The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Alesis page linked to the Alesis_Andromeda page which hadn't been created yet, so I created it. After which I realised it should really be called the Andromeda A6 page, since Alesis is the company and the Andromeda A6 is the correct name of the instrument, so I copied it there, of course not realising that I couldn't get rid of the original Alesis Andromeda page. Basically: attack of the newb. sorry ;) Vespine 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Jdavidb. Closing because A. This is under DRV now, B. Unless I'm misreading, *community* (vs. new anon) consensus supports deletion, and C. Guidelines clearly support deletion. I'm sure this won't be uncontroversial, but DRV can elect to relist this if they feel it's best. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously {{prod}}ed with the reason: Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary (from User:JiFish). "Quailtards" isn't "Truthiness" (from User:CrypticBacon. This term is not widespead enough for inclusion. Gets 5 google hits. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Actually it gets 6! google hits now...[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a one-time joke; not likely to ever be encyclopedic. --Allen 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. — TheKMantalk 00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes this different from every other Daily Show joke that will be forgotten by next week? Exactly. --Kinut/c 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I plan to introduce the phrase "wingless qualitards" as often as I can into future conversations, it's a single joke from a TV show -- on basic cable, no less. Delete. --Calton | Talk 11:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you thought it should be deleted, why isn't it still {{prod}}? Delete. r3m0ttalk 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bungopolis 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FYI, the article has been BoingBoing'd, which should explain the influx of unsigned votes. Kamek 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep it. Or is Wikipedia really so boring and its editors so literal??? --Michael.slavitch 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) User's first edit --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that BoingBoing outed this not to save quailtards, but to show that Wikipedia nannies are loons. You've already lost.
Delete per nom. Voting is being influenced by BoingBoing appearance. This is not significant. --Mysteriojack 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep nominations are likely sockpuppets. They aren't even signed.--Adam(talk) 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No need to delete it now. If it really is as transient as the 'Delete' voters claim, it can be deleted in a few months. But I've observed several people "in the wild" using it, so it might actually be a lasting word. --Brouhaha 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its not encyclopedia worthy, its a temporary word that isn't even central to the Cheney hunting controversy. But it is probably not worth trying to fight the newbies coming here from the BoingBoing article link to vote keep, I've seen this phenomenon before in relation to the Fark.com fad. --Ben Houston 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Michael Slavitch's comment. Mdahmus 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. But you'll probably have to redo this again anyway, given that BoingBoing is now going to be sending hordes to stuff the ballot box. I like BB, but I wish crowds' reactions were a bit more considered. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a friggin' pop culture manual. Daily Show is great, but this isn't a Daily Show wiki. — WCityMike (T | C) 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course you should keep it. Duh. --64.171.214.254 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Come on, it's not doing any harm. Lighten up. Pariah23 20:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- This very commotion will make Quailtard worth keeping. 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Funny and compelling...and likely to stick around. And besides, what the heck do you have against BoingBoing? I consult both your sites equally...
So this is where USENET net.kooks go to die. Michael Slavitch 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: all it takes is a BOING BOING notice to bring them out. --Calton | Talk 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have speeded this. I'm probably WP:IAR here, but I'm concerned that with a high-traffic site focusing attention here, there will be enough obstructive activity from folks coming in that this page will stick around too long and change the fact that there are presently on five Google hits. That would cause Wikipedia to be responsible (partially) for creating a new term, which in my opinion is a very damaging thing. (This is my answer to all of you folks who say things like "it's not doing any harm," which is a comment completely irrelevant to the purpose and rules of Wikipedia.) The article itself documents that the Daily Show created this word just this week. In my opinion, there is no way in the world that a "new term" created this week is presently notable. It should not be listed here until society is using it (and even then, we are not a dictionary). And we should be very, very careful to make sure we do not cause society to begin using it. For this reason, I felt somebody had to act quickly to delete this. Any admin may reverse my actions, and I won't complain, in which case count my vote as a definite delete. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late buddy. By your own actions you've just done it. Michael Slavitch 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on Deletion Review. If you don't like criteria for speedy deletion, don't invent your own, move to alter the criteria. — WCityMike (T | C) 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Considering this on deletion review is the right way to handle it. As I said, if you convince a single admin to recreate it, I'm cool with that and will let the community sort it out. Check out WP:IAR some time. It means we don't let the encylopedic quality of the project become a casuality to process. But it also means that if I IAR and some other admin disagrees, we default back to the existing process. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked out WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Both strike me as incredibly overly flexible clauses that allow anyone to circumvent rules at their whim. No offense to you. It's just I think you exercised very poor judgment in letting your personal opinion circumvent the right way to go about this. I agree with your end result, but not your means. — WCityMike (T | C) 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's cool. I agree that you are well within your rights to express your disagreement, to request review, etc. If you can convince any admin to give this a shot at AfD, I won't protest if they undo my actions. If you can convince Deletion Review to put it back, that'll be fine with me as well. I don't know how I can be any more amenable. Those policies are for precisely situations where we have to get to certain end results with certain means that are ordinarily proscribed. As for the possibility that WP:IAR might be overly flexible, if you don't like the policy, I suggest you move to have it altered. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few days. If you keep this up, you'll be forced to have a long entry. Michael Slavitch 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone. It is currently redirected to the incident it describes, and I don't see anything particularly bad about that. Cdcon 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a joke repository. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this appears to be a viable article to begin with, the actress in question has 1. no Google presence at all, 2. no entry on the German Wikipedia, and 3. some rather dubious credits ("Suck my dick" comes to mind). Ziggurat 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not verifiable. Mukadderat 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible to verify. Tagged as {{hoax}}, since it probably is. Feel free to remove if I'm wrong... --Kinut/c 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the titles that I checked appear on the Internet Movie Database (yes, including the one specifically mentioned by the nominator), but Marion Schwantes has no IMDb entry at all. If the films in a performer's filmography are listed by IMDb but not the performer himself/herself, either the performer is extremely non-notable or just a hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan --Ruby 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. TheRingess 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. Cnwb 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopediac; does not seem to be a notable business enterprise. It seems there is not a need to have an encyclopedia article for every realty office. Accurizer 00:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. Oliver Crow 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - page is Advertising. Page claims that Fusion03 is a secure application framework, but I can find no other reference to it. The linked external site appears to be a services company - Fusion 03 creative design, but there is no mention of an application framework product on their site. In any event this page is an example of Advertising. Oliver Crow 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to be dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I apologize. A good professor, but the article is just a resume without claims of notability. Professors are supposed to write articles. The question is how people evaluate them. Google search gives several dozen of various Jameses Crotties. If exclude most notorious ("James Crotty" -"american express" -"wildlife" -artist -photography), of remaining 300 unique google results I failed to find any third-party discussionss of the importance of this person besides various resumes. Mukadderat 00:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 76 hits on Google Scholar Dlyons493Talk 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he wrote a number of articles during his long life (as all professors do). Mukadderat 02:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Avalon 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criterion on WP:BIO explicitly states, "Is this person more notable than the average college professor?" Take your problem with this (deeply flawed, IMO) criterion to the relevant talk page; keep it off AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is mentioned by name for his economic ideas in publications like Business World and Journal of Economic Issues. Note: this isn't quoting one of his publications, but the man himself. I can give you examples if you like.--Commander Keane 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously meets standards for published writers. Monicasdude 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing outstanding in the trade Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Three dozen of quotations (half of which in his own papers) is not what I would call "heavily quoted". Unless we want wikipedia be Who Is Who (what!!! no article for "Who's'Who"?) for all untold billions of ever living people. mikka(t) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article IS just a resume: it's lifted from James Crotty's home page [1]. I'm not sure that James Crotty can be considered more notable than average, either: on what basis are we making that comparison? I'm a prof myself, but definitely less notable than average, and I get more hits on Google Scholar than this guy, and more hits on Google than ""James Crotty" +economics": loose evidence to be sure, but I figure he should have passed that test easily if he really deserves a WP entry. The article needs to establish that he is, in fact, a more-notable-than-average professor, and it doesn't, and I doubt he is. Mangojuice 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that anything this man wrote had a readership of more than 5,000. Most academic articles have a readership in the hundreds. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In tying in with my 'keep' above I'll provide some evidence. I think we are here to descide if the person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The state of the article is irrelevent - it can be improved at any time (unless it's deleted of course). I found these pieces of evidence using the subcription base Factiva. I think if a person is quoted in the general media (newspapers in this case) then that is some sort of notability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, can we afford to keep this guy?
The Boston Globe. 21 December 2003. "Pollin's UMass-Amherst colleague, James Crotty, says the best way to understand the mixed messages - splurge or scrimp? - is to realize that the economy faces two big challenges."
Dollars & Sense. 1 July 2003. "The second paradox is what University of Massachusetts economist James Crotty calls the neoliberal paradox."
Daily Hampshire Gazette. 3 February 1997. "Unemployment rates are low, but there's a lot of churning in the market," said James Crotty, a professor of economics at UMass"--Commander Keane 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Daily Hampshire Gazette is a local paper; the other two are good IMO. Still, I don't think a couple of quotes in newspapers makes a great case here. Maybe if he was interviewed by a reputable paper or magazine... but anyone can get quoted now and then. As for state of article: you're right, but we delete articles all the time if they don't claim the notability of their subject. Mangojuice 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like a CV/resume, which is certainly user-page material and not encyclopedia material. Vanity violation. Cdcon 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Papers don't confer notability, as per the guidelines for inclusion of academics. If he's written and published books, I'd reconsider. Stifle 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Strong academic career and many papers on macroeconomics and Keynes. Robert Brenner several times responded to his critiques. Check his web site for details.
Also Mukadderaat, who are you that you decide who is a good or notable professor and who is not. Yo u most probably haven't done 1 percent of what he has done for economics. Ramil--71.195.182.195 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mukkaderat, do you know what is American Economic Review? If you know you should also know that economists are not published in this journal. Your stance is biased and most probably stems from your dislike of the heterodox economics.
