. Please add an entry over this slang in list of Internet slang phrases if found in a certain list of slangs or a dictionary, which it probably doesn'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 wasSpeedy Delete- patent nonsense.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dogg[edit]

E-Dogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparent hoax attempt, or at best a non-notable rapper with a lot of hoax information. Claimed to be a platinum-selling artist, yet has no relevant Google hits, no entry on AllMusic, no albums on Amazon[27]. Also nominating:

The Lyrical One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As part of the same hoax (claims to be a platinum-selling album, with no record of its existence - one Google hit, but not relevant[28]). Author also created Tha Lyrikal A$$A$SIN, another apparent album hoax in the same vein (claims of 5,000,000 worldwide sales, but nothing at all on Google), which is prodded at the time of writing but may be added to this AfD if the author decides to remove the prod on that article too. Prod nominated article removed by author without comment. ~Matticus TC 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Total hoax. Even a non-notable performer selling homemade albums at his shows would show up in a search somewhere. This is a teenage fantasy. Fan-1967 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete E-dogg, his claimed records, and give a good once-over to anything linked here or that links back. Cantras 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wiggity wiggity wack. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:BLP, but with no prejudice against recreation. ---J.S (T/C) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Novum[edit]

Scott Novum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Nothing cited. Google returns zero hits for this name. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Australia hasn't had the death penalty since '67, so he couldn't have been hung. Fake! Fake! WLU 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is biggest load of crap I ever heard. There are no sources and the article was clearly made up as the writer went along. Hell this should have been speedy deleted. Debaser23 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - speedy is not out of the picture, I simply nominated as it did not appear to be a simple speedy delete to me. (I have done over 1200 CAT:CSD deletions in the last few days) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't qualify as WP:Nonsense, and WP:HOAX isn't a valid speedy criteria. However, author is a single purpose account, so I'd {{db-test}} it if you want to get it over with. --DeLarge 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious fiction. There must surely be at least one {{speedy}} category that it drops into?--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. Assuming the reference to London slums, Alfred Deakin and execution by hanging make the date of birth simply a typo of 1876 instead of 1976, this is not completely infeasible. I don't think calls for speedy deletion are appropriate until it can be shown that the reference provided is false, and this individual did not exist. OK, it's unlikely: Deakin worked as a journalist despite being a qualified lawyer, and there is no mention on Google despite being an apparently infamous serial killer. I'll do a bit more research into it. --Canley 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I put the speedy tag on this. It seemed like such an obvious hoax, so obvious that I highly doubted an AfD would have anything other than a barrage of "delete" votes. IrishGuy talk 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Fredrick Bayley Deeming. At first I though this to be a hoax, but some quick research reveals an identical story for Deeming. See this [29] and this [30] (about two thirds of the way down). Teiresias84 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, well done, good research! Maybe this is just an attack/hoax page built around a real story. --Canley 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hats off for finding that, but I'm not going to change my vote, my primary motivation being that I reckon it's a WP:Copyvio (although I have no direct evidence, just a gut feeling from reading the reference at the bottom). Also -- and I suppose I'd need a count of other 19th century Anglo-Australian serial killer articles to be sure -- the fact that there isn't an article under the guy's correct name suggests he might not meet our notability criteria? --DeLarge 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Having googled Frederick Deeming more reliable sources have turned up - notabily this one [31] and this one[32]. I think these sources confirm his (Deeming that is, not "Novum") notabilty. The article of course needs to be wikified as well, and if we end up moving the article it will probably be re-written sufficently (by me probably) that it wouldn't be a copyvio anyway. Teiresias84 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search of reliable sources available through the public library system comes up with nothing on this guy. The Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB) Online comes up with nothing on him. [33] Alfred Deakin's biography on the ODB states that he had a "near-briefless career" before switching to journalism so it doesn't seem that Deakin defended him. [34] There are severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*Good point, clearly "Scott Norum" doesn't exist, but Deeming does an Deakin's ADB page mentions him and Deeming himself also has ADB page [35].Teiresias84 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Attack page. I stand by what I wrote above but I have changed my position. While clearly this about Frederick Deeming, who needs an article, this should be deleted as it uses facts from Deeming's life to attack another person. Delete this, and we;ll start afresh with a new article for Deeming. Regards to Capitalistroadster and Canley for pointing various things out. Teiresias84 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable organization. —Doug Bell talk 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal seekers society[edit]

Paranormal seekers society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Proposed deletion was removed by anon without a reason. The organization is rather minor and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Scores a solid three Google hits- one is a myspace, one is their website, one is the wiki article. Unverifiable. Wafulz 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG. A very non-notable and new (formed in 2005) organization. Their website is filled with self-admittance of non-notability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Frédérick Lacasse 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I'm getting rather concerned that Wikipedia editors/policies are increasingly using very US-centric measures for notability, verifiability, inclusion etc. For example, using online presence alone as a guide for notability/verifiability for groups operating countries where local media/communities have a low online presence, or expecting US scale recognition from entities in countries with a fraction of America's population (this is in general, not specifically to this entry). perfectblue 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't really true- the organization is from the UK, which is hardly a backwater country without the internet. If it were a 1970s military faction in Uganda, then maybe Google wouldn't be the best idea, but seeing as this is a society created in 2005 in a relatively wealthy and advanced nation, Google is a pretty safe bet. Also I'm not American, if that helps any. --Wafulz 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and not necessarily in respect to this entry, most local newspapers and news-station in the UK don't have the online archives that US papers do, and because there are fewer of them to begin with the odds of finding one with the information that you want online are lower too. Equally, UK societies, groups and museums etc tend to be more local and online less than US ones (partly because they don't need to attract tourists etc from so far away). The UK isn't backwards by any means, it's just less online than the US and smaller than the US so US standards are not always appropriate (this counts much more for other countries, which are online far less than the US and UK, or which produce English language sites as an afterthought to their sites in their own languages). perfectblue 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesnt make any claims of notability and there are not any sources used in the aritcle. ---J.S (T/C) 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to NaN. —Mets501 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transreal number[edit]