Copyvio with [2] - I can't believe no one here did a simple Google Search for the string "James Crotty". - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read above you will see that the copyvio is noted. We are debating the notability of this person. The quality of the article is irrelevant.--Commander Keane 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only notability seems to be Haruki's theorem and Haruki's lemma (neither yet created). Perhaps an article for Haruki's theorem should be created and this article merged into it, but if neither of those deserves an article, neither does he. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (I can never remember whether I'm supposed to but the vote in the opening)Weak Keep. See comment below. I don't know if it's proper to withdraw the nomination, but I'd like to do so, if allowed. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He is very notable - List of publications gives 81 publications on the American Mathematical Society. This means he was involved in the derivation of 81 new theorems. This needs to be expanded. Blnguyen 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have access to MathSciNet -- however, although 81 publications is an indication of notability, not all publications indexed in MathSciNet are actually referreed, nor does a publication in a referreed journal necessarily have a new theorem. However, I'll accept Honsberger below as a strong indication that the theorem is, at least, notable. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For someone as old as he is, it's not surprising that he has that many publications, especially when one considers that there is some duplication of work and additional expository articles on that work. I find that looking through his publication list, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy although the fact that he has kept up production is a testament to his work ethic. On the other hand, he has published in some respectable journals (although not so prestigious to make it an automatic keep). I will abstain, but my inclination is that unless the results cited in the nom are of such significance and/or his other activities (perhaps as educator, influential figure, etc.) are significant, I don't particularly feel compelled to vote keep. --C S (Talk) 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's got a write-up here: Honsberger, R. "Haruki's Cevian Theorem for Circles." §12.4 in Episodes in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Euclidean Geometry. Washington, DC: Math. Assoc. Amer., pp. 144-146, 1995. --Ruby 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable mathemetician as per B. L. Nguyen. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. --Terence Ong 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Haruki's Theorem. Multiple references - just do a Gsearch <Haruki theorem mathematics>. —ERcheck @ 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request: With the nomination being withdrawn by original nominator and no delete votes, can this be made a speedy keep? —ERcheck @ 01:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in his field. WesternMustang 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was belated speedy keep, incorrect nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the creator to only make temp pages from his/her own user page. Bobby1011 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment...which begs the question "why?" In any case, it hardly seems like a reason for deletion. This band gets some tens of thousands google hits, and appears to have done some touring, so they would be very likely to reach the notability level for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user likely created the page by following the link provided in the CopyVio text at A kiss could be deadly, which is legitimate grounds for having a subpage in the Main namespace. --Kinut/c 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I read the A kiss could be deadly page with the copyrights violation tag. You're right, it's shouldn't be deleted. But it will have to be deleted once the text is transfered, or won't it? Bobby1011 06:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The temp page will be deleted by the administrator who settles the copyvio issue. Microtonal 23:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination should probably not have arisen. It was correct of the creator to make a temp page, as that is what you do when a copyvio arises. Stifle 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like an ad. DeleteILovePlankton 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikify and format, valid stub. It seems to be a real town in Gloucestershire. [3] Great name, too. — Smerdis of Tlön 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable place. How the heck does "Slad (or Slad Valley) is a village in Gloucestershire, England off the Stroud District. The B4070 runs through it and it lies between Gloucester and Cirencester." sound like an ad.? Jcuk 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how you could think this was an ad. Chairman S. | Talk 12:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the nominator, I reworded the article somewhat; the original version said that it was a good way to get from Gloucester to Cirencester, and mentioned that there was a pub there. Smerdis of Tlön 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite.--Isotope23 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This censorship fork has already been up three different times for deletion under various names. Every time the overwhelming majority of votes were for delete. Last time was ten to one. Can we finally just delete this thing and lock it? Descendall 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the one who AfD'd this. Last time that this experiment was tried, it devolved into an article called "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)" that ironically had several pictures of abuse, just the ones that a single editor decided were not "offensive." This is exactly the kind of thing that wikipedia doesn't need. --Descendall 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to make of this. Ideas?Keep following improvements made to the article. Fang Aili 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as empty article, boarderline speedy. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice picture with some decent information, but the image itself doesn't warrant an article. We can delete this article without losing the image, which will still exist at its image page. I will look into where to link this image so it doesn't get lost and/or forgotten. CrypticBacon 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is released to promote the capabilities of the thing, and the article is nothing but the image, so we are talking about a blatant ad --Ruby 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice; perhaps an article could be written about the transmitter; here the picture is the article. Add link to the image from the Deutsche Welle page. Smerdis of Tlön 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the expanded article. Maybe rename, e.g. Deutsche Telekom Jülich shortwave transmitter? Fg2 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-ref dicdef. See also my vote in the previous AFD. Stifle 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article survived AfD less than two weeks ago. I fail to see any compelling reason to renom at this point. A simple google search shows that this is a business term that can be expanded. If the nom does not see any content then why not use some of those google hits, or even go right to google scholar, for material that can be added to the article. -- JJay 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps we could have some explanation for why the nom has previously speedy tagged this article, then left uncivil edit summaries with Kill This in all caps [4], nominated once for Afd, then placed a Prod tag [5] following survival on AfD in violation of Prod rules, and has now renominated for AfD. That is a lot of activity for two weeks for an article on a valid topic that can be improved. -- JJay 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Because "This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy.", as stated in the nomination. --CrypticBacon 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above where I talk about expansion. That, or perhaps use of merge tags, would have been a reasonable approach as opposed to edit warring with the editors involved in the article. Furthermore, if you feel the information belongs somewhere else, why have you tried four times to have it removed? Why was no comment ever left on the article talk page?-- JJay 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Sorry for violating protocol, I wasn't completely familiar with the the new prod rules. I have my doubts as to how good or thourough of an article this can become, but who knows, maybe it will turn into something more than a dicdef. Otherwise, if in several weeks it isn't expanded, we might just consider merging it into the aformentioned articles? What are your thoughts? --CrypticBacon 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's fine. Why not leave a message like that on article talk page? -- JJay 10:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like vanity. Delete, unless notability is established. - Mike Rosoft 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Zelenka planned to become the world's tallest professional techno dancer at 7 feet 8 inches tall with a massive wingspan of over 14 feet." Right. Sounds like a poor man's Joe Zelenka. And isn't that a picture of Mike Jones? --Kinut/c 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it funny how "someone" changed the information to something less likely to raise scrutiny (i.e., only 6'8" with a 6-7' wingspan) after it was caught. Maybe they should also change the part about Big Momma's House 2, which came out after this guy's supposed drug overdose. This is looking more like a BJAODN candidate by the minute. --Kinut/c 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Good catch Kinu - that picture of Mike Jones is this BET image. —ERcheck @ 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reverting this AfD (blanked) I vote to get rid of it per Kinu --Ruby 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys do not know anything about John. Maybe next time you vote to delete a page you should know something about the topic. John did have a wingspan of 14 feet, he was almost 8 feet tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2006
And vandalizing pages like you did to Beno Udrih is more legitimate how? --Kinut/c 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Even if the article were true, there is no assertion of notability. As supposedly being a well-known dancer in Columbia, South Carolina is not generally accepted as a claim to notability, I have applied the nn-bio tag to it. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate all of you, I hope you all die and rot in hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs) } 05:26, 17 February 2006
Delete.Blnguyen 06:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please note: This isn't a personal assault on you. This is a review of the validity of the article. Don't attack us please and read wikipolicys. ---J.Smith 06:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I wish you guys would understand that this is actually true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs)
Ravithisis, even if it is true, it would probably be deleted. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 nn-bio, possible G3 vandalism (obvious hoax). Stifle 22:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is asserted, but judging by name of the author, this is likely to be vanity and nn.Blnguyen 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity --Ruby 03:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Videos appear to be referencing Subfighter, and online forum, rather than commercially produced. Delete per nom and WP:BIO. --Hansnesse 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and remove the link to this article from Robert Park. Vslashg (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for nn-bio/group. enochlau (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highschool athleticlistcruft. Blnguyen 02:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mike(TC) 02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Who else is missing?" Perhaps... anyone to make inclusion of this list worthwhile? --Kinut/c 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Could even be Speedied. Cnwb 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be written by owner of this website, which seems very amateurish and nn, resembling a blog. Blnguyen 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly self-promotion, and not even very good at it. Fan 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant WP:VSCA of the bloggy variety. If your website is hosted at freewebs.com, I'm going to guess you're probably not notable. Don't condone this behavior with a userfy, either. --Kinut/c 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website --Ruby 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I request that this article be deleted. My intention was not self-promotion. I am a new user and I should have thought out my entry more carefully before I submitted it.--The Great Ó Maoileoin 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, then Delete. O tempora! O mores! O Maoileoin! -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to O Maoileoin for learning about Wikipedia inclusion policy, by the way. Hope you stick around. -ikkyu2 (talk)
Delete as nn website, vanity. --Terence Ong 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus without prejudice against a redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Kid Koala wrote a book..." need I say more? Bobby1011 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of an article --Ruby 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written. I was going to speedy it earlier for hoax/NN/made up in school, but decided otherwise once I found some hits for "Kid Koala" and "Nufonia must fall". —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is an actual book (print or CD), found it on Amazon (ISBN 1550225588). It does not seem mainstream but author may have a cult following. I could see keeping it if it was written better. Accurizer 03:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This process is supposed to determine the subject's notability, not the standard of writing. Cnwb 23:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that non-notability is the only reason for deletion. (Then again, non-notability is such a slippery criteria for deletion anyway.) - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Hansnesse 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content (if any is salvageable) to Kid Koala, which is not much more than a stub. dbtfztalk 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Firstly, Kid Koala is a notable turntablist. I'd say this book is cerainly notable: A review from the BBC [6], on Popmatters [7], and from the Ninja Tunes website [8] are just three selections from the first page of Ghits. Cnwb 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inherited notability. Being a stub doesn't make an article deletable. I have to wonder, too, why User:Accurizer found the book on Amazon, but chose not to improve the article by adding the ISBN link. Certainly the article can be expanded with relevant and meaningful content by someone with more familiarity. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn artist --Ruby 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sparta (band). The guy is not notable enough to have his own article. dbtfztalk 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep. The band is clearly notable. Who am I to say which of its members are? dbtfztalk 06:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of notable band. Cnwb 06:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hes in Sparta now and was in Denali/engine down Defunkier 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sparta have released at least two albums that does it for me Jcuk 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sparta have released at least two albums that does it for me Jcuk 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sparta has released two LP's which have been critically lauded internationally, as well as Keeley Davis' involvment in prominent indie bands from the US east coast - Denali and Engine Down. He's one of the more prominent members in the east coast/international music scene. On a personal, albeit biased note, if we're looking at his deletion, might as well delete Maura Davis, Denali and truncate Sparta's entry. Crewcial 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An honest effort at bloating a dic-def of a non-English word. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No vote from me, I don't really think the supposed evidence of usage stands up to wiki's standards, and I'm prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Keep and tag for cleanup, as per discussion below. It seems like a reasonable entry to me, with considerable bits of useful information. The anime/manga community seems to have co-opted this word for its own purposes, and the aricle addresses that. It's notable, it's interesting, it contains useful information for a researcher; why would we want to delete it? --FreelanceWizard 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider "useful"? Or "notable"? freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I consider the topic "notable" because I hear the word in this sense in common use, and I consider the article "useful" because if I were researching the anime/manga subculture in the US, this article would be a helpful source (along with the other articles in its categories). Your opinion, it would seem, differs. My vote remains keep, however. If you believe the article has problems, you can certainly improve it. Given your list of concerns below, perhaps it would be beneficial to alter the article to recast the term as something used by Americans, where the usage is apparently not the same as it is in Japan; better yet, one could make a comparison out of it. I can't comment on that, not being knowlegeable on Japanese culture. I agree with Ikkyu2 and Saberwyn on this one. --FreelanceWizard 07:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm not sure how my comment here got mangled with someone's sig, or why other people took it upon themselves to mangle it further, but I've corrected it, I think. --FreelanceWizard 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This is the same conclusion I've come to after hours spent banging my head against the brick wall that is certain users on the article's discussion page. While the word has been adopted by a specialist interest group, (which doesn't mean it's becoming a loanword) it's meaning has been altered in the process. The current article doesn't address this and operates under the mistaken idea that kawaii is some specific, defined style of anime / drawing / fashion. If this can be rectified then there may be a place for the article to define what the word has come to mean when used in manga and anime fan circles and then this can be contrasted with the meaning in Japanese. Barryvalder 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that etymologies that are limited to small fan circles are not presently considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, although they may be in the future. Do not correct me on my word choice with "small fan circles". While there is a considerable following in the US, there is no "altered meaning" for the word for the majority of these people, who merely use the word as-is, along with other "trendy" Japanese words that they have pulled from anime, such as "genki", "kakkoii", "ohayo" etc. If you can find some kind of proof that the word is being used in a non-Japanese fashion (that would be a loanword by the way) then it may be advisable to rewrite the article, but as you just stated the article doesn't address this issue and thus contains no valid information. As per the previous comment, if you were a researcher looking for information on Anime/manga culture ... wouldn't you rather check out anime (which explains the word kawaii) and manga? freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My initial conclusion was that which I could make from the views of those who pushed the article for all they could. I was assuming, probably naively, that those people spoke for fans of anime and manga. Anime / manga fan culture is not my area. The everyday use and meaning of Japanese words is. If it's the case that fans of Japanese culture use the word with the same meaning as it holds in Japanese, and not as the name of a specific style etc, then the article is entirely without value beyond it's initial dictionary definition. As you note below, the vast majority of the article should either be employed elsewhere, or deleted outright. Barryvalder 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, Freshgavin, I'd check out anime, manga, and anything else that looked interesting or relevant in the related topics or category sections. A good researcher doesn't just read one article and stop, especially when using a source of possibly dubious validity. By the way, I'm with Barryvalder and others on this; it should be kept, IMHO, but it should also be cleaned up. So, I'm altering my vote somewhat to keep and tag for cleanup. I really don't believe a strong case for deletion has been made, though there might be a case here for merging what may be useful from the article (which, again, is speaking more to US anime/manga subculture as far as I can tell) into another article and changing this into a redirect. --FreelanceWizard 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now Weak keep per below. I think this one is a judgment call. I judge that the article should be kept; I can respect others' opinions that it might be unencyclopedic. I think, however, that since we are not to act as though we were constrained by space, and since this is clearly a good faith effort to explain the English-language significance of a loanword, that we should keep. If there were blatant advertising or evidence of other bad faith, I'd reconsider. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loanword co-opted by the many and varied anime/manga fan communities. Also a cultural fad within Japan and the abovementined communities. However, it could do with some sources. -- Saberwyn 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not a cultural fad in Japan. It is merely a common adjective. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was thinking of the "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" fad, which was apparently studied by Yamane Kazuma, along with the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media marketed and referred to by this term in Japan, the US, and Australia. -- Saberwyn 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're being sarcastic. If it was considered fashionable to be "cute" in hollywood, and the London Times posted an article that said so, would you consider that a reason to make "cute" a valid Wikipedia article? Also, the whole "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" section doesn't belong here anyways. It has nothing to do with the word "kawaii" except for the fact that girls like to write in a "cute" or "pretty" style. I would have thought the fact that the research was called "Female Teenage Writing" and not "Kawaii writing" would stand for that. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one place that "the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media" isn't marketed and referred to by this term is in Japan itself. My conclusion from the endless war-of-words on the article's discussion page is that the fundamental misunderstanding over the words's use in it's native country is a huge factor in the unreliability of this article. "Animals are often drawn in excessively Kawaii style" one user insists on writing. What I've attempted to get across is that in Japan there is no such thing as Kawaii style, making the statement meaningless OR. If any article is to exist on this topic, it has to address the Japanese meaning and the meaning being given when used in English. Barryvalder 10:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explained above. Also, the misunderstanding with "kawaii style" comes from the fact that it is common in Japanese to suffix "-kei" onto some adjectives which may be translated as "kawaii type" or "style", but there is no implication of a specific style of kawaii, simply that X is of a "cute"/"pretty" persuasion, as opposed to a "sexy"/"ugly"/"glamorous"/etc. one. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 14:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even if you accept the validity of WP:WINAD as grounds for deleting anything, only articles that are just a definition and can never be more than just a definition fall squarely within its terms. What's already there already brings it out of its purview, and the fact that someone considers the additional encyclopedic information "bloating" overextends the category. Smerdis of Tlön 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "bloating" was that the editors (particularly one) was adding inutile information to make the article look much bigger than it actually should be. The accusations of cultural influence and transition to English are completely unfounded. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they original research? We don't have to exclude completely unfounded theories, or "accusations" as you jokingly call them; we just have to source them. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really want to classify it as "original research", though there is obviously quite a bit of that. I'm just more concerned about the collections of material that has no relation to the actual word, many of them POV.
Kawaii characters typically (but not exclusively) are drawn with large eyes and small noses and mouths (this comment refers to anime style, which has no relation to the word kawaii)
Pets are often drawn in a kawaii style (this statement means nothing more than "pets are drawn cutely")
Kawaii characters generally have angelic personalities (original research, I see no reason why the author would want to say this if not just to get a picture of his favourite anime character added to the page)
Kawai is a Japanese term (it's not a term, its a word. by saying "term" the author is trying to bloat its importance)
Kawaii should not to be confused with "kowai" (Japanese speakers have very little trouble distinguishing the two words, this is a statement fit for an introduction to Japanese textbook)
The term can be subjective as Kawaii can be used to describe anything an individual considers cute which can include attractive women. (a completely worthless statement. Saying an adjective is "subjective" is no more useful than saying that "good" is POV)
Kawaii merchandise is extremely popular in Japan (should say "cute/pretty things are popular [to certain groups] in Japan" and be moved to "Japanese culture")
The two largest manufacturers of such merchandise are Sanrio (manufacturers of "Hello Kitty") and San-X. (original research, sourceless, and POV)
The proliferation of mechandise regarded as kawaii is considered by some to be an expression of a female-led youth movement (equals: girls like cute things. Useless information.)
Kawaii can be also used to describe fashions. (another useless statement. It is a widely used adjective and can be used to describe almost anything you like, much like "cute" or "pretty" can. The author then goes on to describe fashions that are considered cute in Japan, which should be part of "Japanese culture")
When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s (sourceless OR. A correct statement would refer to the "boom" that Japan experienced in the early 1980s, thus allowing women greater freedom of choice in fashion, another tidbit for the "Japanese culture" article, or possibly one on the boom itself)
Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. (absolutely rediculous OR statements. Japanese has been written horizontally as well as vertically for more than a hundred years, nothing to do with "cuteness". Mechanical pencils are just another example of influence from western cultures, again nothing to do with "cuteness".
I don't have the patience to pick out any more of this article's flaws. It's pure junk. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, it seems your criticisms are on the grounds of verifiability. I confess that when I see this sort of writing, my instinct is to assume good faith. I don't have any way of verifying either your assertions or those in the article. Will change my vote to "weak keep" to reflect this. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I commend you on assuming good faith. I called this AfD because I felt it should be deleted on the grounds of it being a Japancruft dicdef. Most of the points I just complained about above have been deleted before (in fact, the whole article has been deleted recently) and I didn't really feel like trying to rectify all those points before listing it for deletion as a one line dicdef, basically throwing myself into the edit war that already exists. As it is, I'm listing the first line of the article for transwiki (the article already exists) and the rest of it is trash and should be deleted. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now Rewrite needed This article, as it stands, is horrendously inacurate. The article is full of OR, pointless information and misunderstandings as shown by User:Freshgavin who expertly picked the article to pieces above. My main objection with the article is the fundamental misunderstanding of the word's use in Japan. It means cute, adorable, darling etc and that's it. What is put forward by some authors of this article is that kawaii is a specific style or writing (it isn't), a specific type of animation (it isn't), a specific type of fashion (it isn't) etc. I've been attempting for a few days to correct this misunderstanding, but some users are insistent on the existence of a specific, definable kawaii style. My conclusion is that the word has gained a different, distinct meaning when used in English. The Japanese meaning and meaning when used by fans of Japanese culture are two different things. If this is the case any article on the topic has to make this clear from the start. A large percentage of the article is also given over to the idea that the word is becoming a loanword in English. This has stood with essentially zero evidence save for Gwen Stafani saying it in a video (while in Japan, it's worth noting), and more recently, a list of words created by past and present students at some university in America. The article needs to be torn down and started from scratch (if at all). Barryvalder 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite per Barryvalder. I've deleted the loanword reference from the article because there is zero evidence sourced that this is truly becoming a loanword (linked "source" is problematic and you can see my argument against it and Barryvalder's better argument on the Talk page). I'm slapping it with a disputed tag for now because while I think it should be kept, there are legitimate concerns about the factual accuracy of the usage of this word in English that need to be resolved through better sourcing.--Isotope23 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you didn't say why you thought it should be kept! freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, because I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion.--Isotope23 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Not everything here's going to be Masterpiece Theatre, folks, and while this is admittedly an example of something that makes baby otaku cry, it's an honest attempt to define something beyond the simple scope of a dicdef (though, again, admittedly in need of work). I have heard from a friend about the kawaii handwriting phase, though to be honest, that probably deserves to go into another article, if not its own, as it has minimal bearing on the this. If not, redirect to Moé, since it's a similar concept (and probably what some of the authors of the original article had in mind).--み使いMitsukai 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And unlike kawaii, moe (hepburn please) is encyclopedaeic material (slightly unfortunately), as it has a super-slang like status in Japan, describing a concept/culture/fad/state of mind? and is not simply a part of speech. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that, but where moe (I actually prefer the Hepburn, I just copied from the article's redirect) is the slang term there, kawaii seems to be gaining currency as the slang term here. As I said before, the article needs better justification than it's got right now, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. In any case, if we cannot save the article, that is why I recommended a redirect as a fallback. I don't think outright deletion is going to do any good in this case, but if no one can come up with a good reason for the existence of it as a seperate entity, then there are other ways of dealing with the issue.--み使いMitsukai 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more note. A "delete and rewrite" vote would make more sense than a "keep and rewrite" vote because it would actually force a rewrite, whereas keeping it almost guarantees that it won't be "completely" rewritten at all. Also, a redirect implies a "delete and redirect". freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rewrite. Having lived in Japan for several years, I can tell you that "kawaii" (or "cute", since many young people there use the words interchangeably) is definitely a cultural aspect of Japan. Even big tough guys can be very frequently seen with cutesy character goods (such as Hello Hitty). "Kawaii" permeates the culture in Japan. The post office has cute mascot characters; almost every corporation has cute mascots; it really is everywhere. I do agree that the article needs some work, but it absolutely should not be deleted. --nihon 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that cuteness is very popular in Japan. That information should be represented within the culture of Japan article. A huge problem with this article is the fundamantal misunderstanding that the word kawaii represents a definable, distinct style or movement (wether it be anime/clothing/writing/etc). Living in Japan, you'll be aware that if you went into a manga shop and asked for the kawaii comics you'd get met with blank expressions. There's no such thing, just subjective judgement. This article, if it's to exist at all, can be made up of two or three sentences. The rest of the details as it stands are sourceless, lacking in evidence, and worthless POV. Barryvalder 08:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture of Japan article is too long as it is. This is absolutely a distinct cultural concept and is worth it's own article. As for walking into a comic shop and asking for "kawaii comics", you would be met with blank stares because they would assume you were a stupid gaijin, not because they wouldn't know what you're talking about. No, there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics", but that's because "kawaii" is so ingrained in the culture. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The culture of Japan can be any length it needs to be. With regards your startement as to how Japanese people will react to a question based on the race of the person asking it, well that is a very daft arguement Nihon. Would Japanese shop staff regard Africans as "stupid blacks" for asking the same question? Best to keep your sweeping generalisations and borderline racism to yourself.
Where do you get off calling me racist? If you can't form a coherent argument without calling someone racist, then I suggest you find someplace else to play. It's no more racist than how you'd be met in any other country in the world when asking a stupid question of a shopkeeper. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into this as it's getting wildly off topic, but your asertation that Japanese shop staff will respond to customers based on the race of the customer is an incredbibly daft thing to say. It lacks any kind of basis and then you go on to give a sweeping anthropological statement covering ever member of the human race. This is even more rediculous. With such a comment you are treading a very thin line between generalisation and just plain ignorance, but I'm fairly certain you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote, so I can only ask you be more careful with your sweeping generalisations in future. This is a place for factual discussion, not the place for your very own sociological and anthropological conclusions. Barryvalder 23:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself, "there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics."" The fact that there is this kind of specific, defined "kawaii style" is something most of the article hinges on. As we've long since established this isn't the case, the only information left is that cuteness is highly very valued in Japan. This can be summed up in two or three sentences and doesn't require all sorts of guff telling us what things might be regarded as cute. Barryvalder 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a translation of the Japanese article would nicely flesh-out this article. Nothing has been established here. There are just a few people telling a larger group that what they've observed isn't really what they've observed. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you've observed? That would be OR then. We're trying to created an article of fact backed up with evidence. Not what you, or anyone else, has observed and made a conclusion on. For the record, the Japanese article is a definition is a definition of the word and when and how it is used. It makes no reference to any kind of kawaii movementBarryvalder 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article definately needs and deserves improvement. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering most of the false statements that I criticized were written by you, I'm shocked by your comment. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, if it were criticism by someone else I would have listened. Someone who hasn't actively blanked cited sections or attempted to delete the article. You are questioning the "legitness" of cited sources, the other party claims Rice University is some place nobody has heard about... Really guys, obviously article is not a featured article yet. There needs to be improvement. OBVIOUSLY and country to your claims, it is imposible to visit japan and NOT run into SOMETHING that is a product of the kawaii kraze weather that is anime/manga merchendice or company mascot. There is no definate kawaii thing as it is so heavly integrated.
Kawaii Craze is similar to the Comic craze of the US in thelate 30s to early 50ies. During the Golden Age of Comic Books superman merchendice etc sold at ridiclous levels. In the US more people are likely to know who superman is rather than who the president is. Any native english speaker may/should thake comic craze for granted. It is perfectly casual for people to wear superman outfits in haloween. You do not reference people wearing superman outfits as a product of "comic craze" even though thats what it is.
Of course comic-craze and kawaii-craze are poor comparasions. After all Kawaii was never restricted to paper and has been an ongoing craze spreading overseas.