Original research: this "transreal math" appears to be self-published original research, with no peer review. For something that claims to revolutionize arithmetic, peer-reviewed publication is essential. --Carnildo 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete This is a re-creation of the previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number line. linas 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No it isn't. I created it, and I never saw that article before. Eliot 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, sorry. I wasn't happy about the earlier incarnation, and had made the following comments: The concept is not new, but the name seems to be a neologism. Computer science guys have versions of this, with lots of different NaN's. I am certain I heard of the thing in grade school, but don't know what name it was given then. I take Φ to be a nimber, namely Conway's star. (Just in case its not obvious why Φ is star, refer to Conway's book, wherein division is defined through an axiomatic system for numbers and games, and zero divided by zero is indeterminate, its star. Among other things, you'll find a proof that star is greater than -1 but less than +1 and is incomparable to everything in between. I would prefer that such concepts be treated in terms of the sound, well-developed, commonly accepted axiomatic footing, rather than invented from scratch, on a whim). I'm not convinced there is a need for the current article, it seems awfully simplisitic. linas 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC) To which I add: Conway is a world-class mathematician, nimbers and the entire panalopy have been researched in detail for many decades (or centuries? dating back to Dedekind cuts and Cantor??). Anderson seems happy to promote a neologism on BBC, and that strikes me as the worst sort of mathematical illiteracy. linas 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Φ is clearly not Conway's star. I'd assign it a value of , but I don't remember whether that's in On Numbers and Games or Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays. It's still not quite right, as 0 × Φ = Φ, but it's closer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The axioms for arithmetic, incl. division, are in "On Numbers an Games", at the very begining. The axioms are straightforward, and generate the smallest possible games. So would be born on day , and clearly, that's wrong, whereas * would be born on day one, which sounds about right to me. Will have to take a look, though. We should put the axioms in a WP article somewhere. linas 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Never mind, I misunderstood. Yes, I guess Φ might not map cleanly to anything in particular. Hmm. linas 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedily, this is not really worth having an article about, but because of the widely linked BBC news story on the subject, there are hordes of people looking up nullity. Would we rather speedy this article a dozen times today, or just delete it once next week? Eliot 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone please explain what is wrong with "nullity"? If this is major front page news, maybe it is notable, and maybe it should have an article? I'll admit, I came here because I read the BBC article, which didn't do a good job of explaining nullity, so I came to Wikipedia to find out more, and just found this. --Cyde Weys 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: what’s wrong with nullity is exactly what’s wrong with mainstream news sources dealing with science: they usually hardly know anything about what’s at stake. Until a panel of specialists have peer reviewed the new theory/tool/proof/etc., Wikipedia should not talk about it (we can however talk about the buzz going around it). I understand it’s nice to come to Wikipedia and find an analysis of that “new” tool, but as of now it’s original research. Sam Hocevar 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So in other words nullity is just this thing made up by an elementary school math teacher, and doesn't have any real publications in the mathematical literature that proves it to be more than just a made-up name? --Cyde Weys 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This discussion would be worth having on the talk page for the article instead. Eliot 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless there are other unlinked sources, this doesn't seem likely to be "major front page news". Although the BBC can carry a lot of weight, the linked article in this case is a minor local news story (in fact it's not even branded as "news", but "people"), and is more about the reactions of the kids at a local school than the shattering importance of the theory. --McGeddon 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem, as I see it, is that its a shallow reinvention of well-known concepts in mathematics (see above), a neologism, that fails to advance the state of human knowledge, and demonstrates ignorance of mathematics on the part of the inventor. If this was the re-invention of some mind-boggling difficult concept, I would have no complaint. However, this idea appears to lame and shallow, something that eager teenagers dream up by the dozen in grade-school algebra. linas 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my above comment. Sam Hocevar 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read through the paper twice now, and I'm still not convinced as to how this is really a notable article. The claims made in the paper are dubious at best. --King Bee 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just decided to watch the video on the BBC article; pure nonsense. I change my stance above to strong delete. --King Bee 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect NaN. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine which is a possibly more sound concept by the same person. --Salix alba (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not that you care anyway. Where was I when you made up all these policies? Rōnin 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN, which then needs a note at the bottom about the perpetual attempts to define NaN that keep getting people excited but never actually make any mathematical headway. Xkcd 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Xkcd[reply]
  • Keep but make sure that anything that comes close to acknowledging it as anything more than fringe, mathematic speculation without concensus be removed as NPOV. Unfortunately, the BBC article seems to make it notable. While it is not "front-page" stuff, it is the BBC. Redirect The new addition to NaN is sufficient.-Seidenstud 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: in this article on the perspex machine the concept of nullality has a bit more relavance. In it Anderson considers spaces of homogeneous coordinates, (x,y,z,w) which have the equivilence relation (x,y,z,w) ~ (x/w,y/w,z/w,1) to complete the set of posible coordinates there is a need to represent the number (0,0,0,0) (typically not included in homogeneous coords, but might have a use in his specific application). Taken as specific element in this set it actually has a subitily different meaning to just dividing 0/0 in the reals. So its technically different to NaN or nimber. Basically BBC got it well wrong. --Salix alba (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. A four-dimensional projective variety with the disjoint union of a particular point? Is the resulting space still a variety? linas 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading further he seems to be taking the set of oriented lines, rather than unoriented lines. I can see why this would be useful for computer vision. Indeed there does see to be quite a lot on Oriented Projective Geometry. Still don't quite understande where the nullity fits in. --Salix alba (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: boldly redirected to NaN. Sam Hocevar 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good boldness, but I reverted it since you're not supposed to be bold about removing pages that are being discussed for deletion. Eliot 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I was under the impression that if the consensus was to delete or redirect one did not have to wait until the end of the process. Are we going to leave an unsourced article that’s only a few hours old for 5 whole days? The fact that starting an AfD blocks everything doesn’t look like a good way to improve things. Anyway, I’ll stick to editing the current article. Sam Hocevar 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN, as it seems to only be a symbolic stand-in for the inability to solve. Smeggysmeg 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN. Agree with Salix Alba, Xkcd, etc. In the event that mention of this media event remains in WP, it should be balanced by discussion of its mathematical limitations such as can be found here. —David Eppstein 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, whatever it takes to achieve consensus; don't keep. I think everything has been said above. Melchoir 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - no reason to delete; just made the BBC news, incidentally.139.48.81.98 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN. That's all it really is, anyway. --Powerlord 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; BBC Berkshire doesn't meet notability standards, especially for self-published drivel like this. EdC 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To our fav article -- NaN. Also the BBC doesn't seem to know what the hell they are talking about, why is this teacher telling this to his students before going before peers? Complete idiot. MrMacMan 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN, possibly with some kind of explanation or mention on this or the NaN page, or people will just recreate the entry. MMad 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To me, this appears to be as much a revised mathematical notation, as the introduction of any actual new concepts. New notations can, of course, be important, but in this case, I would leave to the math editors the question of whether there is anything useful here or whether this is pure, not "original research," but an original notation format for otherwise commonplace concepts. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to the PDF discussing this topic on Anderson's website, "this paper will be published in Vision Geometry XV, Longin Jan Lateki, David M. Mount, Angela Y. Wu, Editors, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 6499 (2007)". Does this not count as a peer reviewed journal? --Tjohns ✎ 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Whatever. Just get rid of it.
And to address the above comment, no, proceedings are not reviewed. Lunch 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of it as fast. Its nonsense. Or redirect to self-publicised pseudo-science Lee-Jon 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agreed, this is nothing more than a relabelling. Sekky 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based off what Lunch said above and per WP:NOR. --Tjohns ✎ 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but do NOT redirect to NaN. NaN is a comp sci construct, not a mathmatical one. It seems like OR to me, and it's not really notable either. I came up with this idea (although I used a different symbol) back in high school, and "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". Even I quickly gave it up, realizing that it was just plain silly. NaN does all that we need it to do. All of the "problems" with it are actually features. --W0lfie 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a rehash of a common extension to the real numbers, with a "definition" for division by zero in the space. It might be a scientific paper but I don't believe it is notable. I could create a space where I defined 1/0=3, but it would be unencyclopedic. It must go. Readro 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Total baloney but baloney that wp should explain given its notability atm. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per the comment directly above mine - Stoph 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I question the integrity of the journals/books the two articles are to be published in. Are they peer reviewed? Are they notable? Doubtful. This article sounds masturbatory. Carboneyes 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it wouldn't be notable if it hadn't been on BBC and slashdot, but given that it's been sensationalized there, it'll be useful to keep this article alive. TenthServant 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BBC is NOT a scientific journal! Inner Earth 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN, (and be careful with incoming links). Not exactly a re-creation of transreal number line, but not notable. (The perspex machine seems to be a "mathematical" interpretation of a comp-sci contruct, so it fits better than one would think.) As for SPIE, I thought it was a peer-reviewed journal, but Vision Geometry VIII wouldn't have been accepted by a peer-reviewed science journal. Could be philosophy, I suppose. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Vision Geometry is a conference, not a journal. I didn't find anything about whether it has a high or low acceptance rate in a cursory search but its review process appears to be on the basis of 2-4 page abstracts rather than full papers. —David Eppstein 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't redirect. The guy has re-discovered NaN's. Now "transreal number" is nothing but a neologism at present, and we can always include a redirect once the term has caught on Dr Zak 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The topic is receiving some news coverage, but that coverage does not (in many cases) actually explain what is being discussed. Having a article in Wikipedia allows people who see the coverage to gain some understanding of what is being talked about and therefore has value (even if you think the concept is complete bunk). That said, it would be appropriate for the article to be edited to be more neutral and offer arguements against the theory. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.177.140 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2006
    Comment. The coverage doesn't explain what is being discussed. That's because, if it did, the readers could see there was nothing there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any crackpot professor who makes up a term to describe something that already has a term does not deserve to have their new term on WP. This is a neologism. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The basic problem in my opinion is that it's impossible to write an article about this that is both neutral and no original research. The concept is not discussed in the mathematical literature and I doubt it ever will, which means that we can't offer arguments against the theory, or say that it's basically the same as NaN's (if it is). However, if we have an article we must make it clear that the concept is rejected by mathematicians.
    The SPIE Proceedings have minimal review: the Call for Papers states "To ensure a high-quality conference, all abstracts and Proceedings manuscripts will be reviewed by the Conference Chair/Editor for technical merit and suitability of content.", which I take to mean that the Chair/Editor may refuse submissions that are obviously unsuitable, but that no rigorous peer review takes places. Furthermore, SPIE is the International Society for Optical Engineering, which is perhaps not the most proper body to review novel mathematical theories.
    There is a case for notability following the media coverage (BBC Berkshire and Slashdot), and that's why I only say "weak delete", but I expect that everybody will have forgotten about it by the time that this AfD closes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jitse Niesen and linas said it very well. shotwell 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN. I don't believe this should be deleted while the BBC covergage is still fresh in our minds. However, it's premature to give this its own article. If there is long-term usefulness it would be as an alternative to IEEE NaN's, so redirect there and add a short note in that article. Philtech-oh 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NaN I agree w/ ^^. This theory is a joke. There is a reason no respectable mathematics or CS journal would accept it. It has not been peer reviewed, nor is it likely to receive (or deserve) any such review. We should let people realize that the concept of "nullity" is nothing more than a dedicated NaN for 0/0. Glaucus 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to NaN: you guys waste too much time debating and suppressing psuedoscience rather than addressing it. Cwolfsheep 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be original research. Please do not redirect to NaN: that's a completely different thing from what is being discussed here. -- The Anome 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Intelligent design is a bunch of bullcrap too, but there's an article on it, because it's something that's receiving a fair amount of attention, and nullity/transreal math should be kept for the same reason. --Bewebste 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our opinions on the validity of the concept do not change the fact that per its media mention and inclusion in education (however isolated) it is now a part of the public discourse. If the concept is hooey (and personally, I do side with believing it probably is), then that puts it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society: reason to have the article reflect the strength of these objections, but not reason to not have it. Fractalchez 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am changing my vote to Merge and Redirect to James Anderson (computer scientist). If he really is the only significant proponent of the concept then, yes, it has not earned its own page. However, if it is being taught to students, however few (and remember that if one person does, others might start doing the same out of the media spotlight), then his students and/or their parents might come here looking for more information on what they are learning. Any information Wikipedia provides, including, if deemed appropriate, a hard uncomprimising debunking page, does them more a service than providing nothing at all. Fractalchez 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw the story online about some guy discovering how to divide by zero, I suspected it was a bunch of hogwash. Wikipedia was where I turned to find out! dyknowsore 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some person invents a new type of mathematical idea (which has already been handled by computers in the terms of inf(=a/0), -inf (=-a/0) or NaN (=0/0), and claims that he has now solved an ancient problem, of course shattering some other mathematical axioms to pieces along the way and thereby solving nothing. Some journalist believes in it and writes an article about it. No big deal. This is a fickle and will go away. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a debunking page - merging or redirecting to NaN gives this far too much credibility. Perhaps add a link to NaN so after people read this, they can read something better. Quack 688 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non encyclopedic, nothing new, so I doesn't classify it as "Original Research". - Cate | Talk 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, nothing special, obvious extension of arithmetic. The only slightly odd thing is that he defines 1/0 as positive instead of having indeterminate sign, which I find aesthetically displeasing. Only weakly because of silly media mentions. In one year, nobody will care about this anymore and this will be as forgotten as Elin Oxenhielm. Kusma (討論) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's been on the BBC, slashdot, etc, so it's notable. Also, 1/0 makes sense depending on your point of view picture this: 1 pie and 1 person = 1/1 or 0, so the pie is gone. However, think 1 pie and 0 people = 1/0 = 1, the pie is still there. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's wrong. fintler 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1/1 is not equal to 0. You are thinking about subtraction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BBC is NOT a scientific journal! Inner Earth 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, it's still notable. I don't think that only scientific journals are notable. 155.247.181.52
        • Comment Well the BBC is a notable broadcasting institution. They produce reliable news reports on current events and are widely cited here for such things. But they are not a notable scientific, peer reviewed publisher of mathematics. And their Berkshire local news section certainly isn't. Sources which would confer verifiability here are sorely lacking.Inner Earth 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This doesn't necessarily pertain to the debate, but I have an issue with one of the axioms. Mr Anderson claims that . But doesn't that mean that by multiplying on the left by nullity, we get ? Shouldn't there have to be a null identity of sorts to make this whole thing consistent? I also don't see the inverse operator defined in this set. The more I read this thing, the less convinced of it I become. Readro 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims this guy makes that computers can't handle division by zero is absolutely bogus. Also the math employed looks a bit shady. Lord Yaar 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable theory make. Missed WP:OR and WP:RS. After publication in a respectable journal, the story may well change. But BBC is NOT a scientific journal! Inner Earth 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just been thinking about this, and the set is not consistent as it does not obey the axioms of a field. Mr Anderson conveniently excludes certain members of the set when "showing" that the axioms are obeyed, whereas the definition of a field clearly states that all the members of the set must satisfy the axioms. Also, BBC local news is hardly a reputable source. They've frequently made mistakes. Readro 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's what I noticed as well. The transreal numbers aren't a field. I really think that working over a field is preferable, but every field has the same "problem"; you can't find the multiplicative inverse of 0. It just doesn't have one. --King Bee 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. True, there are a few problems with the sources, but I'm sure that this will appear in a scientific journal before long. --Jrothwell (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anybody who wants to help in the debunking of this theory can assist me by providing some additions to the report I'm writing at http://www.stylebucket.co.uk/Nullity.pdf any quotes, useful information or even if you'd like to write a little something to add, they would all be welcome. Sekky 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It serves to shed light on the debate far better than deleting it would. If I had found nothing when looking this up, I'd have no grounds to go on as to whether this was a crackpot idea or not. And do keep in mind people like Georg Cantor before dismissing this idea out of hand. Dante-kun 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just like any other notable pseudoscience. Just because it is stupid doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Instead it should be explained why it is stupid. Grouse 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psudo-Redirect to NaN: The article in question does have some noteablility due to the BBC article, but isn't really deserving of a full article, and even if it was, no sources are available to work from, making it either OR or posesing of NPOV problems, or both. Stub it, and link to NaN, until such a time as there are peer-reviewed papers or such to allow a well-written full article. Kinkoblast 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's a standard conclusion on AfD that a single, local, human-interest newspaper article on some topic does not make it notable, on the grounds that newspapers will report on anything and that Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Generally, encyclopedic notability demands multiple, nontrivial reviews. If this reasoning applies to elements of popular culture, how much more must it apply to science? If the article hadn't been unearthed by Digg and Slashdot, would anyone even be here defending it? Melchoir 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepPureLegend 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and rename I've come across a bunch of much more mathematically sound papers.
    1. Jesper Carlstr?om, Wheels on Division by Zero, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(1):143–184, 2004.[36]
    2. A. Edalat and P. J. Potts. A new representation for exact real numbers. In S. Brookes and M. Mislove, editors, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 6. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2000. (suggested that two extra `numbers', and , be adjoined to the set of real numbers, thus obtaining what in domain theory is called the `lifting' of the real projective line, in order to make division always possible.)
    3. A. Setzer. Wheels 1997. (draft) [37], First defines a wheel as a field plus an aditional element.
  • It seems like there is enough here to write a better article, which misses the spin and has some peer review references. --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have a separate article on wheel theory. (Please add those citations there.) Transreal numbers are not wheel theory. Uncle G 12:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seem to be a lot of 'keep' comments based on "we should cover this debate", "this will make it into a peer-reviewed journal", etc... As it stands now, there is no peer-reviewed debate about this subject. In fact, it is highly unlikely that any mathematician will respond to this in a serious manner. At the very most, Notices will write about "Nullity" as an example of mathematical reporting gone horribly wrong. Nullity is not mathematically profound, innovative, interesting, or noteworthy. Some of the claims about "nullity" border on mathematical nonsense. He's simply added a disconnected point to the extended real line, claimed that being able to divide by zero is more important than the topological properties this breaks, made a bizarre argument about why it's a field, and then made some grandiose claims about the importance of this "discovery". As for any serious "division by zero" research, we already have Division by zero. I would note, however, that division by zero is a non-issue. shotwell 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. I'm being kind about "adding a point to the extended real line". He also added some nonsensical arithmetic. shotwell 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing significant about this topic whatsoever, and the only reason anybody is talking about it is because people got upset about some local fluff piece that made it's way onto Slashdot. Rljacobson 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept has been used in a publication in a well-known, peer-reviewed journal: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B in 1997 (see Section 4 of that paper defending its utility in projective geometry problems dealing with the intersection of non-distinct lines in computer vision). Per my similar vote/comment on the perspex machine AfD page, I suggest keeping: the author and press may have gone overboard with the whole division by zero idea, but it appears that the use of the basic concept in computer vision may support its presence on wikipedia. digfarenough (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. ISI Web of Knowledge reports this paper has been cited zero times. Google scholar reports three citations -- two are from the author. "Perspex machine" doesn't seem to give results on any relevant database (aside from Anderson's stuff). Even the arXiv fails to give results. I also wonder why this paper was published in the biological division of Philosophical Transactions. Seeing as how the paper was published in 1997, there has been ample time to drum up attention. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the above claims. shotwell 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add a little bit, the Philosophical Transactions publishes three kinds of articles: review articles, articles in a "themed" issue, and conference proceedings. The article cited above comes from conference proceedings and was not peer-reviewed. For those without access to the abstracts, here it is:
This paper introduces perspex algebra which is being developed as a common representation of geometrical knowledge. A perspex can currently be interpreted in one of four ways. First, the algebraic perspex is a generalization of matrices, it provides the most general representation for all of the interpretations of a perspex. The algebraic perspex can be used to describe arbitrary sets of coordinates. The remaining three interpretations of the perspex are all related to square matrices and operate in a Euclidean model of projective space-time, called perspex space. Perspex space differs from the usual Euclidean model of projective space in that it contains the point at nullity. It is argued that the point at nullity is necessary for a consistent account of perspective in top-down vision. Second, the geometric perspex is a simplex in perspex space. It can be used as a primitive building block for shapes, or as a way of recording landmarks on shapes. Third, the transformational perspex describes linear transformations in perspex space that provide the affine and perspective transformations in space-time. It can be used to match a prototype shape to an image, even in so called 'accidental' views where the depth of an object disappears from view, or an object stays in the same place across time. Fourth, the parametric perspex describes the geometric and transformational perspexes in terms of parameters that are related to everyday English descriptions. The parametric perspex can be used to obtain both continuous and categorical perception of objects. The paper ends with a discussion of issues related to using a perspex to describe logic.
Like Slotwell said above, that this is in a biology journal smells funny, too. Lunch 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of a concept may arise in ways that are not determined by its contemporary validity. Lumos3 00:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's raised attention and as it is a place to explain why it's not all that special. —Ben FrantzDale 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been swayed. I now say redirect to James Anderson (computer scientist). (See discussion below.) —Ben FrantzDale 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Non-speedy delete as the BBC and Slashdot stories have popularized it, at least for the time being. The article can always be deleted later if it turns out to be unimportant in the long run. --Cybercobra 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the amount of controversy and attention this is gathering outside of Wikipedia makes it notable by itself. Ashanthalas 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: there seems to more controversy and attention here than outside of Wikipedia. I really don't think the blogs (even the blog on the BBC page) count as indications of "notability". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to NaN - WikiXan 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. It's generated a fair amount of buzz. It doesn't hurt to have it now, and we can always re-evaluate at a later date. All the discussion about whether or not it is useful or factual completely miss the point. Deleuze 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or provide more sources that would explain this concept's notability. There are thousands of ideas living their lives in published papers, just check Google Scholar "division by zero". Nothing in this article has proven to me that this quite simple idea (although the theory itself might be complicated, I don't know) has any usefulness and/or notability (this article has been created because of a single BBC television segment which featured Anderson teaching schoolchildren?). The idea, the way it's presented now, brings nothing new and even looks "fishy" to any person who once computed limit of a function. All I can see now is that some mathematician has published and is developing the theory. What is more, the idea is very young (2006) and it is very possible that it will have no followers in future. In short: this article is unencyclopedic; it brings no insights, nor it describes something important. SalvNaut 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the moment. It's a good way to introduce readers to other concepts, other articles connected with this topic.SalvNaut 23:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect... I came here after reading the BBC, so it IS notable in some way!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml --Sonjaaa 23:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or rewrite to reflect reality The concept of 'nullity' is notable only for its remarkable lack of utility; it solves a non-problem, and does so poorly. Do we want *every* amatuer mathematician creating a page about his or her lame-brained ideas? How about other fields of study? Should I be able to create a page about a computer language used only by its creator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.133.194.192 (talk)
  • Delete. Just not notable enough. For mathematics, we require reliable sources in books, journals, etc. All I see here is a couple of articles by the same authors with no subsequent work by others. If we created Wikipedia entries for anything written by someone a few times in some conference proceedings, we would be drowning in crap, and I don't think Wikipedia is that bad yet. --C S (Talk) 09:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete. Easy to prove as wrong, not peer reviewed, not even notable. The key flaw is he assigns 0 a positive value, when it is neither positive or negative on the real number line, so when he divides 1 by it, the answer should have an undefined sign, not just "positive infinity".220.253.57.87 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is mostly a joke, has never been -for example- submitted for peer-review at a journal. --NavarroJ 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the media exposure and hype on the "new number discovered"; but criticize its obliviousness to existing fields of research that attempt to deal with this situation in ways that are much more rigorous (e.g. Mark Burgin's hypernumbers [38] , [39] ), or more generally scoped ( e.g. Charles Musès' [40] ), or simply more neutral (like e.g. Hyperreal number ). The notability of the program in my opinion, at this point, is not its mathematical content, but it's publicity. Peer-review and connections to existing fields of research is urgently needed. Jens Koeplinger 14:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC) PS: add surreal number to the list of notables. Jens Koeplinger 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was debating with myself to vote for deletion or redirect to NaN with a brief mention. I decided on deletion for the following reason: there is nothing original or interesting in this concept, and any WP mention of it should clearly state the following
(A): that the idea of extending a number system in a way which extends otherwise undefined operations is trivial.
However, as a result of some interpretations of the sensible WP policy on no original reseacrh, until such time as we can refer to some published source which states (A) we can't say this in a WP article.---CSTAR 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Anyone can invent anything they want, and anyone who is curious about that invention should be able to find out more about it. It may not be accepted by anyone, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.103.60 (talk)
    • Actually, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, the fact that an idea hasn't been accepted by anyone is exactly why there should be no encyclopaedia article on that idea. Uncle G 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There needs to be at least something about this number/concept, because it has been mentioned, and it does not seem right to just delete it, just because it may not be completely sound --Warlorddagaz 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to NaN: as Cwolfsheep have already said, you guys waste too much time debating and suppressing psuedoscience rather than addressing it. cow_2001 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The papers concerning transreal numbers are PDF's linked to here; I trust this will be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (no relation ;->)[reply]
Yeah, nice. But the papers are not relevant. Selfpublished, not peer reviewed. Thus not good enough science to include. --Soyweiser 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepI am not willing to second-guess the PRS editors, even the conference editors. math articles typically get relatively few citations, and they are a long time coming.DGG 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need less wierd untested pseudo math. Not more. --Soyweiser 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To James Anderson (computer sceintist) which should explain that he is a crackpot. Authors are normaly taken as more notable than their contributions. Alternaticely, create an article on mathematics crackpots which talks about several notable ones and redirect all these articles there. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ps, To everyone talking about not second guessing mathematical content. All professional mathematician commenting on this say Anderson's "mathematical" work is garbage. He is a computer scientist who imagines that his incorrect version of NaN has mathematical consequences; it does not. JeffBurdges 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is close to useless as-is, and the concept has not been peer-reviewed, isn't cited anywhere and has serious problems. As a random formal systsem it's fine, but it doesn't deserve a page here unless it is taken up by other mathematicians. Jgrahamc 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Jgrahamc. WMMartin 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny coincidence The article Blaow, which refers to the same concept but with a different name, was proded for being considered something made up in school one day. 193.217.242.140 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is not "easy to prove wrong". From everything I've read (e.g., the talk page) this is a consistant algebra. It's just a bit nuts. As for notability. This page is the best discredidation of the topic I've seen. If nobody remembers the idea in a year, then maybe delete it, but for now it's serving a valuable purpose, even if the page is a bit ugly. —Ben FrantzDale 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [struck, already voted —Ben FrantzDale][reply]
    • Are you changing your vote above from "keep" to "strong keep"? And are your comments directed to a particular argument above? I might also ask do you think the topic is worth discrediting (if that's the purpose the Wikipedia page serves)? That is, how much discussion of this has there been outside of Wikipedia? (That is, what other news outlets other than Slashdot and the Berkshire local BBC have covered this topic?) Thanks, Lunch 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikinews. Uncle G 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. I forgot I already voted.Thanks for catching that. I was responding to an anonymous vote above that begins saying the concept is "easy to prove wrong". If it were easy to prove wrong, I'd be more for deleting the article, but the pattern I see from discussions and from my own thinking about it is this: (1) Hua, it's like NaN. (2) Look, I proved it inconsistent. (3) No, actually it is consistent after all. This article has the potential to explain not just to the general public that the idea is crazy, but to mathematically sophistocated readers that the system isn't "wrong", but rather that it isn't really a solution to a problem. —Ben FrantzDale 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On BBC Radio, he admitted that the theory hasn't been peer reviewed by any mathematical journal. RealPlayer stream of the BBC Radio discussion Readro 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC). P.S. He adds "It remains to be seen whether this is correct or not." Oh dear. Readro 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:No original research policy is clear. Since the idea hasn't been accepted by anyone, there should be no encyclopaedia article on that idea. Plain and simple. 199.212.18.131 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The subject is infuriatingly wrong-headed, but it has garnered sufficient publicity and attention to be encyclopedically notable. In particular, given its history, it should make an ideal example for the pseudomathematics article. --Piet Delport 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it seems clear to me now that Mr Anderson's main motive is profit, not advancing knowledge. On this page is a link to a business presentation he conducted at Reading University - [41] - and here are some good quotes from it.
    • "What's wrong with arithmetic? Can't explain how computers work."
    • "How much would you pay to know that the engine in your ship, car, aeroplane, or heart pacemaker won’t just stop dead."
    • "How much would you pay to know that your Government’s computer controlled military hardware won’t just stop or misfire."
    • "Standard arithmetic is invalid."
    • "I will help you unify QED and gravitation if you want me to."
Readro 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to NaN per discussion waaay at the beginning of this page. Where did all of these recruits come from, anyway? I understand voters being recruited for bands or people and such ... but mathematical theories? Is there some math blog out there that's doing this? --Cyde Weys 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone can come up with a reliable source other than Dr. Anderson, this is OR. If James Anderson (mathematician) survives AFD, perhaps we can merge and redirect this article there. Lunch 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I s'pose also that this should not redirect to NaN. It's not another name for NaN and is only somewhat related. In the same vein, I don't think it should redirect to wheel theory, nimber, hyperreals, or the like. Lunch 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to James Anderson (computer scientist), and expose him for the fraud he is in that article. Misinformed math students will come looking for "nullity" on Wikipedia, and they should find it. When they do, it shouldn't be described as a legitimate mathematical concept (that would be both a travesty against education and original research), but as a word used by a pseudomathematician. The theory is original research, but the phenomenon of a pseudomathematician deluding his students for his own benefit is well covered in the news. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If indeed James Anderson's concepts are pseudomath and/or an unoriginal rehash of ideas that have been used before, why not keep the article but specify the holes in the theory or the equivalencies that are claimed? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop a similar idea. The subjects pass notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. The subjects pass OR by merit of being verifiably published by third-parties. Treat it like Intelligent Design or Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pseudoscience, pseudoreligion, pseudomath. Oneismany 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like this solution. It sounds increasingly like he's a vocal guy who may come up with other crazy stuff in the future that might also get press coverage. Moving coverage of nullity to his page would make it clear that the idea isn't a mainstream idea and would direct deserved scrutiny on the man himself rather than raising "transreal number" to the level of a Wikipedia article. —Ben FrantzDale 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possible redirect to clarification on another page, such as NaN or James Anderson (computer scientist) Since when did Wikipedia only include true or uncontested theories? I came to this page b/c I read the BBC article and knew it was unreliable. I wanted to see something on WP that addressed the issue in a fair, unbiased way. I was glad that there was an article here, but if WP consensus is that Anderson's concept shouldn't be dignified by a full article, that's fine. Just have something here (i.e., a redirect) so people who've heard about the concept in the media can get the full story. Evan Donovan 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've misunderstood our Wikipedia:No original research policy. A theory that has been proposed by one person or group, and that has gained no traction in the world at large, having not been acknowledged by anyone else (either supporting or contesting it) outside of its creator(s)/proponent(s), does not belong in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia must have gone through a process of fact checking, peer review, and acceptance into the corpus of human knowledge.