My point is, you started off saying "no vote from me" but you have commented on this page sixteen times, all of them rebutting people who want to keep the article. Why be coy? —rodii 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are just on a delete kick. Deleting this article will not make WP "make sense". It will, however, remove a decent article that only needs a little improvement in order to be better. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder why Kawaii_Neko would vote support? ;-) Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, merging into Culture of Japan or Cuteness as this is a dictionary definition and original research functioning as nothing more than a place for hobbyists to accumulate trivia. Kawaii is just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Yes, cute things are popular in Japan, nobody's denying that. And they're also popular in many other places by other different names. People are trying to portray it as an intrinsic aesthetic or Deeper Thing like (for example) Wabi-sabi but it simply isn't so. You do not improve or clean up dicdefs, they simply don't belong here. To those pointing at the length of the article as its validation, I point out that a dicdef can be inflated to whatever size serves the author's agenda, as has happened here. The Crow 23:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using your argument, the same could be said for "Cuteness": it's just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Unless you've lived in Japan, you won't likely know how much "kawaii" is ingrained in the culture there. "Kawaii" is everywhere in Japan. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we're pulling out the "who knows Japan" card, I have lived in Japan, I do speak Japanese, in fact I am married to a Japanese. I understand this may not be as sterling a credential as having memorized a dozen comic books, but believe me, I do know what kawaii is and what it is not. It's an adjective. It is not a concept. The Crow 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kawaii is integrated into japanese culture and "kawaii kraze" in japan is like nowhere else. You didn't notice something everyone takes for granted (only happens if you are either "assimilated" into a culture (and hence ignore lots of obvious aspects) or if you are not a good observer and I do not believe it is the latter). The Kawaii-kraze is cited to exist by universities as well as various other notable works. Just because you havent noticed doesnt mean it doesnt exist. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit weary of being misrepresented on this subject. Yes, cute things permeate Japanese culture up and down, top to bottom, in and out and I've seen it firsthand. I have seen 50 year old men with Hello Kitty seatcovers on their cars. I'm not disputing that cute things are popular in Japan, mmkay? Nobody is disputing that. I'm disputing that "kawaii" is anything other than an adjective used to describe what someone's vision of cute is. It's always subjective. The Hello Hitty industry is not classified as "the kawaii industry" in Japan. Retailers do not order another lorry of "kawaii merchandise". There's no "kawaii" section of idol mags or manga shops or video rental places or clothing retailers or food or absolutely anything at all. There is no central authoritative body of work that can rule out something -not- being kawaii. Reading more than this into it is a common error of orientalism, the tendency of uninitiated Westerners to project novelty and significance onto elements of Asian culture beyond their true significance. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a long-standing and well-know concept within Japanese culture and evidences itself by items such as Hello Kitty and similar fare. Inserting this into the "cuteness" article ignores the uniqueness of the Japanese concept. Jtmichcock 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a concept. Articles springing from Japanese culture are where we boast Japanese uniqueness. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is "kawaii" not a concept? "Kawaii" is absolutely a concept; it's a concept of "cute" that permeates almost every aspect of Japanese culture. You can find it everywhere. You're talking about things of which you have no real experience. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem intent on playing "I live in Japan so I know Japan" card, I guess I should also state (just for the record you understand) that I also live in Japan as I have done for a number of years now. I know of which I speak. Cuteness is very popular in Japan, but it's not a concept. It's an adjective, always used subjectively. Barryvalder 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge per the Crow. Freshgavin's and Barryvalder's points are both very good, although, I don't see a whole lot of salvageable non-OR to work with. Neier 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Yes, I'm flip-flopping. Nihonjoe's comments regarding the length of Japanese culture is a good one. Also, the lack of non-OR in the current article is a better argument for rewrite than merge, anyway. I know that Kawaii is ingrained in the country. Pictures of the Hello Kitty festooned dump trucks working construction sites, or of the cartoon characters on the salaryman's bank book would help convey that point. There is encylcopedic material for Kawaii – unfortunately, the current article doesn't do a very good job at presenting it. And, it seems that attempts to fix the article are getting caught in some minor revert wars by a couple of users, so it may take some time to fix it. Neier 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Anime-brainwashed Keep! Kawaii is more than just a term- it is a veritable movement on par with, say, Gothic Lolita. --maru(talk)contribs 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This simply isn't the case. There is no kawaii movement. This implies there is a specific, definable kawaii style, which there isn't. Cuteness is highly valued in Japan and it has an impact on many aspects of Japanese culture, but suggesting it's a movement like Gothic Lolita is entirely without evidence or factual accuracy. Barryvalder 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and deletion nominators must attempt to be more cognisant of the source material they nominate. -ZeroTalk 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wtf. find something worthy of deleting. aa v ^ 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly I find this nomination somewhat worrying. People who come to an encyclopedia wanting to know the meaning and context of Kawaii in Japanese culture should be told, not directed to an entry in a dictionary. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to the statement by nom that the Culture of Japan article "can be any length it needs to be", I do not agree. There is an optimum length which should be exceeded only with good reason, see Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Summary_style among other places. The article is not bad as is in its current state and I see no reason for a delete. Calling it "japancruft" seems rather pejorative. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and see what comes of it. I've got to admit to hearing this term since ... oh forever. Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting this article wouldn't be very cute. Cyde Weys 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After seeing this article, I believe that Kawaii is already becoming an exotic, "you-found-it-here-first-in Wikipedia" type of a nouveau concept.... and not just for the otaku people either.--Endroit 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its obvious concensus is agaisnt the nominator. Prolonging the discussion would be quite pointless. -ZeroTalk 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the consensus is against a deletion. The strength of feeling in favour of a rewrite what comes across most strongly for me. Barryvalder 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everyone realizes that "rewrite" does not mean anything productive here. At best it means "do nothing" and at worst it means "add a lot of original research". I look forward to the vigorous participation of "keep" voters to remove the OR from the article as it is, and guard against addition of more OR. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article. It clearly belongs somewhere else but not as an article. I originally tagged as CSD; however, Xaosflux removed the CSD flag. I am not sure of the reason. James084 03:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I just realized what Xaosflux did to this page. I have listed this page for AfD in error. Administrators: Please disregard and remove this page from AfD. Thanks. James084 03:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I realize redirects are cheap, but do we really need to have such frivolous redirects? Let's stop the nonsense and stop setting a precedent for having redirects for Conference/Colloquium/Workshop at (insert name of university). --C S (Talk) 12:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe an article about a math quiz is okay but not an article about the award you win at the math quiz --Ruby 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Besides, isn't the Rolling Shield what you get after beating Armored Armadillo in Mega Man X? --Kinut/c 07:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per all above. --Terence Ong 07:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. linas 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as copyvio, plausible claim for release made. However, it does not seem to me encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization for which the article reads like a (poorly written) advertisement. The organization's website already has a link from Bitter melon, which is good enough. dbtfztalk 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article almost sounds like the NBMC is an arts and cultural organization that uses the Bitter Melon as a metaphor, but reading it carefully it looks like a promotional organization. Delete, do not redirect. Thatcher131 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organization's name gets only 152 Google hits, zero Google news hits. I've read the article and visted their website and I'm still not sure whether a Bitter Melon is a real thing or a metaphor. Either way, this organization doesn't seem that notable, and this looks a lot like spam. ergot 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. - Rudykog 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The current content of this page is just an operating manual for an oxyacetylene torch. There is a more encyclopedic article at Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, however a proper merge would (in my opinion) require blanking this entire article and then redirecting Oxy-fuel welding and cutting here, and I guess I'm not bold enough to do that without consensus. Thatcher131 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per dbtfz --Ruby 05:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.Speedy redirect per nom. Be bold; the way Wikipedia is set up, you can't screw anything up by being bold. On the other hand, this AfD consumes a lot of community resources, including the time of a lot of skilful editors. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem is I'm relatively new and I got spanked once before for making too drastic a change without "respecting the work of prevous editors" (although the person who complained had a vested interest and we eventually worked it out amicably). I will do the redirect now and clear the AfD from the article. Thatcher131 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone replaced Oxyacetylene by a redirection, which should not have been done while it was under AfD. I reverted that blanking. Anthony Appleyard 09:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on folks, let's Wikipedia:use common sense here. Redirects don't purge the article history and we're getting a strong consensus here. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already Come on people, you're completely missing the point of WP:IAR. Everyone thinks it should point there, there's no dispute, and a redirect can easily be fixed later if it's a problem. You're doing process for the sake of process. AfD has rules to make things smoother, but it would be smoother here to just ignore the rules and close it early. Night Gyr 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Don't merge The only content in the article is unencyclopedic instructional material. If you want to keep it, put it in wikibooks. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Night Gyr 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, don't merge Oxyacetylene (or oxyacetylene set) is a term commonly used in industry. Also agree that the existing content is more suitable for wikibooks, there is a lot of good content there but it is more a HowTo. — Graibeard (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; the information doesn't seem to be too encyclopedic. No need to merge; perhaps a paragraph or two could be excised, but then, there's no source given for all this info. IMO, the oxyfuel welding/cutting article is in worse shape now than it was before ("Setting up the equipment"? What is that doing there?). Anyone who wants to write a good oxyfuel welding article will be able to do it without this content, and this content, being unsourced and largely unuseful, isn't what the article needs. Also, question—does wikibooks require references? I would imagine so, but if it didn't, this couldn't potentially go there. --Spangineer(háblame) 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Not in English? There seems to be a Turkish language site that this refers too. Maybe an ad? Cgbikes 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising eLNuko 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mess of an advert. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious advert. Stifle 22:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. - Rudykog 10:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN software, spam. VegaDark 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard of it and run it before... but that may just be a product of my line of work. No opinion yet as I look into what the general notability may be.--Isotope23 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I transfomed the empty useless shell into something with words, and sentences, and an image. --x1987x 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like CVs, ad articles can be edited to be NPOV and informative. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was kept.
Note that the discussion went on to consider whether this article should be renamed, rewritten or made into a redirect. No clear consensus emerged on that topic. However, those decisions can best be decided on the respective Talk pages and do not need to be decided in an AFD discussion. Rossami(talk) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Thermal Protection System" article has been made redundant by the Atmospheric reentry article that includes a section on Thermal Protection Systems and the Space Shuttle program article. It is proposed that the Thermal Protection System article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Atmospheric reentry article. Egg plant 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination, speedily if possible. 211.30.35.62 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination, agree with speedy if possible (someone who has time and wants to be bold is welcome to, in my opinion...) Georgewilliamherbert 03:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm too tired to be bold. :::hums "holding out for a hero", by Frou Frou, has low standards for heroes::: . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shuttle TPS is a major component of the orbiter, and unique to the shuttle. This article covers that, not TPS in general. Detailed shuttle TPS info doesn't belong in the Atmospheric reentry article. However this article should probably be renamed "Space shuttle thermal protection system". Joema 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I change my vote to Rename to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above. - Rudykog 10:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term "Thermal protection system (TPS)" is normally used in the aerospace industry for both ablative and reusable TPS. Aeronautical engineers and informed laymen linking into Wikipedia through Google would need to see a disambiguation and redirect link to Atmospheric reentry where ablative TPS is described. Reusable TPS as "thermal soak" and "passively cooled" TPS is already described under the "Thermal Protection Systems" section of Atmospheric reentry. The term "ablation" is already redirected to Atmospheric reentry through a disambiguation. The significance of ablative versus reusable TPS is not provided in the current Thermal Protection System article and would be inappropriate if the article was renamed to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. The best course of action remains to delete Thermal Protection System with a redirect to Atmospheric reentry. The new content recently added to Thermal Protection System should be transferred to Atmospheric reentry. Egg plant 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, the Reentry article at 66kb is already over the recommended size limit. Adding the Thermal Protection System content will make it even bigger. Secondly, there needs to be a dedicated article on shuttle TPS, just like there's a dedicated article on Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. The shuttle TPS is unique, not used by any other current spacecraft, and is a prominent and well-known part of the shuttle system. The article content is already 100% shuttle TPS, not general TPS, so it should be renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. If you're concerned about people querying on just "Thermal Protection System", let's do a disambiguation page for that. Joema 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the answer! I like the way Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and Solid Rocket Booster are setup. Have a disambiguation page named Thermal Protection System that redirects to a renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System or Atmospheric reentry. Concerning the Reentry article going over the recommended size limit, I'd like to reduce the size of Atmospheric reentry by tossing out "Feathered reentry" but I know people would get worked up over that so I've taken the easy path of ignoring it. Egg plant 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Feathered reentry" is too small for a separate article; it wouldn't reduce size that much. How about this:
Leave a small section on TPS in the reentry article, put the bulk in a separate article on "Thermal Protection System". That's in line with Wikipedia:How to break up a page.
Put a top link in the new stand-alone TPS article: This article is about aerospace thermal protection systems. For the U.S. Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System, see: (link).
Put a similar top link in the shuttle TPS article pointing to the new TPS article.
Fix up any previous references so they point to the right articles.
Advantages: avoids going through redirection page for people querying directly on Thermal Protection System.
Why not do a disambiguation page? Google shows about 98% of TPS references are either (a) shuttle TPS, or (b) other aerospace TPS. If three or more separate TPS articles are needed, maybe then do a disambig page. What does everybody think? Joema 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my earlier (deleted) reply, I got overly philosophical and went off-topic. I agree that a disambiguation page with redirection is a good solution if the "Thermal Protection System" article is retained. Egg plant 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article Pivot gun has mergeto Swivel gun tag but Talk:Swivel gun says it has been transwikified to the Wiktionary. I think the pivot gun and swivel gun articles are notable enough for Wikipedia Thatcher131 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nom. It's a good article with a neat image. Wikitionary or not, it has a place here. — Graibeard (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nom. These should later be merged. Tom HarrisonTalk 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tag appears to be left over from last year when the article wasn't much more than a dicdef; it was subsequently expanded but the tag seems to have been forgotten about. However, merging the two articles is a bad idea in my opinion. A swivel gun is not the same thing as a pivot gun: swivel guns are specifically small cannon on a swiveling mount, while pivot guns are usually much larger weapons mounted on a rail or track. I'll have a go at expanding the two articles over the weekend. -- ChrisO 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures of the different kinds would be nice. Thatcher131 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the articles and added a pic of a pivot gun. Hopefully this will resolve the confusion! -- ChrisO 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Swivel gun and Pivot gun to as they were before my merge, since it now seems that my merge was not justified. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew I was right to wait before voting --Ruby 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good article. Very good article. Not great, but very good nonetheless. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article Pivot gun has merge tag proposing merge to Swivel gun but the Swivel gun talk page has a notice that is has been transferred to the Wiktionary. I would prefer to keep Swivel gun in Wikipedia and redirect Pivot gun, however seeking consensus. Thatcher131 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per nom. Not much here and it's basically a dupe of swivel gun. Merge as a section. — Graibeard (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to merge after rewrite. — Graibeard (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Swivel gun and Pivot gun to as they were before my merge, since it now seems that my merge was not justified. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep. Swivel guns and pivot guns are not the same thing. I'll rewrite the article to correct this. -- ChrisO 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. -- ChrisO 13:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, appears to be a bunch of teenagers wrestling in their backyards. They have gotten themselves added to dmoz, which gives them a few google hits, but this doesn't make them notable. Xyzzyplugh 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Worthythorn vandalised this vote; his (implicit) Keep vote read as reproduced below. Sandstein 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I am 27 years old. We BEGAN as teenagers wrestling in our backyards, but if you had actually take the time to read the article, you would note that we are an organization now, fully bonded and licensed by the Kentucky Athletic Commission.