      This is certainly true of Anderson's "perspex machine". You argue that Wikipedia should have a fair and unbiased article on the subject. Please think that argument through. Wikipedia is not magic. There is no way to have a fair and unbiased article on a subject when the only person to have ever properly written and published works about it is its creator and proponent.

      Similarly, there is no way for Wikipedia to magically have a reliable article on something where the source is, in your very own word, "unreliable".

      "transreal numbers" and "nullity" have been contested and discussed by people other than Anderson. But only very weakly and badly. Most of the sources are unreliable, being pseudonymous web log postings of unknown provenance. Only Daniel Firth did the right thing. Uncle G 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlike the case of the Perspex machine (AfD discussion), there are people other than James Anderson that have discussed "nullity" and "transreal numbers". However, they have not discussed them standalone. They have only ever discussed them in conjunction with Anderson xyrself. James Anderson (computer scientist) and this article share the majority of their sources, notice. Wikipedia should reflect how the sources address subjects, and only discuss these ideas in the context of discussing their creator. Merge with James Anderson (computer scientist). Uncle G 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dante-kun: the concept is nonsense, but there should be an article to discuss the fact that it is nonsense, especially since plenty of non-mathematical people will want to learn about this and what it is (a hoax or a mistake). CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that there are no reliable sources that assert that it is nonsense. Only Daniel Firth has actually tried to address this properly, and xe hasn't finished yet. Most of the discussion is by pseudonymous people, who cannot be traced, writing on web logs, and a lot of that discussion is, moreover, wrong. (One pseudonymous web log posting that I read this morning tried to prove the system faulty by asserting that in the transreals it could be proven that . The proof was flawed, since it involved cancelling with to yield , something which the transreal axioms don't allow.) The fact that pseudonymous postings on web logs clearly haven't been fact checked or peer reviewed is why they are unacceptable sources.

      The only proper way to discuss this system of numbers is in the same way that the only reliable sources that we have discuss it: in the context of discussing James Anderson (computer scientist). Uncle G 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering. I have read the article and it has merits in Computer Science and Math .This is different than NaN. Computers stop calculating when a calculation results NaN. But in some cases the calculation can continue and can result in zero. I think the axioms are incomplete and by correcting or adding some more axioms (which will be rules for computers dealing with these situations), it can be a complete system useful in the future computer systems. This should definitely be linked to James Anderson (computer scientist), the original author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.40.35 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Computers do not "stop calculating when a calculation results NaN". To augment your Ph.D., please read our article on NaN, which explains this. Whether the article has merits is immaterial. We don't keep things because editors come along saying "I like it. I think that it has merit.". Please read our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, which are two of a several content policies that govern what we include and what we do not, and our Wikipedia:Notability guideline, which shows how we should include things that we don't have enough material on, from independent sources, for a standalone article (as is the case for this subject). Uncle G 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CRGreathouse. --Stlemur 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have a cleaned up version of James Anderson (computer scientist), please consider redirecting this article there if you voted keep. Nothing wrong with deleting this article either. We have the only article we need on the subject now. JeffBurdges 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I still feel that the two articles should remain seperate. One is a person, the other is a concept. Also, the James Anderson (computer scientist) article references this one to explain the concepts he has been developing. I'm still voting on keep.fintler 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regretably. Thanks to the Internet, this nonsensical concept has attracted enough attention to merit its own article. Phils 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'd like to also note that this was also deleted off of wiktionary as well. ---J.S (T/C) 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emephilia[edit]

Emephilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Likely hoax. Term gets no Ghits. Robotman1974 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely non-notable and probably made up, as there are no google hits and urbandictionary doesn't even have a definition. Jayden54 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources or hits and sounds like a hoax. TSO1D 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; also, creator's first (and only) edit, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all FirefoxMan 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four Sources on deviantart ALONE:

http://the-life-in-me.deviantart.com/ http://xshedevilx.deviantart.com/ http://Emevas.deviantart.com/ http://saccharin.deviantart.com How is a fettish, no matter how obscure a hoax? Like a phobia, it can be just about anything. If you so desire me to, I'll make more edits, assuming that makes me a "Credible" wikipedia user. Look at the above reasons for deletion: "Per above"?, "Hoaxallicous"? How is that a valid arguement? Let's be open minded people. -XKrozz 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rectifying My Arguement: Why would someone create four separate profiles located at different parts of the world, with completely different personalities, styles, AND Mediums? View my above sources and examine their vast differeces. People just don't spend 2+ years on the largest online art community to conjure a hoax, that's just absurd. And if "Urban dictionary" is your #1 resource, then so be it, I'll create an entry. -XKrozz 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note: would have been deleted if WP:PROD used per nominator's reasoning. —Doug Bell talk 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts in Denmark[edit]

List of concerts in Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Not Enough content to be worthwhile. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete linkspam - nonnotable act names are linked to either defunct "official" sites or nondefunct myspace.com sites. B.Wind 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Steel 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia[edit]