Delete as above. NN even despite what the above comment says.Blnguyen 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 18:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. NN has been presumed from lack of familiarity, and not proven. Editors having a lack of familiarity with Kentucky doesn't mean that the topic is non-notable. The state of Kentucky would probably be unhappy to know that they are deemed NN. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SpeediedJtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonviolently to remove inappropriate content from Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 09:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense article. --Terence Ong 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV attempted justification of creator's blanking and spurious AfD's of sex related articles that s/he apparently disaproves of. It's vandalism no matter what you try and relabel it as. I'd go borderline speedy on this as page creation vandalism and consider blocking user permanantly if s/he doesn't learn to play nicely.--Isotope23 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And then there is this edit. Pornography and sex-related articles, and Èclairs! If it were not so clearly vandalism, I'd be inclined for BJAODN. --Hansnesse 18:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Daniel Case 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm protesting this protest. Delete.--み使いMitsukai 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:POINT, I'd like to point out that destruction of information, while obviously vandalism, could be seen as violent, although not physically. Makemi 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Delete as per above and it's a pointless neologism too, kind of like prefixing everything with e-. Therefore, it can't really be improved. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJADON - or maybe just plain delete. See all of above. CAPS LOCK 05:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable TV trivia (name of computer password in an episode of House.) Merge was proposed but Partypants is already in the House entry and 4 comments on the Partypants article recommend deleting instead of merging. Nothing notable enough to keep as a redirect. Thatcher131 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no password articles --Ruby 05:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Saberwyn 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no further discussion required. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I speak as a fan of the show: you have got to be kidding. Delete. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Passwordcruft? That's a new one.... Delete.--み使いMitsukai 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki under CSD:A7 (article about a band failing to assert its notablity). Stifle 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, created for self-promotion-Jersey Devil 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be speedied, band is unsigned - no notability is claimed. No Guru 05:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only about 5 Googles - they got some downloads at [9] but its dead Jim Defunkier 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ({{nn-band}}), tagged. Stifle 22:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NN presumed from lack of familiarity, not proven. Local/regional notability is notable. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete marketing strategy disguised as genre, linked to unknown musician--excuse me, "singer/songwriter/guitarist/car"--Sonny Guerini and nonexistent web site drivingrock.com. rodii 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be made up, link doesn't work, little over 400 hits on yahoo search engine [13], and states the supposed person was born in 1988 which would make him 17-18.-Jersey Devil 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinut/c 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. rodii 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted per PROD, with no objections on AFD. — PhilWelch 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic press release. POV. Don't see an applicable speedy category. Can we get rid of this faster than prod? Thatcher131 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete as blatantly non-encyclopedic. dbtfztalk 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Press release = POV. Grandmasterka 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear breach of NPOV. Certainly it is appropriate for John Conyers' website but not ours. What is the protocol when something is both on AfD and proposed deletion or PD? Capitalistroadster 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/soapbox --Ruby 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV article. --Terence Ong 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV essay.--Isotope23 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this and get the NPOV soapbox folks outta here.--み使いMitsukai 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a political bulletin board. Daniel Case 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/soapbox Sandy 15:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news source. --TML1988 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already tagged with "prod" but removed by an unlogged user (presumably the same one who created the article, based on the user name. This appears to be an advertisement from the owners/operators of the podcast station. Weak nomination, for the record. CrypticBacon 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete podcruft. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I had no idea independent music sounded like vanispamcruftising. --Kinut/c 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Podcasting is an independent outlet from the start, so its not notable to say this is an early podcast of independent artists --Ruby 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and/or advertising. Angr/talk 21:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where does this stuff come from, and can we put a cork in it? -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An advertisement for pseudoscience. At best, this should be merged with that article on IMT, which also needs to be rewritten, if kept, to include scientific criticism in accordance with WP:NPOV section 12.2. I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, though, since I have this feeling it'd go edit war on me. So, out of WP this must go. --FreelanceWizard 07:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely and utterly fictional. I liked the bit about Deal or No Deal, though. Cpc464 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Constitues a hoax.SoothingR 09:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, as per nom on Deal MLA 13:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, brilliant name for a band though. X Billups was a fictional character from To Kill a Mockingbird set in Maycomb, Alabama -- with other mentioned characters (Atticus, Dolphus Raymond) as band members also likely part of the hoax. Probably some kids getting creatively bored with the book in class. -- Samir ∙ TC 09:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. looks like a forum for Game Maker some kind of scripting language for game development. Advertising and non-notable EricR 06:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa ranking is fairly high, at 40702 and the claim of 25000 members would be quite high if it can be verified. Borderline notability, but the article looks like an advertisement, "As you can see the GMC is a great place to be if you would like to talk about Game Maker" is an illustration of that. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Never mind. Stifle 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not fake. Go to www.xamonsong.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevesong (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Book not on Amazon; "publisher" gets only 14 Google hits. Looks like vanity. ergot 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims importance ("used for Human Rights Education"), but the book looks too new, and there's no backing for the claim. UPi 2006-02-17 15:17 (CET)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete back into the well-deserved obscurity mentioned in the article, from whence this article never should have emerged. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the article has improved since I had tagged it with {{prod}}, the worthiness of the topic has not. Kusma(討論) 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --DanielCD 21:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Korg (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, my apologies.
Tokek 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable. Tokek 07:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move, but not sure where. This is a notable and interesting piece of history. The Straight Dope article, linked in this Wikipeida article, says "to this day trivia books and even a few encyclopedias perpetuate the error". It appears to be a notable aspect of Filmore's presidency and should be preserved on Wikipedia, though probably not under this exact title. CrypticBacon 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty notable factoids that still crop up occasionally. Gazpacho 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(merge to the Bathtub article as with Columbus and the flat-earther hoax) Gazpacho
Strong Keep, a very notable hoax. Title is just fine. Grandmasterka 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't think of any good reason to delete this. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indeed. Deserves an entry.SoothingR 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think AfD should involve essay questions or anything, but it's really nice to get a sentence or two from the nominator, no? "delete, non-notable" is ... a bit vague? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable hoax. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand per above. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable hoax by notable author, and a good thing to point to as a reminder that we have to verify everything here no matter how plausible it seems. Daniel Case 15:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable hoax. --Terence Ong 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually read this Wikipedia article before, didn't see anything wrong with it at the time, and don't see anything wrong with it now. ergot 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep extremely worthwile (unsigned by Coinman)
Strong Keep perfectly legitimate for an encyclopedia. It needs a major overhaul, but should be kept. Thanatosimii 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. After reading the external links, I've realised that it is worth keeping. To show its notability, the article should cite notable instances where Mencken's article has been quoted as fact. Since I was the only one that was pro-delete and I've now switched sides, I believe the debate has ended.--Tokek 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was erase the article. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this organization seems to barely exist According to this organization's website, they appear to have one member and haven't actually done anything. Suggest the article be deleted until such time as the organization actually appears to be active. MichaelBluejay 07:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Has been mentioned in recent media coverage [14].SoothingR 09:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article you cite has nothing to do with the organization that is the subject of the Wikipedia article in question. -- MichaelBluejay 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. delete the article, then.SoothingR 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it would be in my best interest to keep this article, it doesn't reach the threshold for notability (no Alexa rank for the website either) --Ruby 14:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Erase this entry per nom. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable; content is primarily original research. Everything after the first two sentences appears to be completely made up, and even the name "Time Spiral" is unverifiable. EvilZak 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take a look at the [MTG Salvation] Rumor Mill in the forums for verification. —Nightstallion(?) 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forums aren't particlularly reliable as sources, especially when the name of said forum is "rumor mill". If someone could produce a copy of the email or the legal papers referenced by the posters in the forum, I'd be satisfied. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ballage --Ruby 14:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember seeing the original source of this info, which was an official WotC survey that stated that those who were surveyed could win booster boxes of 2006 sets, and one they mentioned was Time Spiral.--Bedford 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until Wizards of the Coast officially verifies it. As it is, the "verifying" site's getting sued by Wizards, so this might just be a copyvio even if it is true. -- Grev 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable.android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; now verifiable through the link Nightstallion has provided below. I would still prefer that this article be moved to Snap (Magic: The Gathering), since the name isn't really "official" until Wizards releases it through the normal channels, but I won't mind terribly if it remains with its current title. On a side note, linking to the source may prove difficult; is there somewhere this document can be accessed without having to jump through hoops to do so? android79 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note that I was the otiginal contributor to this article and, against the rules for deletion, I was never notified about the proposed deletion by the person who decided to arrogantly propose the deletion.--Bedford 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That particular bit of AfD "etiquette" is rather new; you can't really blame the nominator for not notifying you, and calling the nomination "arrogant" is just silly. Articles that violate WP:V ought to be deleted, and it looks like this one does. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Please let me know if a reliable source is found, so that I can revise my vote. Stifle 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I've got a straight source; try to access the document linked to here (direct link: this). According to people in the forums, in this lawsuit filed against the user known as RancoredElf (who regularily provides information up front through anonymous sources, and who's right around 98% of the time), WotC accidentally confirms the next "large" set to be called "Time Spiral"; I'm afraid I can't verify this currently, as I've got a nasty fileblocker working against me here at work, so I'd appreciate it if someone could verify that for me. If it's true, that should be verification enough; lawsuits are easily verifiable through findlaw.com. —Nightstallion(?) 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The linked document is a 404. Stifle 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! This is the correct link; page 6, lines 8 and 9 state that the name released by David Rutter|Rancoredelf (Time Spiral) is the actual name of "Snap". —Nightstallion(?) 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's good. Keep, verified. Trim the speculation a bit though. Stifle 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Stifle, and also that future events ought to be acceptable. After all, we have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, and that's "crystal ballery" at its long-running finest. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has got to be the single largest piece of fancruft ever created on Wikipedia. This article makes extensive use of the first-person and is littered with first-hand accounts of the "history" and goings-on of club activities, making them virtually impossible to verify. I kind of feel bad nominating such a large work for deletion ...but not that bad. Kill fancruft! CrypticBacon 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A main contributor to the article removed my 'prod' tag before I brought it here. CrypticBacon 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, but put this somewhere as an example of fancruft in case it needs to be explained. All that work for nothing ... Daniel Case 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per SoothingR and Daniel Case. This is some fancruft, not needed for an encyclopaedia. --Terence Ong 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, but make a good faith attempt to contact the creator and offer a userfy. Someone spent entirely too much time on this.--Isotope23 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I left a notice on the original author's talk page here. CrypticBacon 07:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Confrom this to a higher stander of quality.
Comment. Possible puppet vote - the above "Do Not Delete" was left by 64.184.31.158 who had no previous edits. CrypticBacon 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, 64.184.31.158, deleted the Rules Section because that had no place here. I recommend trimming down the memeber's list.
Do Not Delete There is nothing based to your arguments; the rules have been deleted as they have seemingly caused problems - but the rest is a list of members and a history; you cannot possibly argue against that!
Comment. This "Do Not Delete" vote was left by me, who put in a lot of time and effort to a glorious wikipedia entry that you are all insulting because you are jealous of TGC's glory. Kypzethdurron 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't provoke people, please.SoothingR 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete! - This article fits wikipedia and has a place in the history of Star Wars on the internet
It seems like Wookipedia is more of the kind of thing for that kind of SW-related content.SoothingR 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This information should be placed on the group's own website. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography, self promotion. Might meet notability criteria, but I suspect not - well below the professor test. The text is from the artist's website, keralamurals.com. Solipsist 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to be a neologism of little likely longevity; it's simply a descriptive phrase, in fact. It was put up for deletion by Stifle in the new "deletion review" system, and the tag was removed by Kappa without explanation. When I replaced the tag, asking for an explanation , Kappa reverted me, saying that I couldn't win an edit war... I've therefore opened an AfD, which I suggest all editors should do when they see a "deletion review" tag. Unless it can be shown that this is an encyclopædic topic, it should be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kappa took the correct action here, the {{prod}} tag should not be restored. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Primitive skills" is a "current buzz term"? Give a point to the author for a humorous entry, at least. CrypticBacon 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is simply a descriptive phrase. Not sure I'd call a neologism - I've certainly heard it used for a number of years, but it still shouldn't be here. Kcordina 11:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, likely search term. Kappa 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term does appear to be in use, and it is not made up in school. Several Google hits, many using this term as described in the article. Incidentally, {{prod}}-tags can be removed for any reason meaning that the deletion is disputed. In that case it should be brough to the old and boring AFD. Sjakkalle(Check!) 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, it's merely a descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances. It's not widely recognized as being linked to a particular subject or study. PJM 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So next time someone types this in, we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 12:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to create articles on every combination of words that people "type in"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a combination of words, it's a "descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances". Note that we don't have to create an article for this term, since one already exists. Since it's an established and widely used term, if we delete it, we can expect it to come back again. Kappa 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps when it comes back it will be better than it is today. What's wrong with that?? James084 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. It will likely to be searched. --Terence Ong 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's jargon specific to a community, and if anything, it should be in a dictionary. Furthermore, it's pretty easy to figure out what it means without looking it up. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrianGCrawfordMA. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article all but states it is neologism. James084 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original prod nomination - non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect.
Reading the discussion, I concur that this term as defined in the article is original research. The closest sourced topic is "Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union" which currently redirects to Post-Soviet states. I am going to carry out the redirect. I decline to merge anything because the former Soviet states are already included and the non-Soviet states are irrelevant. However, if I missed anything, please pull it out of the page history. Rossami(talk) 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that this states aren't new for the last 10 years, encyclopedia should not contain articles having "newly" in the topic. Dijxtra 10:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful list, the fact that none of the new states listed are actually particularly recent shows it isn't valuable. Kcordina 11:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The links cited below by rodii show that the title Newly Independent States is used by the US government to refer to states of the former Russian Republic, not independent states that are new. This explains Grandmasterka's observation below. If that is to what the article is intended to refer, then it should be renamed to indicate that and make it clear that it is not a list of independent states that are new. I suggest Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union since that seems to be what the US government use. If rename is not agreed, then my vote is delete. Kcordina 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. rodii 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful list. Curious that East Timor and Eritrea are not present (the newest states!) Grandmasterka 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, if not Delete per Kcordina. PJM 12:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename. Oh for god's sake. The NIS is an offical US government designation. See [16][17][18][19] and thousands of others. The article needs to be improved, not deleted. "Has 'newly' in the topic" is not a deletion criterion. rodii 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, as per Rodii. Lukas(T.|@) 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seeing as it's a government designation. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, if it's a term that's going to be used by a very notable entity (the US govt), it damn well ought to be represented in WP. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the proper, government term, is Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The current title is misleading as it suggests the article is about new states in general, hence my rename proposal. Kcordina 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete└ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted, then recreated a couple of times. However it now looks different from the first edition, so here we go for the last time. Punkmorten 10:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as non-notable athlete. Kcordina 11:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn bio, please delete and protect the page from creation. I think a speedy will be better. --Terence Ong 15:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is most probaly sockpuppetry as the usernames are very similar. --Terence Ong 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsame case as hakeem. notable enough in all aspect, sports and tv.(Coleenmag 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: User's only edits are to the article and this AFD. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, overseas competition means a certain level of notability. also appear on tv.(Kennyang 14:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note. User's first edit.Blnguyen 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no olympic experience true. but think on behalf of tv appearance, should pass.(Mark waite 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note. User's first edit.Blnguyen 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those recommending "keep", please consider this WP:BIO guideline: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Thanks. PJM 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google hits. lots of info on Tan Rui Xiang. Article on Team Singapore website. results of various meets. also found Quest Model site with rui xiang, tan inside google image search. Swift is a famous club in Singapore with Shammer Ayub inside too.(Kaiteng 14:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note:User's only edits are to this page.Blnguyen 01:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to refer to a Google search, you should link it to this page for others to see. PJM 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the above Google link is spurious as it doesn't put his name in quotes; the link below only finds five hits - Runcorn 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; huh? no quotes means nothing ar? ok. hmm.but i think if you are smart enough, you can find rui xiang, or ruixiang or other combination. anyway, its the quality and content of the evidence also. thks! (Kaiteng 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Struck out duplicate vote. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international athlete. Kappa 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drawing the line at Asian Games or at the very least at the SEA Games proper. Low Google hits too. Otherwise, he's not notable enough for inclusion. --Andylkl[ talk! | c ] 18:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not competed internationally at international level. no athletic achievements of notable skill.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: think competing overseas in various meets should be considered competed in international meet as SEAG is a recognized meet in the context. international level terms is defined as competing overseas with various athletes in dictionary. So should be no prob as for the meet in thailand and the singapore asian meet(Mark waite 06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - (he hasn't competed in the senior seagames)-you don't need to reiterate your vote for each of your comments - as you do not get another vote for a second comment.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Struck out duplicate vote. Stifle 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we should support Asian athletes! having proudly represented the country in overseas meet is a strong proof of notability. in this case, with the addition of extra TV exposure, it should be enough. (Geishalover 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep; notable club, country and media exposure met. strongly keep this article.(Edhardy 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note -user's first edit. You guys do know that your votes will be discounted, right? Punkmorten 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KCordina. Flood of socks. Oh, and assuming this is deleted, {{deletedpage}} it. Stifle 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notanbe in Singapore.(Sorensom 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note- User's first edit - there's no need to waste your time.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity bio article. *drew 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the users that has its first edit here, are likely to be sockpuppets. How come no one's blocking them? --Terence Ong 08:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP (not listed in fortune/forbes, no notable press releases found). Also, article is almost indecipherable and my attempted copyedit failed to reveal any rescuable information. Kcordina 11:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic, non-notable forum. Kcordina 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, WP:CORP. PJM 12:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has major press coverage like [20][21][22]Kappa 13:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. It doesn't mean that an article must be a Fortune 500 company or listed in Forbes magazine to be notable. --Terence Ong 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My copy of the Weekend Financial Times saw fit to mention Moody's upping SKC's rating in a front-page briefing. If the FT thinks they're important enough for that, they're most definitely important wnough for an article. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Ardenn 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another case of NN presumed from lack of familiarity. A little quick digging showed that SKC is not only listed on the Korean stock market [23], but is in the KOSPI 200 index, the South Korean equivalent of the NASDAQ 100 or S&P 500. Nationally/regionally notable is notable. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 23:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Tone 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Stifle. - Rudykog 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete this entire web page is about sharing information, and broadening your horizons, and informing you insipid people of new things!!!user: analytical_rhetoric
While Wikipedia is about sharing information, there are still guidelines as to what subjects are considered important enough for inclusion. You might like to have a look at WP:Music to see what is generally considered appropriate for bands and musicians, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for an outline of what Wikipedia is not about. You'll find that there are quite specific guidelines laid out as to what Wikipedia includes and what it doesn't. I hope this helps. Cnwb 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article with no rescuable content for a non-notable neologism Kcordina 12:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. eLNuko 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writer seems to be trying to make a point; thus inherently NPOV. Plus, any article that generates that many banners ought to be deleted per se. Daniel Case 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a biased dictionary definition. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Plant (person) was in existence I would have recommended a redirect, but it's not so let's just delete it.--み使いMitsukai 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her Pegship 05:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator withdraws and there are no votes to delete. Stifle 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable place, barely a village. Map [24] shows about 8 houses. No claim to notability in the article. ::Supergolden:: 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the abbotts new googlies12:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Short of it being a glorified petrol station, I think all villages (and comparable geographic locales) deserve an entry. — RJH 18:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All geography is notable per precedent --Ruby 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if its on a map it stays.... Jcuk 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faster than a speedy deletion - it's stubman!...erm... that is - I've extended the article into a more worthy stub. we've got smaller places, this should be a keeper, too. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure all geography is notable (I'm undecided on that) but this seems to be. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following Grutness' expansion, happy to see this as a Keep and withdraw AFD nomination. ::Supergolden:: 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Scott DavisTalk 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete very obviously a hoax. RogerthatTalk 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is inaccurate to the point of seeming hoaxish. Holtman did not compete in Judo at the 2004 Summer Olympics. No athlete by the name of Holtman found on Athens2004.com search. The links are misleadingly labeled; they seem to actually lead to entirely non-international competitions. 17 English Google hits, none supporting the contention that he is a notable athlete. (98 overall hits) Jonel | Speak 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some hustler's attempt to promote himself. Or a fan's. Daniel Case 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity hoax. --Terence Ong 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable hoax. Unverifiable. Fair use image with no fair use claim for the article has to be taken off it in the unlikely event that it's kept. Stifle 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography whose subject, Azamat Abdoullaev, has reverted NPOV tags and other attempts at cleanup. Subject claims to have invented a major system of computerised ontology, but only gates 47 unique Google hits. One verifiable published book, published by F.I.S. Intelligent Systems, for which no search results (so almost certainly self-published, especially since the publisher name does not include anythign like "press" or "publishing"). Smells strongly of vanity, even after some claims have been toned down. Also rolling in USECS, his ontological database, which scores exactly nine Googles under its full name (the initialism is ambiguous, although googling the initialism also returns a fair bit of spam pushing the autor of the article). I call vanity. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 13:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I call it vanity too. PJM 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. eLNuko 13:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promoting BS artist. Daniel Case 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly userfy the autobiography if he wants to keep it. Notability is not really established, verification is iffy. If it's so great, someone else will eventually write about it anyway. NickelShoe 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but it we should let the creator know that his articles are up for deletion. There's a lot of work on both of them. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already did. It's awful that so few people actually do that... It's common courtesy, and the only way to actually have a debate about the article's merits. NickelShoe 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Ontoquantum just did some major trimming of USECS. It doesn't add any more evidence of notability, but I thought you might like to know. NickelShoe 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that User:Ontoquantum is a sock puppet for Azamat Abdoullaev although he denies it. They both work on the same articles. This appears to be original reserarch and should be deleted. Maustrauser 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Ontoquantum as a sock. Guy 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Is Azamat Abdoullaev cited within another article about one of his purpored achievements by someone else? If not, seems clear-cut case for deletion. Holon 03:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It only took me two usecs to decide. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. *drew 06:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Azamat's bio is a self-bio, which is discouraged, and no evidence of sufficient notability has been shown. As for the USECS, this is original research unless and until this scheme of his gains usage or interest outside of its creator. Apparently, his aim is to create a universal hierarchical categorization scheme for everything that exists; best of luck to him on that. Such schemes, even if they catch on, have always ended up encapsulating the biases of their creators (see the Dewey Decimal System, for instance). *Dan T.* 13:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ig0774 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to recommend the article for deletion.--FileÉireann 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. Contains no information on (completely NN) subject. Put up as a joke by somebody I know (I'm ashamed to admit). Closedmouth 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somehow survived Speedy. J.J.Sagnella 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Traffic Rank for flamehaus.com: 1,227,433 --Ruby 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it, its not doing harm - Suicidal_Banana
Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The internet has lost it's soul :( keep it
Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete it- FATTYBEAR...THE MAN WITH THE PLAN
Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it. - Popbob
Comment Above User has made no useful edits to Wikipedia. J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it. - MOSES
Comment user above has less than 5 edits J.J.Sagnella 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable forumcruft. The puppet show isn't helping its case for legitimacy either. --Kinut/c 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above delete comments. Petros471 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I've seen smaller and less noticable forums get by on wikipedia without any hassle of deletions, I don't see why Flamehaus should be an exception. True, it started off as a stupidity parade but I don't think that means it should be deleted
Comment user above has less than 5 edits, also care to state which over articles you're talking about?J.J.Sagnella 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehaus as per above.--み使いMitsukai 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this meets WP:WEB and sections of it are attack pages. Capitalistroadster 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Capitalistroadster — Graibeard (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly un-encyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd also like to point out that the IMDb message boards have over 8 million members, and they only get a cursory mention in the IMDb article, whereas Flamehaus only has about 40000 members. Hmmm... --Closedmouth 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JamesTeterenko 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Magnum P.I. I don't think a character that never shows up in a series merits his own entry. Arundhati bakshi 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's true that Robin Masters never shows up in person, but that's not because he was a minor character; instead, the show deliberately kept the identity of Robin Masters a secret, teasing viewers (and Thomas) with the puzzle of "Who is Robin Masters"? I didn't see the show myself, so I don't know whether this was a major element or a minor quirk, hence why my "keep" is a weak one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robin seems to be the only character to have his own page. MergeThatcher131 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Magnum P.I. per nom; I disagree that he's not notable in the context of the show, but the characters in the show haven't been notable enough in general to have separate articles. If Higgins and TC and Rick and Icepick and Mac haven't got pages, Robin doesn't need one. Georgewilliamherbert 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The logic for deletion seems flawed. Vegaswikian 06:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator's vote was to merge, not to delete, and there are no delete votes. Merger doesn't need to come here. Just slap a {{mergeto}} tag on the page, and include the target page after a |. Stifle 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know about the mergeto tag, but that's what I would favour, not ridding it from the encyclopedia, but putting it intp context within the Magnum P.I. article. Arundhati bakshi 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article name is spelled incorrectly (correct spelling is pentadodecahedron), practically empty, more suitable for dictionary. Accurizer 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find a speedy deletion category but it seems patently obvious that this should go. Wouldn't object to a speedy per WP:SNOW. Stifle 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy (copyvio). – Sceptre(Talk) 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable band eLNuko 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to list it myself, since article tries to assert notability but doesn't seem to understand how. 253 Google hits. Unless someone explains to us what's not in there and should be, it's a goner. Daniel Case 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is non-notable. It gets 260 google hits, way too few in my opinion for a game of this type to be considered notable. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. - Rudykog 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JamesTeterenko 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A New Biographical Page(Falcon007 17:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It's quite disturbing to see this commented as 'non notable'. If someone is not well represented on web, it doesn't mean that he was un-worthy. I ask for immediate removal of this hold.