Criticism of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article appears to be a content fork. Article appears to be a catch all for criticism of Wikipedia and does not establish that said criticism is a phenomenon that is itself notable for inclusion as an article. Additionally this article is redundant to Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and the information collected in this article could be merged into those projects. Deleting this article should not be considered censorship as a majority of the properly cited material could be condensed and included in the Wikipedia article. The rest should go to the project space articles. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - until the merge actually does occur, the article does need to stick around. Dstanfor 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as per Dstanfor. The suite of articles "Wikipedia:Replies to common objections", "Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great", and "Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great" are all worse for style, content, OR, and POV. Wikipedia:Criticisms is a list, and I thought we weren't supposed to do those. MARussellPESE 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is different from the above mentioned projects in that this is in article space and not Wikipedia space. Criticism of Wikipedia is the topic of enough news reports to establish notability. CovenantD 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep until merge is completed. News 92.3 TTV/620 TTV/860 TTV 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason I'd vote to delete a Praise of Wikipedia article: WP:SELF. Danny Lilithborne 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability of "Criticism of Wikipedia" is shown by multiple independent and reliable sources with articles devoted to the subject. Interesting and useful article. This is a good article; Wikipedia:Criticisms, appears to be just a collection of copyvios strung together. Edison 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- This article is very important to Wikipedia, especially as Wikipedia gains popularity. Arbiteroftruth 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we're notable, and often criticized. I wouldn't merge with Wikipedia; I would support a more balanced presentation where both praise and criticism are included, so this is less POV-ish. But I would start with the current article. --EngineerScotty 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable by any standard and mentioned by Jimbo himself as an excellent article. Criticisms of Wikipedia appear often in the media and should be discussed in depth on the encyclopedia. I can't think of any possible justification for deleting this valuable and informative article. Casey Abell 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the criticisms are verifiable, exist in reliable sources, and can be expressed in an NPOV manner; no problem keeping this. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I do like the idea of a Praise of Wikipedia article. ISD 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wikipedia:Criticisms and soft redirect (or redirect to Wikipedia and create a link from there). Not mainspace material per WP:COI, WP:ASR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we allow criticism articles on many subjects, but not Wikipedia itself? Please Wikipedia, learn to accept and deal with criticism.... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering almost everyone here supports keeping the article it is safe to say that Wikipedia has learned to deal with criticism. A few people wanting to delete this says little about Wikipedia as a whole. --67.68.154.80 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about allowing criticism of Wikipedia, it's about avoiding content forks for the purpose of avoiding WP:NPOV. This is in line with the WP:POVFORK policy. Wikipedia already acknowledges its shortcommings in the project space. A good question to ask to determine if a criticism article is appropriate for inclusion would be: Is this a subject that would be taught on an academic level at an institution of higher learning? —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd usually say this is clearly project-namespace material, but one look at mainstream media says Wikipedia is frequently loved... and hated. Wikipedia praising and bashing have been clearly shown to be good hobbies for prominent public figures. And no matter the topic, the negative critique is always louder. The present arrangement is adequate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - To Wikipedia. The article inherently takes the view of negativity. Praise of Wikipedia is equally troublesome. For every article that has enough information on it, should we just create two separate articles? Good things about the subject and Bad things about the subject? I am in favor of criticism being fully integrated into articles, even preferably not even in its own "Criticisms" section. These "Criticism of..." articles are like roping off a section of the Wikipedia article space where NPOV doesn't apply. Wickethewok 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the more extensive views on subjects should be in a single article which combines negative criticism and praise into something like "Perception of..." or a title that doesn't suck. Wickethewok 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV does apply to "Criticism of..." articles. Such an article should report each notable criticism without adopting, and should also report notable responses to the criticisms. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. --- RockMFR 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This page among the others has nearly the same content. I suggest merging.--PrestonH 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt would be wrong to delete an article on such a subject, even if it partially overlaps other criticism. That we removed such an article would be the strongest criticism of all, and I think it would become known to our disadvantage. If we deleted it, we'd deserve the negative publicity. DGG 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanupRaveenS 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is already too long, this can't be merged. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would bend over backward to keep an article hostile to the project, but here no bending is required. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ---J.S (T/C) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 7 (UK)[edit]

Celebrity Big Brother 7 (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article has no verifiable information that isn't already in Big Brother (UK), and everything else is unsourced speculation. JDtalk 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - This is a confirmed future event, like a World Cup or the Olympics. Channel 4 has confirmed the show will begin in January although the article sites no resources and is mostly speculation as to the contestants. Could do with a cleanup? (Apex204 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Delete It is known that the television programme exists, but until details are released the article is otherwise mere speculation.--Anthony.bradbury 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete... although I agree with the reasons for deletion at the moment, it will be on soon. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- there will be a vast quantity of rumours about contestants etc. until final announcements are made. Even if supported by references all information posted to this page will be highly speculative. Until Ch 4 have announced specific details of the next showm this article is a minefield- huge problems with WP:OR snf WP:V.-WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Well I have edited it, made it abit more realiable with sources and more content. I will add more accurate information. It does start in a month, however similiar to what fansites do you build up a page before the big launch, that way everyone is not ramping in trying to make changes it's their. (Coreix 01:18, 09 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep - Following the edits to the article, including proper references, I withdraw my above opinion. It imparts information about a confirmed future event. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am also changing from a weak delete to a weak keep for the same reasons as WJBscribe. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep in this case, per above. In three weeks or so, the new series will start and this article will be needed. The article now contains some verifiable information such as the Big Brother eye, and the whole article is referenced as far as possible. — FireFox (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2006
  • Keep of course. It's a good idea to split it off the main article. It's happening so no point in deleting. --Majorly 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Apex204. FireSpike Editor Review! 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Apex204 - agree it needs a cleanup and perhaps some stronger referencing but I don't feel it breaches wiki policy particularly in comparison to future sporting events or similar where speculation on participants and winners is commonplace and generally agreed to be acceptable. --86.27.48.237 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable band. —Doug Bell talk 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptic[edit]

Kryptic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This band may not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. ➥the Epopt 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - According to the article they've got three albums, which means they pass WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just having three albums is not enough. To qualify under WP:MUSIC by number of albums, an artist must have at least two albums released on a major or significant independent label. None of the record labels that this band is associated with has an article in Wikipedia, and one of those labels was founded by the band itself. That said, the group may qualify under some other WP:MUSIC criterion, and I may reconsider if evidence of that is found. --Metropolitan90 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While they have released a number of records, none qualify them under WP:MUSIC. This may change, and if so the article can be recreated. They can fill out all of the red links at the same time!--Anthony.bradbury 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article claims that the band pioneered the hip-rock genre, which would make it notable. However, there isn't an article for hip-rock. If a (reliable) source can be found for the statement, then keep. ShadowHalo 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "sold over 25 records worldwide"? add three zeroes, then maybe... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per CSD A7. Yeah, I know. Slowest speedy delete ever. ---J.S (T/C) 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Shao Fu[edit]

Zhang Shao Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable biographical stub who has 2 unique hits on google and whose only source comes from a user posted martial arts video. Abstrakt 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Delete for above reasons. Abstrakt 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable (fails WP:BIO). Jayden54 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability, unless it's being an octagenarian martial arts master. B.Wind 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildcat Tales[edit]

The Wildcat Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- CSDA7: non-notable student newspaper. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't seem notable and I can't find anything noteworthy about this high school newspaper. Jayden54 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not asserted for this article. Hello32020 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero notability. If this didn't come up in the research for the featured article, Plano Senior High School, then it can't be notable. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think its need more INFO is needed a littel week, BUIT you are to a good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, should be mentioned in school article at best. --Kinu t/c 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources. -- Satori Son 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep; No one is actually proposing deletion and if the other title is proven to be correct, then that's a move issue that needs not to be discussed in AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (film)[edit]

The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- the title of the film is actually just "Nicholas Nickleby" for which there is no page. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. IMDB lists it as "The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby". --DDG 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per DDG above. Jayden54 20:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspex machine[edit]

Perspex machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Rather on the edge theory, seems to be the work of a single group with some confrence publications, but few citations. Chief author covered by BBC and slashdot. Salix alba (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a valid theory about Hypercomputation. The fact that it isn't all that well written about and tested (which is hard to do with super turing computation) doesn't invalidate the theory. The theory about super turing / hypercomputation, is kinda vague and not very much spoken about. The theory about dividing by zero has little to do with this page. --Soyweiser 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too far over the edge with too few citations in the scientific, non-self-published literature. The more I read (from the "Book of Paragon" and elsewhere), the less I am enthused: The perspex can be understood in many ways. Mathematically, the perspex is a particular kind of matrix; concretely, it is simultaneously a physical shape, a physical motion, an artificial neuron, and an instruction for a machine that is more powerful than the Turing machine. [42] This article was created by users — Emilywinch (talk · contribs), Ben thomas (talk · contribs) and 86.135.152.222 (talk · contribs) — who never worked on any other page, except for spamming [43] [44] The same fellow claims to have found a way to divide by zero, which is to say the least underwhelming. Anville 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And also delete the article James Anderson (mathematician). Just another self-promoting crank and doesn't meet notability standards anyways. JoshuaZ 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Btw, Perspex is a British brand name for Plexiglas. Tubezone 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable self-published crankery. EdC 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. There are a number of legitimate confrence publications, J A D W Anderson : "Perspex Machine II: Visualisation", accepted for publication in Vision Geometry XIII Longin Jan Latecki, David M. Mount, Angela Y. Wu, Editors, Proceedings of the SPIE Vol. 5675, 112-123 (2005). SPIE is a respecible publication. Also participated in a workshop run by the BMVA (the primary computer vision society in the UK)[45]. So more protoscience and psudoscience. Take away the hype and apalling BBC reporting and there seems to be a legitimate computer vision aplication. However not sufficiently well know for wikipedia inclusion. --Salix alba (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conference proceedings are not peer-reviewed. It seems "Book of Paragon" is either a vanity press or a self-funded printing of Mr. Anderson's book. On another note, I prodded James Anderson (mathematician). Lunch 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy Dr Anderson managed to make BBC news with his ideas. So he is in the history books now. Which means people will go to wikipedia to get more info. I know I did – and it gave me the info I needed to conclude this was sofisticated nonsense. So the article served me a purpose. It can serve others to.--gnirre 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It didn't actually make "BBC news". There was an article in the Berkshire local edition. It's a feel-good piece about "looky what our hometown guy can do". It also doesn't even mention the perspex machine, the subject of this AFD. Lunch 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also made it to reddit (albeit in a critical manner) so this article has been widely read. 134.226.1.194 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Changing my mind, Dr Anderson and Perspex machine are more properly covered in the Transreal number article. --gnirre 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and debunk this whole idea so people who research it can find out what it REALLY is. - Stoph 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. No reliable sources other than BBC news. Any publication with over 5000 volumes (Proceedings of the SPIE) is not likely to be peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep as a critical article of the theory properly rewritten, should not be deleted as it is now public knowledge of sorts considering the widely read BBC article, wikipedia should provide an explanation and critical analysis for it's interested users. 134.226.1.194 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. linas 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. -- The Anome 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notion of someone justifying division by zero is too entertaining to wipe out. It should be kept, with appropriate warning regarding nonsense content, in a category similar to "intelligent design" or Father Christmas. The fact that the author is a university lecturer and has obtained a grant for a student (http://www.bookofparagon.com/News/News_00011.htm) to work on this for three years makes it all the funnier - and sad at the same time: imagine you're the student, putting in three years of your life into investigating fairies! Dn23 09:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep read the paper, jeez fintler 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is an argument for keeping why? JoshuaZ 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable theory make. Missed WP:OR and WP:RS. After publication in a respectable journal, the story may well change. Inner Earth 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I disagree with the proposed deletion; we are talking here about a respected and very well qualified academic from a respectable university. He has released precode and will release experimental code in early 2007. Things like this should not be deleted merely because they offend someone's mathematical sensibilities.213.192.200.2 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Wait until it's established. Dr Zak 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, unsourced. --Craig Stuntz 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to think this isn't nonsense. Rljacobson 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comment above that a paper on perspex algebra has been published in a well known journal. Most of the delete comments are based on a claim of no peer-reviewed articles, but the aforementioned one appears to be valid. Certainly his perspex-related work comes across somewhat crank-like, but the author does have non-perspex publications in mainstream journals, suggesting that at least a short page on the subject is warranted. digfarenough (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(comments below copied from the AFD for transreal number)
    • Comment. ISI Web of Knowledge reports this paper has been cited zero times. Google scholar reports three citations -- two are from the author. "Perspex machine" doesn't seem to give results on any relevant database (aside from Anderson's stuff). Even the arXiv fails to give results. I also wonder why this paper was published in the biological division of Philosophical Transactions. Seeing as how the paper was published in 1997, there has been ample time to drum up attention. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the above claims. shotwell 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add a little bit, the Philosophical Transactions publishes three kinds of articles: review articles, articles in a "themed" issue, and conference proceedings. The article cited above comes from conference proceedings and was not peer-reviewed. For those without access to the abstracts, here it is:
This paper introduces perspex algebra which is being developed as a common representation of geometrical knowledge. A perspex can currently be interpreted in one of four ways. First, the algebraic perspex is a generalization of matrices, it provides the most general representation for all of the interpretations of a perspex. The algebraic perspex can be used to describe arbitrary sets of coordinates. The remaining three interpretations of the perspex are all related to square matrices and operate in a Euclidean model of projective space-time, called perspex space. Perspex space differs from the usual Euclidean model of projective space in that it contains the point at nullity. It is argued that the point at nullity is necessary for a consistent account of perspective in top-down vision. Second, the geometric perspex is a simplex in perspex space. It can be used as a primitive building block for shapes, or as a way of recording landmarks on shapes. Third, the transformational perspex describes linear transformations in perspex space that provide the affine and perspective transformations in space-time. It can be used to match a prototype shape to an image, even in so called 'accidental' views where the depth of an object disappears from view, or an object stays in the same place across time. Fourth, the parametric perspex describes the geometric and transformational perspexes in terms of parameters that are related to everyday English descriptions. The parametric perspex can be used to obtain both continuous and categorical perception of objects. The paper ends with a discussion of issues related to using a perspex to describe logic.
Like Slotwell said above, that this is in a biology journal smells funny, too. Lunch 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so funny when you read the title of the volume Knowledge-based Vision in Man and Machine. --Salix alba (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable idea that lacks credible sources. Thanks to Lunch for posting my comment from the transreal discussion. I would further point out that matrices were generalized quite some time ago. shotwell 02:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not notable enough. For mathematics, we require reliable sources in books, journals, etc. All I see here is a couple of articles by the same author with no subsequent work by others. If we created Wikipedia entries for anything written by someone in some conference proceedings, we would be drowning in crap, and I don't think Wikipedia is that bad yet. (slightly modified comment I made on afd for transreal number) --C S (Talk) 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement I am the James Anderson who developed the perspex machine and transreal arithmetic. I will make a short personal statement and then give some verifiable facts.