Similarly, It's quite interesting to see how people try to ruin others contribution just to exercise there pseudo-intellectuallism and wild freedoms.
I created this page to motivate his pupil so that they come forward and represent their mentor.
I liked the vision of wikipedia in which people would contribute towards a better understanding of the world and any miss-doing would eventually phased out by regular contributers, but didn't know that some would kill it in the very start and destroy the very essence of wikipedia.
I will not urge it anymore. Prof. Saeed doesn't require wikipedia refference to justify his works. Thanks ...
You only get to vote once, Falcon007. I say Weak keep, he seems to have an extensive bibiolgraphy, though I don't know that we need an article on every book he's ever written. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bibliography appears legit, and subject apparently played a notable role in Pakistani education, with building named for him. Monicasdude 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — How is he non-notable, at least as listed? Granted the article needs cleanup and some fact checking. Thanks. :) — RJH 18:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would vote to keep if we have verifiable proof that he has done these things. I don't know we have such evidence. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as unverifiable. I can't verify any of these books' existence, let alone their importance. If the article needs "some fact checking" and "apparently played a notable role...", then it needs to be expanded in a hurry or deleted. The only external links are to a GeoCities site (which apparently isn't worth the $5 per month to remove the obnoxious ad) and a single school article in another language. If he's so respected by Alamgirians, why doesn't http://www.alamgirian.org have more than a single page or anything in English? If they have more, I wouldn't know since their search feature is broken - i.e., two junky sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately Strong Keep Many of the books do exist as they are available in various libraries: try searching for Sa`id Rashid or Sajid Rashid; WorldCat returns at least 10 of the books listed in the article. Ardric47 04:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: Well, I'm not able to see what Ardric47 is seeing - he guesses because it's a subscription service - but I'll take his word for it enough to change my vote to abstain instead of delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia University (for example) (online at [26]) has 9 titles catalogued under Rāshid, Saʻīd (it might be easier to copy and paste the Unicode characters). Ardric47 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks ... these are some of his books (Falcon007 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
keep, looks notable. Kappa 13:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle. No valid reason given to delete. "NN" or "Non-notable" is almost meaningless - all it says is "I can't think of a good reason, I just want this to be deleted". Stifle 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and move to correct capitalization. Stifle 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
already been moved. the link on this page with incorrect capitalization is redirected to the correct capitalization version.--Alhutch 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable author and relatively important figure in education in Pakistan.--Alhutch 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Punkmorten 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a guy who collects sports cards, and written by the subject DJ Clayworth 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the most important masterpiece collection in Europe, worth about 1 Mio. $. It's fine if you write a new article about it. I don't have a problem with it. PatTheHead
Delete. I'm not convinced that this self-proclaimed master is notable.SoothingR 17:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a boring biography of some dude who collects basketball cards. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the main article, delete the collection one. Stifle 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami(talk) 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to merit an article of its own but should surely be merged with the parent article FileÉireann 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal of Wikipedia is to be as detailed as possible, then isn't it better that this be turned into a stub and be as detailed as possible? It could elaborate on how the application works, and therefore inspire more homebrews. The topic of how the Cheat Device works (through binary and commands) is in it's own a topic that could be better fleshed out. While I agree that this could be merged with the Liberty City Stories topic, I believe that many details are important and could only be fleshed out if given their own space. These details include:
Each version, and the changes made
Installation
The features
Intent of the feature
Instructions on how to use that feature
Any bugs that exist, need to be corrected, or have been corrected (status)
Use of the feature other than intended
How the programming works
HEX
Functions
In conclusions, it is important that each subject of Wikipedia be as detailed and as clear as possible. If this article were merged, it would lose focus on the above details, which are important to those interested. Thankyou, --Jayden 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And make a mention of the thing in the Grand Theft Auto game article Ruby 22:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Condense to a maximum of one paragraph and merge to GTA: Liberty City Stories. It's worth a mention, but the cheat device is simply a trainer but the cheat device is generally a trainer (with the addition of video and screenshot capture options), and thus doesn't merit an article. ╫ ２５◀RingADing▶ 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! W.marsh 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Context, Vanity. Cdcon 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and Merge into parent article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the linked web site already covers versions, and should cover the remaining concerns as outlined in the response above, and wikipedia is not bugzilla. At the least it can be condensed to an overview and then merged as per nom. — Graibeard (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic with that much detail and does not provide any value as a redirect. -- JamesTeterenko 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami(talk) 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct website; don't see why it's notable. Daniel Case 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daniel, you don't see why it's notable because it is not notable! ;) --Neigel von Teighen 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Traffic Rank for head-space.org: 923,697 --Ruby 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider. This project was the incubator of highly influential community websites including Urban75, Circle Makers and iWorld, and was the pre-eminent online creative community for five years. (Later note) However, I have a personal connection, and have now read more about the rules for deletion; I am very clearly conflicted here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixv (talk • contribs)
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as NN is being determined based on currency. Quite a lot of former entities would be NN and thereby deletable if that were a criteria. Winning an international award is something. In the lack of proved NN, err on the side of keep. - Keith D. Tyler¶ 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to The Sound of Silence. This may not be a vanity page, per-se (if the given forum link is legit) -- but it's probably better for the Russian Wikipedia to make such a decision, if anyone cares to place such an entry over there. --Ds13 16:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Rudykog 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, unverifiable. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon. Find me something that shows that this is more than just vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn artist --Ruby 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- an anon made it so there's no need to worry about pissing off a new user.--Urthogie 09:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Stifle 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: This page was listed for speedy deletion as nn-bio. First pass, it would appear that would be the case. However, I found a reference to this individual at [27] (search for name). Again, at first glance it would be easy to think this person is non-notable. Afterall, he's just a grocery store owner. But, take this in the context of a series of events from 30 years ago. As a leader of opposition against a major project, he may have been frequently in the news at the time, and certainly to the region he was probably quite notable. This is difficult to verify today, since those news items would not be on the web. So, I'm bringing this to AfD rather than speedy delete, to allow for comment. --Durin 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm inclined to agree with Durin - good researching. I know nothing about this but it seems like something that may be notable. MLA 16:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? I honestly don't know whether to delete or keep. We've now got proof this figure is notable, but I feel it would be very hard for this to be a high-standard article considering there are so few sources of information. J.J.Sagnella 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made my Mind up- MergeJ.J.Sagnella 08:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant portion of the article with Dames Point Bridge. The basis of this article comes from a local club's publication, so he is not notable on his own. Cdcon 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not wedded to it, but there's enough material to warrant an article on the man. --Durin 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete but without prejudice against it's inclusion at Wiktionary. If anyone wants to carry out the transwiki process, please contact me (or any other admin) and I will temporarily undelete for that purpose. Rossami(talk) 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination by Cunado19 was incomplete. Completing the process - no vote. - ulayiti(talk) 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This article is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia articles should not be dictionary entries or categories of names. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic, dicdef. --Terence Ong 16:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs in the dictionary. MARussellPESE 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)On the fenceIs this a given name? Can we have an example? If it is, we should disambiguate it from Afnán which has a very different usage to Bahá'ís. But, I'm not sure individual given names deserve individual articles. Then again mine does. MARussellPESE 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it can be expanded, and we've already got quite a few articles on given names at Category:Given names. - ulayiti(talk) 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. -- Krash (Talk) 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no rank on Alexa --Ruby 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page looking to recruit members of a anti-vandal squad. Total hypocrisy. Delete. Bobby1011 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsnese. --Terence Ong 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI'm the creator and sorry to say it but destroy it b/c i put it in the wrong place and i have the wrong ideas--Dr. Mahongany 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever else, it doesn't belong in article space. Tom HarrisonTalk 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Terence Ong 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tell 'Craig Pearce' not to bother publishing his dissertation here either. ::Supergolden:: 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Abraham Lincoln lived there, it might be notable. However, as there is no evidence that Lincoln ever visited Sheffield in the UK let alone lived there, it is unverifiable. The rest of the article is about a totally unnotable residence. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't Delete This page is a valuable addition to the wikipedia encyclopedia, and Craig Pearce's dissertation will be an elightening and fantastic work which deserves to be read by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.114.214 (talk • contribs)
I tagged it as speedy, as it's a blatant hoax (as I stated in the reason for speedying), and putting it to AfD is just a waste of time. Speedy delete, do not feed the trolls. Proto||type 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a hoax. Not a speedy unless you can back up a claim of vandalism. Stifle 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete}} Rossami(talk) 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite his good deed, not notable person eLNuko 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is in the local community. Pretty famous, in fact. I've seen more obscure articles than this survive Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byJimguytrucker (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 February 2006.
Delete as non notable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor hero, not enough for a full article --Ruby 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, the Kove ranch mentioned in this story is the horse farm owned by actor Martin Kove, known best for his role in Karate Kid. This alone validates this entry in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimguytrucker (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. Who knows? Some consider him notable, while others don't. Or maybe he might rise to fame someday. Mr Tan 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Googles a whopping 325, with Wiki and clones showing up first. Essentially a word used by Rush Limbaugh and no one else. Also largely a dicdef as it stands but does not warrant expansion. Noted on List of Political Epithets. Marskell 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami(talk) 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stub about a piece of software currently on version 0.1.9. It is unverifiable because I can't find any information about it not written by the author. Will Loves Beer 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROP but no evidence has been presented for subject's notability. RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form. - Rudykog 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been submitted to WP:PROD twice. Submitting here instead. Appears to be a non-notable student social establishment connected in an unspecified manner with Copenhagen University. RobertG ♬ talk 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, added context tag. Delete unless someone can cite the importance of this group.--Isotope23 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. Angr/talk 21:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. - Rudykog 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly tagged as speedy. It's a neologism. The page has been tagged with hangon, but no matter how much it's developed, it's still about a neologism. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 17:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On what fronts isn't it a speedy? It clearly states it is a neologism, it's poorly written and has no chnace of actually being a real word. J.J.Sagnella 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just use {{db|neologism}}? J.J.Sagnella 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could, and the admin who came to it would remove the {db} tag with a comment like "not a valid CSD criterion". Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the most rapid manner that is not officially a speedy --Ruby 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete / Speedy Delete and say it's not speedy. Reason: Wikipedia is not for words made up by you, especially when they don't make sense! This is not only a violation of encyclopedic material, but it also breaks standard english speech patterns. "ization"? "arianism"? I think it's more of a vanity page, just to get attention or troll. (example: "this word was made up by me".) I doubt this even qualifies for Wiktionary! Raccoon Fox 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I tagged it as speedy, as it's a blatant hoaxy neologism; it even states this in the 'article', and bothering to put this through the AfD process when it's such a clear delete is just a waste of everyone's time. Certainly classes as 'nonsense'. Be bold, and do not feed the trolls. Proto||type 12:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote. Proto||type 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was sent to WP:CP. Punkmorten 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the rantings of a crazed corporation written in the third person -- or maybe its just copied from a corporate website. Google search on EzyDVD returns 340,000 hits, so I guess that makes it notable, but maybe this should be deleted so someone could start over. Ewlyahoocom 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and complete rewrite. --Terence Ong 17:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no rewrite. - Rudykog 10:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm favour of Wikipedia being a source of information on many different topics, but I believe that this is going a little too far. There appears to be little use for this list. (Prodtag was removed by Shagg187) SoothingR 17:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. --Terence Ong 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Nine Inch Nails are big Defunkier 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now for the latest entry in the Hit Parade o' Listcruft.... Delete.--み使いMitsukai 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NIN is notable, so it has its own article. A list of songs they have authored is also notable, and is included in the NIN article. A list of songs authored under a special condition (live) is not notable, and deserves no more than a passing mention in the NIN article. Violates Listcruft. Cdcon 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have also reverted Shagg187's removal of the AFD tag from this page earlier today. Essexmutant 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rynne 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --kingboyk 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really and truly, this is a list of interest to only a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the one who copied it from the NIN main article. It was just so big, it was rediculous, and I felt there was much too much effort put into its creation to just delete it. The only acceptable alternative was to move to another page. I would have no problem with it gone, though. --Tony(Talk), VandalismNinja 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shagg187, who wrote this article, authored another page containing the same list, Nine Inch Nails: Live. All additional content on Nine Inch Nails: Live was pasted directly from Nine Inch Nails#Members. Rynne 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. No point in redirecting anywhere because this is a bad misspelling. No point in merging because what could be salvaged out of this article is already present in other articles. —Cleared as filed. 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Propaganda, heavily biased, factually false statements, unsourced, redundant with all articles about the wars in Yugoslavia. Orzetto 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since "ethnical" is not even a proper word so a redirect seems pointless, cheap tho they be. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. That's too horrendous a misspelling to be covered by a typo, so I don't even think it meets a criteria for a redirect.--み使いMitsukai 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as embarrassment to intellect. Content is purely editorial too. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. rodii 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL. I am afraid the current votes are not sufficiently founded. This article is not, like, a hoax, or vanity page. One must seriously argue that the facts were distorted or events didn't take place. A more correct and neutral title could help. The redirect option is certainly misguided. You cannot redirect to an article that does not address the current content. Also, the absense of reputable references is a serious drawback. mikka(t) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Pending verification. Alexander 007 17:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The events clearly took place. If there is a problem with spelling, fix it. In 1900, Dalmatia had approximately equal number of Serbs, Croats and Italians. Now it is 85% Croat. Serbs were expelled (and killed in a genocide) in WWII and from 1991-1995. Italians in WWII, and expelled after it (it is an issue in Italy nowadays, Berlusconi asks Croatia to give back the property of expelled Italians, called enui). So, there is a lot of substance here, and the article has its place. If you think it is POV or has language errors, you can fix that as per Wikipedia policies. It is not wikipedia policy to remove the content because of language error (or even POV) as far as it is written on wiki policy pages.