    Statement: I did not initiate, nor induce anyone to initiate, any article currently on Wikipedia. My talk page shows that I initiated an article to explain more about transreal numbers, but this was deleted because it was deemed to be a neologism. I have no view on whether or not the articles describing me or my research should be kept. I regard that as a matter for the Wikipedia community, which initiated these articles, to decide.

    Facts: My B.Sc. is in Experimental Psychology from Sussex University, England, and was awarded in 1980. My Ph.D. is from Reading University, England. The title of my Ph.D., awarded in 1992, is “Canonical Description of the Perspective Transformations.” All of my scientific papers were peer reviewed. Recent controversy sprang from an open day I attended at Highdown School, Berkshire. My talk was reported on BBC Radio Berkshire, BBC South Today (regional TV news), and BBC News 24 (Satellite TV). BBC Radio Berkshire is to allow me to reply to my critics on a radio show. The BBC intends to invite a professional mathematician to assist the radio presenter. I have forwarded to the BBC my papers showing how transreal arithmetic is performed as operations on fractions and axiomatically, as well as how transreal arithmetic extends to analysis. There are more papers on my personal web site that could be used to bolster claims in the various articles relating to me and my work.

    The perspex machine and transreal arithmetic has been simulated in software which is available on my personal web site. A version of the perspex machine has been implemented in FPGA. All of these versions implement digital and, therefore, Turing computable approximations to the machine and the arithmetic.

    The Transreal number article contains a number of historical inaccuracies and misinterpretations of my work, but is very much better informed than most commentary I have seen. If the article is kept I could contribute corrections to its talk page or direct to the article. Given the controversy this has provoked I am inclined to contribute to the talk page if the article is kept. James A.D.W. Anderson 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment to James Anderson. I appreciate your willingness to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines in not creating articles about yourself or your work, and suggesting that you will make suggestions on the talk pages. However, I don't see how a publication with over 6000 volumes can be peer-reviewed, nor do I believe that conference proceedings are usually peer-reviewed as to the importance of the subject, but only (at most) as to technical correctness. (Conference proceedings of math conferences, at least the ones I've participated in, are not peer-reviewed, but only copyedited. I'm being generous in assuming they're reviewed for technical correctness.) In other words, if I renamed an obscure mathematical concept, and popularized it in computer science conferences and conference proceedings, I have no doubt the publication would be accepted. I'm not saying you've done that, but it certainly looks as if nullity and transreal are existing mathematical and computational concepts. I'm beginning to think that this article may be a keeper, after cleanup, but I believe we'd need more information, which you might be able to provide. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reviewing procedures are adapted to the circumstances of each field of scientific enquiry. Mathematics, which is a very mature subject, is notable for its very strong reviewing of journals which are, often, focused on very specific parts of mathematics. Mathematics conferences, by contrast, are well known for the low threshold of reviewing many of them adopt -- as you acknowledge. This suits the mathematics community. Conferences operate as workshops where new ideas can be aired and discussed with peers before too much effort is invested in formal development. Computer Science, by contrast, is a young and rapidly developing area of science. Journals have, traditionally, had lead times that would inhibit technological progress. Computer Science deals with this by having a range of conferences with varying degrees of peer review. The strongest of these, such as the three, blind, reviews used by ECAI, adopt levels of review comparable with the better journals. ECAI has published my work on the perspex machine. The point at issue, I would have thought, is that the perspex machine (and transreal arithmetic) have been subjected to the level of review appropriate to the scientific field, Computer Science, in which they are published.

        The work on transreal arithmetic, of which nullity forms a part, has been proved consistent by machine proof. This work was undertaken by an independent researcher at a different university from my own. And the machine proof has been examined at a third university. All agree that transreal arithmetic is consistent and contains real arithmetic as a proper subset.

        All of my scientific papers are available in paper form from the relevant copyright libraries and, in many cases, from the electronic databases of the publishing organisations. The papers that are on my web site are only a subset of the papers I have written – specifically, the subset for which I have copyright permission to reproduce. The copyright policies of many journals prevent self publication so the papers that appear on an author’s web site are necessarily skewed. This bias may disappear as electronic publishing takes hold -- but it is a bias that Wikipedians may profitably be aware of.

        In my, self-interested, view, my papers have been reviewed to the appropriate standards for my subject area. If you accept this, then the relevant test to apply is whether the material is sufficiently noteworthy, or sufficiently well accepted in society at large, to appear in Wikipedia.

        Wikepedians are, I am sure, familiar with the concept of flaming. Since the recent publicity surrounding my work I have been flamed in a number of electronic fora. But I have now received a handful of apologies from people after they have read my papers on transreal arithmetic. None of the hundred or so counter-proofs I have seen to my work are valid, except one, which exposed an error in the guarding clause of equation ten in the analysis paper. This error does not affect the validity of any of the material publicised in the media. Indeed, before making the public presentation, I had obtained a second proof of the 0^0 result using the transreal exponential and logarithm: 0^0 = e^(ln 0^0) = e^(0 ln 0) = e^(0 * -infinity) = e^nullity = nullity.) I invite you to consider whether this is consistent with your (informal) view of the exponential function at these extremes, and then reflect on whether it is valuable to have a total and consistent arithmetic. As a computer scientist I can tell you, for example, that a total and consistent arithmetic guarantees that all functions are differentiable, though I, personally, cannot find many of the differentials. But I can, for example, find the first differential of tan(theta) at theta = pi/2 using nothing more than the gradient formula and transreal arithmetic, along with knowledge of which order to compute end points in. Which I can easily obtain by examining the function in the neighbourhood of pi/2. (The gradient is –infinity.) I can also evaluate tan(pi/2) and obtain its unique numerical value at this point. (Nullity.) Thus, my total and consistent arithmetic supplies results where standard mathematics struggles or fails completely. I believe this work has now reached the level of maturity where it can, and should, be published in mathematical journals, and I will take steps to do so.

        On the issue of the size of the SPIE conferences, you will note that in a conference the number of peers is equal to the number of conference attendees. Of course, one wants academic peer review of scientific papers, but even here the number of academic peers is quite plausibly a constant factor of the number of attendees. Consider this case: in a conference of one million mathematicians each mathematician reviews three anonymised papers, other than his or her own. Three blind reviews have then been obtained for every mathematician at the conference. And this result would be the same in a conference of one billion or one trillion mathematicians. When it comes to peer review, size does not matter. James A.D.W. Anderson 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        • In claims of a mathematical concept, the relevant peer-review is that used in mathematics, which your papers have not been subject to. (And blind randomized peer reviews can fail miserably, even in the field of computer vision, as, if the reviewer does not understand the paper, he cannot say it's wrong.) This article might be allowable provided it makes no reference to mathematical concepts or concepts claimed to be mathematical. If that were the case, I'm not sufficiently familar with the peer-review concept as applied in CS to be sure the article fails Wikipedia requirements. Once mathematics enters the article, I am sufficiently familar with the mathematics involved to assert that it fails. And hypercomputing is a mathematical concept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dr. Anderson, you say that people at two other universities have reviewed (or reproduced or further studied) your work. Can you tell us who they are, or --- better yet --- tell us where they have published their separate results? Thanks. Lunch 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Leibniz 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep This cannot be OR, since it is based on published articles. Reporting & summarizing concepts in publishing material is exactly what we are supposed to do. I might be a little hesitent if JA had written the article, but since he did not, there is no problem about it. AR, you're in WP yourself as a notable mathematician & I do not want to second guess you, but WP is not an encyclopedia that refuses possibly notable topics until all the people in the field are certain--we're not a scientific review, and w are not judging for tenure. Good enough for WP. DGG 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being merely published is not enough. The ideas must have been fact checked, peer reviewed, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge. We don't include things that have yet to be acknowledged by anyone beyond their creators. If you want to show that this is not original research, show that Anderson's idea has been peer reviewed and acknowledged by other people apart from its creators. All that we have so far are papers that only Anderson has published on xyr own web site, or that have been published as non-reviewed conference proceedings. We have nothing else. Please find something and cite it. Uncle G 10:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To James Anderson (computer sceintist) which should explain that he is a crackpot. Authors are normaly takes as more notable than their contributions. Alternaticely, create an article on mathematics crackpots which talks about several notable ones and redirect all these articles there. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 11:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too cutting edge FirefoxMan 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources I have been able to find about this idea can be tracked back to its originator. This is not enough: I believe our articles should be adequately referenced. I imagine that if this idea is taken up by others then broader references will be forthcoming, and the article can be re-created without trouble. WMMartin 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SCHOOL. Fragglet 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked, and the only things that I can find written about the subject are James Anderson's mailing list postings, press releases from the University of Reading that are clearly sourced to James Anderson, and papers written by James Anderson. No-one else has written about it. Even in the recent discussions that have occurred on Internet, it has only been mentioned in passing, those mentions comprising nothing more than discussions of the name and comparisons to Orac. There is no evidence that Anderson's papers have been peer reviewed, and no evidence that the concept of a "perspex machine" (or even of a "perspex") has been acknowledged by anyone other than Anderson and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's Original research. His papers only reference the work of other papers by him and his colleagues. There appears to be no independent third-party peer review of his research. The mathematics community refutes all of his claims. Delete. 199.212.18.131 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If indeed James Anderson's concepts are pseudomath and/or an unoriginal rehash of ideas that have been used before, why not keep the article but specify the holes in the theory or the equivalencies that are claimed? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop a similar idea. The subjects pass notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. The subjects pass OR by merit of being verifiably published by third-parties. Treat it like Intelligent Design or Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pseudoscience, pseudoreligion, pseudomath. Oneismany 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia editors constructing a firsthand critique of the idea from whole cloth is original research, which our Wikipedia:No original research policy forbids. Including critiques of the idea requires that such critiques exist, in published sources outside of Wikipedia. But no such sources exist. Your assertion that there has been publication of stuff about this subject by third parties is wrong (please cite sources if you wish to demonstrate otherwise). Once again: The only person who has written anything at all about this subject is James Anderson xyrself.

      And, no the subject does not satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. Once again: The "ongoing public discussion" does not address this subject directly, only tangentially and in passing. There are no non-trivial published works, from reliable and independent sources, that cover the subject. In any case, the overwhelming majority of the public discussion is by unreliable sources (e.g. people posting on web logs under pseudonyms).

      To make a case for treating this like Intelligent Design, you need to cite as many good sources as can be found in Intelligent Design#Notes_and_references. Intelligent Design even has books that address the subject, you'll notice. You haven't cited any sources at all to demonstrate that your suggestion is workable. Uncle G 10:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We have a cleaned up version of James Anderson (computer scientist), please consider redirecting this article there if you voted keep. Nothing wrong with deleting this article either. We have the only article we need on the subject now. JeffBurdges 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Phils 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime TV ratings[edit]

Daytime TV ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I think this pretty much embodies what Wikipedia is not. It's a mere list of statistics, with no source, which has been linked to almost all of the soap opera articles. Ratings history is already covered in the separate articles on soap opera series. Delete. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete iff not vastly improved. Lacks the most basic of citations, is simultaneously too comprehensive and not comprehensive at all, and no matter what, the weekly ratings have to go. --Golbez 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: Ratings History on the vast majority of pages are terribly vague that one does NOT get an accurate view of how a particular show(s) performed/perform. The Daytime TV ratings page should NOT be deleted. It provides necessary info on shows that are watched by about 30 million DAILY. If and when this page is deleted (which I hope does NOT happen), then the RATINGS HISTORY pages on ALL daytime dramas MUST be edited to give a more accurate & honest view on their ratings performances. The source is Nielsen Media. STRONG KEEP! Yrgh 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)User:yrgh
I think you're missing it. We need to see actual sources from Nielsen Media. Saying Nielsen did it is not enough. How can we verify it if there's nothing for us to match it to? I think you also missed the point about statistics not being allowed on Wikipedia if that's the entire content of the article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Golbez. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a useful page. We should note that the vociferous editor in favour of keeping the article is the one who largely created it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I noticed this a while ago, and thought to myself that this page was quite unnecessary. Although I suppose that it's nice to have all the ratings on one page, it's not exactly a Wikipedia page. It's also sourceless. The information would be better used on each individual show's page; although it creates more work, it's better and more encyclopedic (and probably cleaner) to have it that way. SKS2K6 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Thru Jesus[edit]

Drive Thru Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable album by non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Gets only 25 distinct Google hits, by the way[46]. And the release date is probably a mistake... Fram 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Does anyone even know where that review's from?) Quack 688 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable band Supersean 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine and Merge with Backyard Galaxy, although that article appears pretty weak for notability as well. As it stands, this article reads like an ad for the album. The review seems to be pieced together from various bits on this page: [47], some of which is written by one of the band members, so a clear violation of NPOV there. As an unsourced text dump, this "review" should probably be deleted outright. Also, according to the infobox, this CD hasn't even been released yet... that can't possibly be right. -- Antepenultimate 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article has a single reliable source and contains original research. This decision is without prejudice to creating an article discussing outside views and debate on this issue instead of presenting the outside views and debate, if properly sourced, neutral, and without original research. —Doug Bell talk 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien and racism[edit]

Tolkien and racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is supposed to be about how some people want to see racism in Tolkien's writings, or in Tolkien himself. Notably the article is not at all clear on this. It is filled with original research, opinion, weasel words, and utter nonsense. -- Jordi·✆ 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons given above. -- Jordi·✆ 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator. This article is pretty much one big NPOV problem. Jayden54 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Belongs in a blog entry, not an encyclopedia Noclip 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be honest - I attempted to give this article a clear up a while back, trying to encourage those who had created it to citesome sources. No such luck, mostly because it is mostly generalised points with little basis. It's really a problem of NPOV but also of Original Research. Seems best to delete, with any vaguely related points put into the Tolkien/LOTR articles. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — irredeemable personal essay filled with original research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Epopt (talk • contribs).
  • Keep and cleanup - The controversy has existed for years and still exists (it is even addressed as an issue in a Tolkien FAQ [which is FREQUENTLY Asked Questions]), no matter whether we are hearing it for the first time or not. Read about the paragraph about the Italian phascist party with links and sources. If you still think this is about 'some people want to see it', then half of Wikipedia should be deleted Pictureuploader 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has already gone through unsuccesful cleanup attempts multiple times, without any improvement. My major problems with it are:
      1. Verifyability. Most of the content is unverifyable and contains weasel words.
      2. Unclear scope. Is this about Tolkien being racist, allegedly racist messages in Tolkien's fiction, racists abusing the fiction for ther own purposes, or all of these?
    • The "Views" section of Tolkien article expresses in a few words what this entire article has not managed to do since its creation in March 2005 despite numerous revisions. -- Jordi·✆ 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the fact that it does have "for and against" sections, and some sections have references, mean that it is salvageable, after the unfounded claims are removed and the tone is changed. (Hmm... and now that you mention it, the fact that Italian fascists are using these claims to promote some sort of agenda does make it sorta notable.) Quack 688 12:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - interesting, if questionable, subject matter, needs someone to totally overhaul it though. Thedreamdied 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator and Noclip, the entire article simply seems to express someone (or a small group of editors') POV and uses a handful of un-notable essays to back the claim up, but such could be used to back any claim up. More to the point though, it is a discussion which belongs in a blog or on someone's website, not on Wikipedia. Also, most of the few statements with references then 'interpret' those references for the article, hence the statements are original research, not referenced statements. Canderra 15:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by POV? There are two large 'for' and 'against' sections. How can both express "some group of evil anti-Tolkien editors'" views? If you people gave it some time to read it, you'd see it's neutral.Pictureuploader 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire premise of the article appears to be just someone's (or a few peoples') POV, with nothing but a few circumstantial coincidences to back it up (most of which are off-topic anyway). The fact that others have contributed their own opposing POV doesn't make the article neutral, it just makes the article an editor POV "discussion"; a discussion which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's encyclopaedic form. Canderra 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can reassure you that editors have contributed to both opposing sections. There is no POV. No anti-Tolkienians here, nor Tolkienian apologists Pictureuploader 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way - the article's existence seems to be irellavent - there are many definative quotes of Tolkien's stance on racism - all of which show that he disagreed with it completely. The only "evidence" is speculation drawn from a book whose author expressly tells people not to take it allegorically. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is absolute rubbish. I would expect this kind of writing at an american liberal-arts college circa 1993 but not in wikipedia in the 21st century. L0b0t 16:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Bizarre original research essay, almost entirely unsourced, and the topic itself is fringe speculation and unencyclopedic. Dragomiloff 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Entire scope of article is projecting PC hermeneutics on author's intent and alleged beliefs. People have speculated Tolkien, as well as CS Lewis were writing allegories about Communism v. Capitalism, West v. East, Christianity v. Islam even when they were alive. Unredeemably POV and unencyclopedic. - WeniWidiWiki 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - Yeah, so it reads like a research paper tailored for people who know the work. So it needs to have many more sources cited and less biased language. But this article definitely serves a purpose by addressing a very hotly-debated issue in LOTR scholarship. Wikipedia would be incomplete without this article, if you ask me. This is an issue that deserves a wiki about it, and just because the person who started it wasn't some Wikipedia veteran doesn't mean that it's garbage that should be deleted. "Unredeemably POV and unencyclopedic" is a stretch - the organization is shitty but they have sources to back up a good bit of their claims - that source being the book and Tolkien themselves - and if it's unencyclopedic...well, this is a wiki. I'm guessing that a lot of encyclopedia writers are probably off somewhere writing encyclopedias and not worrying about entries for Wikipedia. This is risk associated with user-edited sites. The author provides several quotes directly from the book (both the text and the introductions) and there are also 2 sources listed, and at least that's a start. I urge someone to clean the article up instead of deleting it, because it needs to be here. It's a very valid criticism of Tolkien's work. There also seems to be a line of debate concerning what some see as people "projecting" racism onto this work, and I believe that someone is just in denial. It's hard to think that something you luuuuv could have such unredeemable qualities, but it's the nature of literary scholarship to leave interpretation to readers. That's how people get as much as they do out of writing. Also, I don't believe that a perceived projection of racism is even a valid argument against this article because history works against that. If it was just an issue of "people want(ing) to see racism in Tolkien's writings" then this debate would have ended decades ago. - Rashaun 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rewrite. I agree with Rashuan, approximately. This article is about an author important to so many of the WP editors that it is almost central to the WP. The question is real, because linguistic differences and their implied geographic and racial differences were very real to JRT--according to his own account, the work was generated to illustrate the languages. The work by its nature deals with these topics. There are two questions of course, racism as a component of JRT's thought, and racism as shown in LOTR.
So there is a real research question, but this article is no OR.I don't really think of it as a research paper-- it is selection of passages and comments, arranged in no particular order. There is a prevailing POV--the editor is anxious to deny the charge; but the presentation of the evidence is sufficient for the readers to draw their own conclusions.
There is a great deal more to be said, and much citable work has been done on the topics alluded to by this rather primitive list. But a compilation is the first step. Certainly the source in LOTR can be cited for each passage--but why? anyone likely to read this article should be able to find them by heart. I would additionally like to see sections on later interpretations of LOTR--there are some parts of the recent film trilogy where I think racism was accentuated more than necessary.
So keep it--I would love to have the time to do it properly, but I at least will add a few outside citations if it stays. DGG 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the worst that can be said then about JRRT is that he was a "racist" or "racialist" in the sense that he believed there as such a thing as "race"; but as Jensen on the Tolkien FAQ linked to in the article says, his writings look suspiciously racist but upon closer examination, they're benign. Every charge has a counter-example or refutation because these exist. One can believe in "race" and be against apartheid for its racially-based discrimination, as he was. 125.60.243.84 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One for the Kids (blink-182 album)[edit]

One for the Kids (blink-182 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article definitely needs to be deleted. I searched for Google hits about the new album and there has been no other evidence, that One for the Kids would be the title, other than the listed sources on this article. The title for the album is nothing but speculation, so this makes the title of the album a fake. Also, I looked at Google News and there has been no evidence about it too. Alex 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Articles have to have UNDENIABLE proof to delete them and a trustworthy source says that it's happening. If it is ever denied by the band or their representatives, THEN it should be deleted!Yankeesfan53 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP!***** Speculation is not reason enough to get rid of it. Yes most of this is hypothesis, but based on certain facts. This not complete BS, and the title doesn't matter. The fact is there may be a new album in 2007. And let's leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.213.232 (talk • contribs) - only contribution to Wikipedia
        • Delete: above two editors need to acquaint themselves with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. If it's not officially confirmed, it is speculation and must be excised from Wikipedia. B.Wind 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title for the new album is certainly not confirmed. Alex 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the title may not even be real. Jayden54 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Jayden. NeoJustin 21:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tom (of blink-182) said the title of the album will most likely be called "One for the Kids". It even says in the article: "On November 29th, 2006, in the KROQ Christmas issue, frontman Tom DeLonge has discussed the possiblity of a blink-182 reunion to make their very last album, entitled "One For The Kids"... - RYANonWIKIPEDIA
  • Merge and redirect to Blink-182, re-create when album is confirmed/released. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weakest delete, as weak as you can potentially get Very little, if anything is known about this album. If there is information from a notable source out there that cannot be refuted, then the article can simply be un-deleted with the correct information added. --Raderick 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a ham-handed way to do it, but it appear we have a source about the album coming up. Thus, it meets the WP:NOT standard. As it's guaranteed to be recreated shortly since we know it's coming, this seems awfully silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can honestly tell that a new album is not confirmed in any way, shape or form. They are still on hiatus, and Tom is still in Angels and Airwaves and Mark and Travis are still in (+44). A new blink-182 album is also not even confirmed on their official website. RaNcIdPuNkS 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tom himself both confirmed the title name and that he had talked to mark and travis about making this album.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.44.216 (talk • contribs) - only contribution to Wikipedia under this username
  • Delete - This is 100% fiction - notice there are ZERO sources, since of course blink-182 isn't reuniting. The longer this stays up the more ridiculous WP looks. GrahameS 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sources? Tom of blink-182 said it himself on a radio show!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RYANonWIKIPEDIA (talk • contribs)
      • Tom is no longer a member of blink 182, so whatever he says does not mean it's true. Punk-Lova 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not just keep it and just make sure it says that its a rumored album. Leave the part about the KROQ interview up. Screw you blink-haters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.125.88 (talk • contribs) - first Wikipedia contribution under this username
  • Comment - No one is "hating" on blink. There was no KROQ interview - that's the point. This is entirely made up.GrahameS 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No man, there was radio interview on kroq, no article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.123.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Really? Find a real source, not "punkbands.org". Sorry...but radio or article, it's still made up. GrahameS 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it's punkbands.com or I think you've ment punknews.org. Alex 22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it was punkbands.com. If you follow that link, they've removed the original story about this album - which was the only source for the rumour.GrahameS 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, where the articles are based on facts and not fiction or rumors. There is no source for this, it does not say anything about a new album on the official website, this is a bad joke. Punk-Lova 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxilicious. Riana 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C'mon, show me the sources, otherwise it's got to go bye-bye. Tubezone 11:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bauwens[edit]

Michel Bauwens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not notable - references point only to self-published, close or trivial blogs and web sites Backface 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abstain (I am the nominator). Perhaps someone can find sources. Delete Having gone through the first 5 pages of Google stuff, I have not been able to find any solid RS. The impressive sounding P2P Foundation appears to be a self-published web site and there is plenty of OR around this across the web. Bauwens appears to be an impressive self-publicist having attached his name to a concept of P2P and being interviewed and quoted on all sorts of NN blogs and the like. Apparently he formed some dot.coms in Belgium at some point, although these appear to be dead and are not named anywhere that I can find. He is an impressive but NN college prof. So on balance and in the absence of any good firm sources, I have changed my opinion to Delete. Happy to see it stay if someone finds good solid sources. --Backface 11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep 167,000 GHits. I would not like to see the article go without more convincing evidence of its irrelevance.--Anthony.bradbury 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I would not like to see the article stay without more convincing evidence of its relevance. Emeraude 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a well-known thinker among those who follow P2P developments (that's me). His works is widely read and cited (see the GHits). Also, even if it fails to develop, the P2P Foundation (and hence MB) are important first steps in the study of P2P. (BTW: which websites *aren't* self-published by some person or group?). --MarshallPoe 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Leibniz 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ForrestLane42 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42 - not a well-known person, just seems like piling on more of Wilber or Wilber-like crew, Wilber deserves a page because of his well-known writings. This guy is irrelevant.[reply]
  • Keep per User:MarshallPoe, and the following. Bauwens is supposed to have written the screenplay for "TechnoCalyps", a video that is listed at IMDB and seems notable, although Bauwens is not credited at imdb. He has eight mentions in searchable Amazon books, 47 on Google Scholar, and six on Google books. Here is Bauwens' bio from Integral Review[48].

    Michel Bauwens has played a major role in the digital revolution of his home country Belgium, where he is known as an internet pioneer. He created two dotcom companies, was (eBusiness) strategic director for the telecommunications company Belgacom, and 'European Manager of Thought Leadership' for the U.S. webconsultancy MarchFIRST. He co-produced the 3-hour TV documentary 'TechnoCalyps: the metaphysics of technology and the end of man', and co-edited two French-language books on the 'Anthropology of Digital Society', and was editor in chief of the Flemish digital magazine Wave. He now lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where he created the Foundation for P2P Alternatives (P2PFoundation.net). He taught the Anthropology of Digital Society for postgraduate students at ICHEC/St. Louis in Brussels, Belgium and related courses to Payap University and Chiang Mai University in Thailand. He can be contacted at [email protected]

    Furthermore, User:ForrestLane42 and User:Backface, both seeming single-purpose accounts of extremely recent vintage, have been working in tandem to nominate for deletion virtually all of the articles in the integral thought category. I wonder on what basis and with what familiarity with the subject User:ForrestLane42 says: "This guy is irrelevant." — goethean ॐ 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Rather off-topic comment: I really don't want to bang on about this here but Goethean's comments are not correct. I have no connection with ForrestLane42 and I certainly do not agree with his reasons for deletion above. I am a long-term reader, if not editor of wikipedia and an enthusiastic integralist. My interest here is to improve the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of Integral issues, much of which is currently quite poor. My chosen routes to doing so are by effective application of Wikipedia policy and the like so as to ensure that this area is addressed in an encylopedic manner and then beginning to improve the articles themselves. Much of these are not encyclopedic at the moment. Contrary to Geothean's statement, I support the inclusion of the vast majority of articles in the Integral Thought category, although many of them are not currently well-written. The few that I have proded are clear violations of notability. Anyway, this page is not about me, and I only write this to counter the comments above. I'll respond properly to these attacks elsewhere, if required. --Backface 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having said that, I am unsure that Goethean has provided any additional reliable for Michel Bauwens. None of the Amazon searchable books make non-trivial references, as far as I can see. Goethean's direction to a video on IMDB that Bauwens is "supposed to have written" (IMDB does not actually credit him) cannot be considered a reliable source. Ex-editorship of a magazine, minor teaching posts, a Foundation which appears to be a self-published web-site, dot.coms that cannot be sourced and a couple of other web-related jobs do not seem to create notability even in aggregate.
  • The Google video is posted by a close associate, James Burke, who is also listed on the 'who we are' of the p2pfoundation site. Integral Review is also problematic. Although it is a peer-reviewed, if minor, web journal (2 issues so far), Bauwens is listed as an editor of the first edition.
  • So after all that, I am still struggling to find any encylopedic, non-trivial, reliable sources for Michel Bauwens. As stated before, I am happy to see it stay if Goethean or others can find some. --Backface 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goethean. --Mallarme 07:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has some notability. Suggest review in a few years. Stompin' Tom 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tom - if you have some sources that lead you be understand that Bauwens has some notability, perhaps you can provide them. If not... --82.35.193.80 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —Doug Bell talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huld[edit]

Huld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - Insignificant charactrer in an epic saga doesn't need separate article Frater Xyzzy 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It may look insignificant after Frater Xyzzy's mass deletion of information on the page before he nominated it for deletion. I understand that characters from Norse mythology may be insignificant for some, but this character is notable for being involved in the murder of two legendary Swedish kings. Moreover, she is also notable for being an early attestation of the folklore that sleep paralysis was caused by witchcraft. The origin of this dispute was a debate on whether three lines merited a separate section for references, which could be seen on his talkpage before he deleted the discussion.--Berig 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huld as per Berig. I feel this AfD is a form of harassment by Frater Xyzzy, who has been serial tagging articles and then being uncivil and antagonistic when asked to explain. Furthermore, the editor stated that he was going to submit this entry for deletion as a form of retaliation. - WeniWidiWiki 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. My initial take when I saw the article was that it should simply be deleted. Rather than prod or AfD it, I tried to point out that every article needs a references section. All I got in return was abuse. Thus I went ahead and followed my initial instinct. Next time I won't even try to note how the article could be improved. If I find another 3 line article on a subject of minor importance with no visable sources, I'll simply nom it. Frater Xyzzy 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You insisted that the article lacked references, and when I pointed out that it named its source, you started arguing that a three-line article absoluted needed a separate section for references. As to who was abusive everyone can follow the discussion you deleted.--Berig 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, insignificant is subjective. Article conforms to wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Mallanox 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as long as we keep Vörnir separate. Both may reasonably be merged into larger articles (Völva, Jotun) though. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but the lengthy chunk of quoted text should be moved from the article to Wikisource. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if I don't support the systematic use of quotations in the original language (especially for prose passages; it's often useful for skaldic verses though). Sigo 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Leet. —Doug Bell talk 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lamez0r[edit]

Lamez0r (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- dictdef, nn/uncited neologism. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted this patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate pirate law[edit]

Proportionate pirate law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{nonsense}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case based on what I see on the talk page. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a valid cliche' found in film, and literature study books.NubianPrince 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless empirical evidence can be shown to its existence; a Google search yields NO hits. --Mhking 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a variant spelling of The Proportional Pirate Law which was previously deleted. There are no independent reliable sources for that, either; most of the Google hits refer to Wikipedia or its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cited a textbook which discussed it. I personally would prefer it to be included in a seperate article, for example, stormtrooper effect however, it seems to get deleted constantly. I reviewed the history, and it seems as if the inclusion of the topic included more information. Most of which was entirely POV. However, the POV part of the statement--most of which was gibberish--has been deleted. In essence, the article has been cleaned up. In fact, it now contains the same number of cites that the entire storm trooper effect article. Not to mention, the mention of the inverse ninja law which contains no citations, though it is also mentioned in the textbook I cited. Simply doing a google search does not eliminate the fact it meets WP:notability since it is discussed by independent sources. NubianPrince 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt per Metropolitan90. Danny Lilithborne 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons above. Fan-1967 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by someone else in the meantime. Sandstein 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiimo[edit]

Wiimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Silly neologism, WP:NFT, no pertinent Google hits. Speedy deletion contested. Sandstein 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as non-notable unreleased game. —Doug Bell talk 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Foodbelly[edit]

Unreleased non-notable game. If it becomes notable after it is released, we can re-create the article then. Andre (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Ar nDraiocht Fein. Subject of article fails WP:BIO tests. The material for merging is in the redirect page history. —Doug Bell talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison[edit]

Notability is not established. A few self-published books and a senior position in some Wiccan sect do not mean notability. No references other than from his sect Alex Bakharev 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The ordering of requested articles at WikiProject Neopaganism is completely arbitrary and depends only on where someone stuck it on the page. The fact that one Wikipedian requested the article does not make him "well-known". - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doing some Google and book searching turned up little beyond the fact that one book had been published. Barely nudges my personal Wikipedia Notability Meter™. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xyzzy. —Hanuman Das 01:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ar nDraiocht Fein. - WeniWidiWiki 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 non-self-published books, 2 more self-published, Archdruid of ADF, liturgist, lecturer, faculty member of Grey School, runs a Druidic center for a Grove with regular holiday ceremonies and other events. Notable. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Rosencomet is the creator of article, and who re-created this article after last deletion. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note on Note So? It says that right in the history. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note3 The point, I think, is that the article has already been deleted once, a factor to consider in the current process. This is, of course, a separate consideration, but I know I like to know these things when evaluating an article. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While probably notable in the small pond of Neo-druid groups, I don't think this article makes a case for notabilty in terms of a general encyclopedia. Isaac, for instance, as the *founder* of ADF *and* someone who has had a long-term, marked influence on the Neopagan community - in addition to authoring a number of books and being cited by numerous Neopagan and mainstream authors - has verifiable notability. However, there have been a number of other ADF leaders over the years. This article lacks *any* third-party sourcing. Without that verifiability, I really don't think the article as it now stands is up to WP:BIO standards. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. We've got projects out there to include all topics covered in other encyclopedias. He is covered in The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, on page 89. If you have signed up for a Google Books account, you can see the article there. GRBerry 04:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reference. I've added it. Rosencomet 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His position as head of ADF qualifies, IMO, as sufficiently notable. If people don't feel he's sufficiently notable, I'd prefer WeniWidiWiki's "merge" to a "delete." Septegram 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think merge is more the way to go as well. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would support a merge. However, what is kept and added to the ADF article will still need third-party sourcing. What I am concerned with in many of these Neopagan articles is not whether we know and like the people mentioned, but whether the information in the article can be sourced at a level that meets WP standards for inclusion. All the best, --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • p.s. - It does look like the above-linked book can be used as a source for some of the content. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahkila Magazine[edit]

Zahkila Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB, only about 4 Google hits(!), no external refs. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philong Huu Pham[edit]

Philong Huu Pham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Crap joke article. SmartGuy 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell talk 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in Lucknow, India[edit]

List of companies based in Lucknow, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded to include some worthwile information. Wikipedia is not a directory. Most of the companies mentioned in the article don't have their international/national/regional headquarters at Lucknow. utcursch | talk 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rearcross[edit]

Rearcross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Page just seems to be a long and winding ramble. All I can see that'd be salvageable is the opening sentence, which doesn't seem enough for an article. I am also nominating the following related page because it's just a building in Rearcross:

If the nom fails, I'd recommend pruning everything but the opening sentence of Rearcross, and redirecting Rearcross Hall. --DeLarge 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Oh my. Both of these pages read like a combination memoires/tourist brochure. But it does appear to be a real place and the article is sprinkled with (unsourced) information amongst the prose. Is Start Over an option? -- Antepenultimate 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Mountainrambler69, the primary contributer to both articles, has left a message on my talk page requesting their deletion (although he's not the original author, so he can't {{db-author}} it). He's also blanked the pages a couple of times since being alerted to the nomination. I've left a note explaining that he just needs to let the AfD run its course, but it looks like a straightforward delete now. --DeLarge 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too late for a speedy; so delete this! It's OR, if you wish to call it that. Nothing here could be saved. "Articles from memory" are not permitted here. B.Wind 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalku[edit]

Kalku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I've attached a source. Article no longer fails WP:V
  • Keep - only one reference, but the reference itself is loaded with sources. B.Wind 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenstead[edit]

Covenstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Transwiki, Merge, and Redirect. I have rewritten the article with information from the chapter, "The Covenstead" in the book Coven Craft. Given that covensteads merit an entire chapter in this book, I am sure that many other references are available. That's just the only one I happen to have on my shelf. Extremely verifiable. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep source attached, verified. Mallanox 03:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree w/ Mallanox, source that was added is still available on Amazon, so I'll take AdelaMae's word that it's in there and thus passing WP:V. Marcsin 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, as this appears to be a definition. Jkelly 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be expanded beyond a dicdef. Let's not be hasty. Mallanox 18:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Coven, devote energy to sourcing and improving Coven article. Transwiki to Wiktionary also appropriate. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki dicdef. B.Wind 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is clear, we already have meta pages on vandalism so we don't need this self-referential original research. Rather than revert yet more vandalism on the article (how original), I'm nuking it. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki vandalism[edit]

Wiki vandalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Not verified by any reliable sources. As far as I know, unverifiable - Google turns up, rather unsurprisingly, mostly us, other wikis, blogs and similar self-published net posts, which can't be used. It was probably inevitable that someone would create an article on this, given that we're on a wiki that's frequently vandalised; but before that we're an encyclopaedia, and the fact that it's a topic close to our hearts doesn't make verifiability any less negotiable. Delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-referential original research. I was sorely tempted to simply delete it. I guess Sam probably was as well. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into existing Wiki policy pages on the subject. -Husnock 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge what where? I didn't see anything that would add to the projectspace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Couldn't this be like a meta page or some kind of essay instead. It did have interesting information that applies to the Wikipedia community. The Mirror of the Sea 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have Wikipedia:Vandalism. This contains no additional information. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's been around for over a year, tagged since June for having no references, and still has nothing even approaching a reliable source. Filled with self-references and a vandalism magnet, that does no better a job of explaining the problem than our main wiki article. Delete, nothing here to merge to project space that hasn't been said already. -- nae'blis 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we're not going to see reliable secondary sources on this until there are reliable secondary sources on general topics like trolling or harassment online. This is also redundant per nom. --Quirex 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rud Mills[edit]

Alexander Rud Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - fails WP:V, notability not established, only sources seem to be geocities hosted personal sites Frater Xyzzy 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Mills is clearly a pivotal figure in Germanic neopaganism. I have moved a non geocities external link to the top of the list as you appear to have missed it. Also added a link to one of his books.--Hengest 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked one or the OR Australia guys to contribute to the article. They have probably done more research into Mills than anyone.--Hengest 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hengest. Mallanox 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be fleshed out further, but verifiable sources do exist for this man's work. - WeniWidiWiki 09:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as the re-awakening of Odinism this man is very important. He has inspired many a person. --Donvonmilikowski 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A good example of somebody who wasn't particularly notable during his lifetime but became influential after his death, primarily because of an essay he wrote on Norse religion. Has been cited in this context in some scholarly works e.g. Kaplan's Radical Religion in America. Dragomiloff 02:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Taylor[edit]

Robert N. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

delete - notability extremely dubious in light of lack of any sources beyond personal websites, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Changes (band). Mallanox 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Mallanox. However, Keep if someone expands the entry. If I recall correctly, there is quite a bit of material in print about "RN Taylor" for other reasons than his musical exploits. - WeniWidiWiki 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge as above. Has some minor level of noteriety for other reasons besides music, but probably not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Finding proper sources that pass WP:RS would also be an issue. Dragomiloff 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Changes (band) as its his primary claim to fame. Should his activity with the Minutemen rise to notability on its own, then this article can be recreated and expanded. B.Wind 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect and protect.--Húsönd 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoveStoned[edit]

LoveStoned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another unsourced article on a supposedly rumoured forthcoming single. I've redirected this to the appropriate album article three times, but every time I've been reverted without explanation or discussion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Round[edit]

Second Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is an unsourced article about an album that was originally scheduled for release in the summer of 2006, then scheduled for December 5, and now pushed back to March, 2007. The contents of the album are only rumored, and the only 'sources' I can find are blogs. Donald Albury 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:V. Tarret 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unsourced. Kimchi.sg 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there has been much talk about this album for months. User:Lilb1293. 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Much talk"... where? The article cites no sources, and we cannot mention things if they are reported only in the blogosphere. We can always re-create this article when the album is finally released and word of it is found in reliable sources. Kimchi.sg 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Your signature is broken - it needs to have the ending </tt> tag. Kimchi.sg 15:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also fails WP:NOT. The Wikipedia is not futurology. BlankVerse 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of this purported album on either the official Interscope or Tearria Mari site; so this is speculation at best. Delete.B.Wind 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderson (mathematician)[edit]

James Anderson (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. He's a staff member in the computer science department at the University of Reading. (He's not a professor.) Maybe somehow somewhere he's got some interesting research, but it sure doesn't seem like it merits an encyclopedia article just yet. So far he seems just to have a bunch of papers in conference proceedings (which, to clear up some confusion, are not reviewed). His list of publications (at his home page and at the University) doesn't list his dissertation; who knows what he's a doctor of. See also the AFD for perspex machine. Lunch 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) doesn't qualify one for an encyclopedia article, IMHO. There are lots of "current events" and "ideas going 'round the internet" that don't merit an encyclopedia article. Lunch 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the term professor has a different meaning in the UK from the USA, so not being a professor does not automatically make a person non-notable. Markb 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but it does put him one step lower on the ladder.

      Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: He is an "academic staff" member, which seems to be what the department is calling faculty. Conference proceedings are quite common in computer science and are perfectly respectable in some areas; you can't expect to translate your knowledge of credentials from some area of mathematics to a completely different field. Also, as pointed out, making "professor" is actually quite different (and harder) than at an American university; it really is a different kind of position. --C S (Talk) 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. - Stoph 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. --Soyweiser 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; one Slashdotted item of minor local news coverage isn't enough for WP:BIO. He has his own web site to explain his identity. --McGeddon 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is more than one news article, as of today. See the article. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His grants are neither plentiful or notable, his publications are not peer reviewed. This guy does not yet deserve an article. Carboneyes 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -Ahruman 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Alternatively, change (mathematician) to (Internet), and delete the redirect. There's no mathematics here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grandiose claims do not make a person notable. Fails WP:PROF but may pass WP:ICANSQUARETHECIRCLETOO!!!. shotwell 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN linas 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. TSO1D 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one mention in a news story does not confer notability. WP:PROF is the criterion which should apply here. -- The Anome 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. Narssarssuaq 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per nom, can't even use the WP:PROF as he doesn't qualify there!SkierRMH,07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some journalist just happened to believe he has solved something on the scale of Einstein or Newton. He has not. Any interest in this will go away soon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the interest goes away soon, delete after it has gone away, not before. Nothing worse than not being able to find at all in Wikipedia something that's all over the internet. maidden 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable. To reply some Keep: Wikipedia is not web space - Cate | Talk 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just the idea that this many people care to delete this article makes it notable, oh, and the media attention ;P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fintler (talk • contribs).
  • Keep The sources make their own argument for notability. Just because he may be known in history as a "one hit wonder" doesn't mean that one hit isn't notable. -Markeer 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Zé da Silva 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People asking for this to be deleted does not make it notable. This is not worthy of a bio. It may be in the future, but not yet (though I doubt it) JonGUK 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable person make. Inner Earth 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Marginal, though in my view over the line, establishment of notability. That he is also a vanity publisher has no bearing on it -- might be noted in criticism section. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable bio stub. Abstrakt 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the news now, let's wait two years to see if his name has any recognition value Dr Zak 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "This is all over the internet" is not a reason to keep it here - it seems to me that this is exactly what the original research policy is there to prevent. --Dmz5 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to James Anderson (computer scientist), defer deletion depending on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number. If the other two pages stay then I guess this should as well, but lets call a spade a spade, this guys a computer scientist not a mathematician. --Salix alba (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pierreback 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - WikiXan 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still in favor of a delete, even if the proposed Wikinews article actually becomes published, and even if Perspex machine and Transreal number are kept, but I would move to amend Salix alba's proposal to "rename, substitute, and excise redirect". He is not and has never been a mathematician, as far as anyone can tell. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After careful consideration of related backlinks such as transreal number and perspex machine, I voted delete on those articles, from which I have to conclude that Anderson is just not notable (possible merits of his work notwithstanding). So what remains as a reason for keeping this bio? The only thing I can see of is some minor Internet notoriety due to Slashdot (the BBC thing is not so convincing, as it was in a local edition). But being mentioned on Slashdot once is a dubious kind of notoriety. No backlinks (other than the ones I mentioned) exist, so I doubt it's any loss to just delete. --C S (Talk) 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to James Anderson (computer scientist) He is in no way shapre or form a mathematician. His training is in CS. I'd say redirect "Perspex machine" here and keep this article stating that "James Anderson is a math crackpot who asserts that a flawed version of NaN has major mathematical consequences." Alternaticely, create a "Mathematical crackpots" article which talks about the phenomenon and lists several "notable" ones; redirecting all articles to that one. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep marginal and rename to his actual job. not quite notable as a working academic biographical article, not quite notable as a crackpot, but together the two add up to more than nullity. there is a notable lesson here for academia--Mongreilf 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His training isn't even in CS, he's a psychology major. Jgrahamc 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Delete, largely per The Anome. WMMartin 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if just out of sympathy for him after reading the comments on the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml? There 98% of the comments demonstrated beyond doubt the writer had neither read Anderson’s paper, nor had the slightest clue as to the nature of axiomatic systems, that is, of mathematics itself. Whether Anderson’s definition of "nullity" is a truly useful improvement on IEEE’s “NaN” logic, is an open question – I don’t know. It is, however, a consistent axiomatic system, every bit as logical as anything else in mathematics. I don’t want him shut down by “truthyness” police lacking a clue about mathematics, but knowing that you "can't divide by zero" is the only true religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.34 (talk)
    • i'm not sure if it is a consistent axiomatic system. it may be, he claims it's been tested, but it hasn't been through the peer review process. it's now going through the review by internet process--Mongreilf 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that no-one above has actually said anything of the kind, that is a straw man argument. You appear to be conflating this discussion with the BBC web site. The issue being discussed here is whether this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per above comment. For some reason people seem to be personally attacking him. It doesn't seem that anyone has come up with anything proving him wrong, they just seem to want to call him a crackpot for no real reason other than to retain their own elitist/purity view of mathematics. fintler 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to changing my mind, but I don't see how he meets criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Is there some other guideline you'd suggest? Lunch 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the article for a new citation that goes towards satisfying WP:BIO. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a local BBC program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or if you're referring to the Reading Evening Post article, that comes from a newspaper with "a circulation of about 18,400" according to the Wikipedia article Reading Evening Post. Still local. Lunch 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The circulation is irrelevant. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. We don't, for example, exclude articles on obscure species of beetles just because only a few entomologists read the scientific journal articles that discuss them. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think anyone else agrees with you on this issue. Even so, your view is not specifically even up to the guideline level. Also, does this mean I would have been notable in 1975 because I was interviewed (for about 30 seconds each) on two local television stations (if they archived their news footage then, so we'd be able to verify). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:BIO agrees with me. It draws no line that delineates "local articles that don't count" as you are doing, and rightly so. There's a great deal of systemic bias that flows from such a notion. It is your "It's local, so it doesn't count." that people don't agree with. And the answer to your question is "No.", because, unlike you with those 30 seconds of interview, James Anderson has been the subject of several articles all of which comprise more than just a single paragraph. The PNC requires "non-trivial" published works, remember. "It's local." is not a valid rebuttal. The valid rebuttals would be that the published works were not from independent sources (e.g. they are re-hashes of press releases), that they were trivial (i.e. are not in-depth coverage), or that there was in fact no more than one single piece. Until yesterday, there was no more than the one single piece. That is no longer the case. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 199.212.18.131 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has other articles on frauds, like Sollog; it doesn't mean that we endorse their ideas. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that keeping entails endorsing ideas. People are saying he is just not so notable. Sollog appears to me to be much better known than James Anderson (mathematician). --C S (Talk) 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's had multiple articles written about him in the BBC. His pseudomath is not notable, but the media frenzy he's created around himself is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are local (Berkshire) BBC articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's irrelevant, as explained above. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you feel that local news coverage is sufficient for notability, fine, that's your opinion and obviously I can't change it. But if you are suggesting that somehow there's been major international (or even national) coverage on this man, you are grossly mistaken. If the BBC decides to pick this up as a national story, then I would be forced to agree there has been indeed a "media frenzy". --C S (Talk) 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are wrong to exclude published works just because they are not widely read. We don't do that for small towns or for obscure species of beetles, and we don't do it for people. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. If you could make a case that the published works are not from independent sources, or that they are not in-depth, or that there were not multiple works, then you would have a good argument. But you have not made such a case. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ungle G, as you may have guessed, I don't abide by your PNC. Notability has to do with importance/usefulness in my opinion, and in that way serves a constructive function. Your guideline is basically set up so that some Little League coach that gets local news coverage about rescuing a cat from a tree gets a Wikipedia bio. How does that further Wikipedia's mission? Nobody here is arguing that obscure species of beetles should not be covered, so you may want to consider why not in order to understand the nuances of the position being held here. --C S (Talk) 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion is wrong, and it is you that needs to consider and understand what notability and the PNC actually are. Importance is subjective. Notability is not subjective. Editors' personal evaluations of importance, including yours, are not the way to decide what to include in an encyclopaedia. Doing so would result in a mess very quickly, and basing your arguments upon your subjective opinion of what is important does not help Wikipedia at all.

      Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of whether my opinion is wrong and yours is right. And no, I didn't ignore the wording in your PNC. I say "your PNC", because despite your attempt to make it seem like your opinion is policy or a major guideline, it is not. If you are referring to the first bullet of a list in WP:BIO, then note that also part of the guideline is "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." (my emphasis) Not to mention that the guideline also states that this is not an exclusionary list, so it's not as if your PNC was not met, the article should be deleted. Insisting that "keep" and "delete" correspond to satisfying or not satisfying PNC is just your opinion; don't pretend otherwise.
        "Multiple" obviously means "more than one" and "non-trivial", interpreted by you here as "in-depth", can obviously happen in any human interest story such as the one I mention. So it's not a straw man, but a valid example. For example, please look at Cat Rescued From Tree] and explain why it is not "in-depth". In terms of "multiple", i.e. more than one, with Anderson, I see two independent sources, the local BBC station and the Reading Evening Post. The only aspect of your arguments so far, that I can see is valid is that here we have more coverage than in the "cat in tree" case. "more coverage" here means one more source. But I would think this is a pretty borderline case. If you're going to say "here we have two sources, whereas you have only one". Then that's a weak argument, in my opinion. --C S (Talk) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, I do not consider that Wikinews story a reliable source here, especially for notability purposes. --C S (Talk) 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If indeed James Anderson's is a crackpot, why not keep the article but specify the holes in his theories? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop similar ideas. He passes notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. Oneismany 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Oneismany. —Ben FrantzDale 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites at least three published works (2 news articles by the BBC and 1 by the Reading Evening Post) from independent sources that talk about, in depth, this person and xyr presentation of xyr "nullity" idea to schoolchildren. The Wikinews story, documenting the ensuing reaction, is a fourth. The WP:BIO criteria, in particular the PNC, are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G7. This would be RfD material ordinarily. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical URL[edit]

Logical URL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I created this to redirect to Semantic URL but then realized that a Logical URL is by no means necessarily semantic.

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Broyles[edit]

Will Broyles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Google test = zero hits. Penguin, his supposed publisher, has nothing at all on him. Article creater is Willb285 which appears to be a possible conflict of interest. Willb285 has already removed the AfD notice once. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a hoax. Only claim to notoriety has 0 G-hits. This kind of thing is what Proposed Deletion is for. StoptheDatabaseState 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the author removed the AfD notice immediately, it would stand to reason he would have removed the prod in which case it would go to AfD anyway. IrishGuy talk 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by my count, the author Willb285 and his IP 68.106.64.117 have blanked the AfD tag 15 times, and blanked this page another 10 times. A prod would have been useless. IrishGuy talk 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Problem[edit]

Mermaid Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Article contains only original research and trivial subject matter Goldfritha 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — not simply original research, but OR written "in universe" ➥the Epopt 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agent 86 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well-written, informative, and contains plenty of verifiable material with coherent references. It is not written "in-universe", and in fact goes to lengths to survey a wide-range of fictional universes. Which "universe", then is it in? Google shows that plenty of people discuss this concept using this term. If there are shortcomings in the article, they should be identified and corrected with some degree of precision. Dismissing the whole article as "original research" and sending it up for deletion is inappropriate. -- Shunpiker 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncyclopedia or keep. It's well-written, but I am wondering whether the article is a joke or not. If it is, then Uncyclopedia is the obvious location. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither "well-written" or "interesting" are encyclopedic criteria. If anything, what little encyclopedic information therein could easily be contained in a line or two in the main mermaid article. Agent 86 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Calling something "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" may be useful shorthand when there's no controversy, but doesn't help much when there is. Please be specific about why you think the content of this article fails the criteria for inclusion (WP:N). I think the wide range of references (films, television, songs, books) are more than adequate to prove notability in this case. Just because "well-written" is not encyclopedic criteria, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't give pause when considering deletion. Writing an article well takes time and thought. Deletion is rather easier. If articles are more thoughtful than the deletions that efface them, wikipedia loses something. -- Shunpiker 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it doesn't have a wide range of references to the "Mermaid Problem." It has a wide range of references some of which might be taken as references to the "Mermaid Problem." Goldfritha 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:OR refers to. Recury 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is exactly the sort of thing that WP:OR does NOT refer to. It doesn't "advance a position" or present a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It doesn't fit any of the categories listed in WP:OR. It's a bit trivial, sure, but not enough for deletion. --Sneftel 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is too! Recury 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I think about it, just having given it a specific title might represent OR. Hmm. --Sneftel 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, my "Is too" argument worked. I might have to use that one more often. Recury 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The first part is an introduction and should be rewritten. The second section, "Examples of Humor", make references to where the problem has come up in popular fiction. Val42 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- OR and its only reference is to a web comic--SUIT 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It makes many other references to non-web resources, though these aren't called out as such. -- Shunpiker 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable neologism violating WP:NOT and lacking sufficient support under WP:RS. Also WP:BALLS. Morton devonshire 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems to have some OR, but lots (if not most) of it isn't, as said earlier it does need references, and the original reasearch has to be removed. I agree with what Val42 has said. Pro bug catcher 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Number of actual sources in article: clean zero. Uncyclopedia will give this article a loving home. Weregerbil 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly not OR--there seems to be an impression that compiling a few obvious passage is research, which it is not. There's more to say and a good many related plot elements. Sex with aliens has been the subject of at least one anthology. I agree on cutting a good deal of the first section. Maybe the AfD publicity will atttract some further examples and analogs.DGG 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewriting is pretty badly needed, as this article is very unorganized, however, the article itself is describing an unusual literary phenomenom that is at least interesting to the several dozen authors cited. The article looks like it can be cleaned up and it needs to, as right now it consists of stating the concept and then giving example after example, without going into any real depth. EvilCouch 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unsourced, it's an analysis... and therefore, it's original research. Interpretations without referencing is by definition WP:OR. Delete. B.Wind 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_7&oldid=1081094927"