Mikiolo 08:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Austria-Hungary in 1911The article contains no useful information and is redundant with the very detailed History of Croatia series and with ethnic cleansing. It is written with POV content that borders on propaganda and cites no sources; its very title and introduction seem written to picture Croats as murderers ("Ethnical cleansing in Croatia is a method which was used by Croats several times to change the balance in national composition of Croatia in twentieth century"). Even if it were a good article, it would be in the wrong place, since there are tons of article on the history and wars of Croatia. When it comes to Italian presence in Istria and Dalmatia, this map of the ethnicity of Austria-Hungary comes in handy: it is from an English source in 1911 (times and authors are not immediately under suspicion of POV). Italians are a majority only in coastal areas of Istria, claiming that "Istria was always a part of Italy" (which did not even exist before 1861) does not look likely. --Orzetto 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the map you have produced is completely consistent with the article. It says that majority in Dalmatia were Slavs (Serbs + Croats). But Croats were a minority, i.e. Serbs and Italians were also a majority. Both were purged in ethnical cleansing, in several waves and that is the point of the article. from around a third croats are now 85% majority in dalmatia!!! Also, being part of a country (like Venice, Ragusa which had Latin, Italian and Dalmatian as major and official languages) is something not shown on this map. I discuss it below Mikiolo 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Italy might have not existed, but Venice clearly did. Until Napoleon Conquest, Istria and Dalmatia were part of Republic of Venice. After that Ragusa and part of Venice were given to Austria, not to Croatia (which was in personal union with Hungary). So it should be changed to never been part of Croatia, since that is clearly true.
Istria, Fiume and Zara were never part of Croatia until 1945, and Dalmatia was never part of Croatia until 1939. Also, if information does appear on some other places, this aspect of Croatian policies ought to be separately discussed. Just because some things are discussed in various other articles are not a good reason to remove an article from wikipedia. Would you remove Holocaust article because of the overlaps with final solution, WWII, SS and Himmler articles?? Mikiolo 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think that POV is a reason to delete an article. The article in its current state is clearly POV, but if it can be sourced, with citations etc., edited to a NPOV, it could be a good article. If it cannot be sourced -- even by its POV authors -- that fact alone may convince the community that the allegations made in the article are false. And by the way, after reviewing enough articles, citations to population changes over time prove nothing in and of themselves -- demographics may change for any number of reasons and genocide is merely one of many possible interpretations (POVs). Carlossuarez46 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted Tc61380 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Article has no relevance[reply]
Speedy Delete as a nearly empty, content- and context-free article. Ryanjunk 17:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1; if not, then delete as dicdef. -- Mithent 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. - Rudykog 10:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn graffitist. I put the Prod tag on it, but Kappa removed it. Just a mention in a newspaper doesn't make one notable, especially since the newspaper couldn't even decide who he is. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Roisterer 08:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, vanity, written and edited by subject. DeleteArdenn 17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:BIO mentions regional and national politicans as being notable, but someone who came second in an election held in 1988 doesn't appear too notable to me. If there isn't any other claim to notability for this person, delete as a WP:BIO violation. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Giddyap Dobbin --Ruby 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 10:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Article does not meet the 3 core policies of Wikipedia. The current article contains zero verifiability, is solely based on original research, and is largely based on the POV of an editor who has debated the same POV in the Gothic Metal article. The article was originally intended to be a redirect for Goth Rock.--Adrift* 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article up for deletion had two editors in an edit war over whether it should be redirected or not. I however, abstain from both voting and closing this discussion Sceptre(Talk) 19:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gothic rock - I agree that this article does not meet the 3 core policies of Wikipedia. The article should be replaced with a redirect to Gothic rock. FilmGal 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gothic rock - First, this article does not meet the 3 core policies of Wikipedia. Also, it does not seem to be able to enlighten the readers any more than the Gothic rock article would; this article is redundant.CatZilla 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about music popular in the Goth scene, which is more than just Gothic rock. However, that informaiton is already covered adequately in the main Goth article. It does not need its own article, and this one is very poor. Additionally, a redirect wouldn't be sufficient since the term "goth" is associated with many genres than just gothic rock, so a redirect wouldn't adequately solve disambiguation problems. It's best just to get rid of it. WesleyDodds 04:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and Merge with List of non-goth bands popular with Goths or whatever that article is called. The information contained within is not soley represntive of all gothic music, and the term Gothic Music applys to many forms that have no association with modern day Goth subculture. An article should be made to reflect this. Ley Shade 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by Adrift. It's entirely original research and it's based on the POV of one or possibly a few editors. Then, replace with a redirect to gothic rock. --Jakob Huneycutt 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I have sources for every claim in the article if people want them. Also, can someone please explain to me what makes Gothic Metal and other froms of Gothic Music devoid of being noted as Gothic Music, when they are also Gothic Themed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
comment: In response to the above comment-- if there are verifiable sources, then they should have been in the article. Gothic "themed", by the way, is different from actually being a certain genre of music...Gothic themes can be found in a very wide range of music, but having a particular "theme" does not mean that it belongs in a particular genre; or even a particular group of genres. If we are simply talking about having an article for music with a certain theme, then in my opinion, it would be as pointless as having articles devoted to the explanation of "Happy-themed" music, or "Agrarian-themed" music. It makes much more sense to have an article devoted to a particle genre or group of genres and styles, and the gothic rock article serves this purpose. Essentially, though, this article is up for deletion simply because it does not follow the three core policies of wikipedia. If you do feel that this article does meet the policies, then go ahead and vote against deletion. CatZilla 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped from speedy. Notable? No vote. r3m0ttalk 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline on this one. Google counts about 77K hits, and 10K if you add the word musician. However, in both cases, mention of Gable's production company is in the top three on the list.--み使いMitsukai 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Put quotes around your search terms. "Slice A Pie Productions" lands 99 hits.[28]"Mona Gable" gets 354.[29] -- Krash (Talk) 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Straightforward NN violation.Cdcon 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, close to speedy under CSD:A7. Stifle 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source of information on this weapon system comes from "Defence Review" (see link in article) which in practice is a one-man webzine run by David Crane. The information is thus unverifiable at best. Further more the information is refutable. The "no recoil" claim for instance is - as any high school physics student knows - false. In the comments on the article on the article I have written the result of feasability checks I made using fairly simple physics calculations (see message by "J-Star on Monday, January 24 @ 09:28:14 PST") and the claims just don't hold water. This I wrote over a year ago and the editor has not responded.
In short, the DREAD weapons system is in all probability a hoax. Therefore the article should be deleted. J-Star 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd. I made up weapons in primary school as well, but I didn't post them to Wikipedia. --Ashenai 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, maybe because there was no Wikipedia when you were in Primary? Only reason I never posted all the crazy weapons I dreamed up in middle school...--Isotope23 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds just like all the other railgun/mass driver/kinetic energy weapons people are trying to invent. The difference is, those are better documented.--み使いMitsukai 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like the Warhammer 40,000 Eldar Shuriken Cannon. Not that I was ever a big enough nerd to play tabletop wargames and spend hundreds of dollars amassing an Eldar Army. No really... I swear... but I digress. Physics would dictate that some of the claims made about this weapon are impossible. The promotional for the DREAD video does not show the supposed prototype firing (go watch the video though... it's hilarious). You see the prototype, then a series of shots into a wall. The weapon was supposedly created by Trinamic Technologies LLC of Connecticut, but I can't verify the company even exists. There are U.S. Patents pending for one Charles W. St. George that seem to cover this technology, but getting a patent and actually building a working prototype are 2 different things. There is a bit of chatter about the DREAD on forums since it was announced last April, but all in all, I don't see it's existance as being WP:V. It's the small arms equivelant of vaporware.--Isotope23 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it would... you scared me for a second when I saw that linked; I half-expected someone had created a new neologism page for vaporweapon complete with link to List of Vaporweapons.--Isotope23 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V at this time. Bring it back when it doesn't. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to last version by Evercat, or Redirect to Wiktionary, or Delete. -- Krash (Talk) 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely to be a hoax. No references. Cdcon 22:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, and it's apparently already been transwiki'd. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>
I have been contacted by Waya sahoni concerning this article and his desire to either 1) improve the article or 2) transwiki the article elsewhere. Furthermore, the article has evidently been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Based on these facts, I am more than willing to retract my nomination and/or vote to Keep the article to allow the WikiProject and/or Waya sahoni to improve it. James084 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使いMitsukai 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Isotope23 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to retain the content if at all possible, because I think this is interesting and important. Suggest maybe a Transwiki of the list to wikisource and then a link & mention in the Cherokee Language article, if that is at all possible.--Isotope23 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but can any info be salvaged for the main article on the Cherokee language? I hope someone can check, as there is a reference given. --DanielCD 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, but Merge some mention into the main Cherokee language article. I think it's important for us to say that yes, we do strongly feel that knowledge of these languages is important to the posterity of all humanity, and their details matter. I think much of this information has value and see no reason to delete it outright. I would also be willing to use my knowlege of the workings of Wikipedia to assist in any effort to counter criticisms about the article and help improve it. Also, I propose that all votes that simply give a "per nom" basis for their vote default to the end view of the nominator. If they don't care enough to return and counteract this proposal, they the likely don't care anyway. Keep in mind these are discussions, not outright votes, so a "vote:per nom", while valid, doesn't carry a lot of weight. --DanielCD 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe transwiki to wikisource?--Isotope23 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki seems the best place for this. I can verify that the content is pretty much one of a kind, and I doubt Wikipedia would ever get access to this type of content. The language constructs are also correct. Waya sahoni 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Carlos. Kappa 05:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki seems best. The Cherokee language article has no examples of any Cherokee words, slang or otherwise. Adding too much of this would overwhelm it. Rmhermen 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a mention would be most beneficial, and perhaps one or two examples only. Care should be taken, as per your point, not to overdo it. --DanielCD 17:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed Transwiki of the Article into the Wikitionary. To the closing editor, verify the content has been preserved in the Wikitionary then the article should be archived if possible, but removed from the namespace. Waya sahoni 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not to [sic] excited. -- Krash (Talk) 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redundant image. Linked all articles using this image to a much better quality version of the same thing (OneOfThemCap.jpg). Also, copyright info on this image. Dogbreathcanada 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; original article was ego-surfing, new revision (about someone else, created by suspected vandal) is about a non-notable as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metahacker (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom.--み使いMitsukai 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23, (aeropagitica). -- Krash (Talk) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article is patent nonsense with respect to physics (e. g. speed of light) and does not document anything notable [30][31] or researched [32][33]. xyzzy_n 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使いMitsukai 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims a velocity that is about 10 times c, which has no support in any scientific journal --Ruby 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "this is all still theroy, and is yet to be tested." In other words, original research. Daniel Case 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -- Krash (Talk) 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Plus it's badly spelled... Her Pegship 05:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Wham2001 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Long parts of comments from this AFD discussion have been refactored to its talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than others, merely that these long comments are a little *too* long and are making for too much reading. I would recommend that users involved in this discussion read through the talk page too.Stifle 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, advertisement. Additionally, was tagged with a {{prod}} but was removed by the author, as per this conversation from the article's talk page:
1. I submitted a request to move the page from "Everyonesacritic.net" to "Everyone's a Critc" taking the URL out of the title.
2. I reworded the content so it is a description of the community and not an advertisement for the website.
3. Other similar movie websites have entries in Wikipedia that are not submitted for deletion.
If the person who submitted this entry for deletion, continues to do so, I respectfully request that specific reasons are stated in this discussion, so I may know how to continue to change the content to fall within Wikipedia's guidelines.
Don't take this personally, but this article is not encyclopaedic. What you can do to prevent this from being deleted is to edit the article in a way that shows what the site is, who founded it, some history, etc. Example: sentences like "Everyone's a Critic, find yours..." sounds actually as a slogan rather than something you can find on an encyclopaedia, or "Dan, being the receptive webmaster that he is, has been applying many of these new features in a very timely manner." is a direct compliment (thus, completely subjecive)to someone that is not even notable. Any questions?
Ah: there's an alternative way to deal with deletion process and it's AfD. In that process, users vote on the deletion or keeping of the article. Would you prefer that instead of this more "aggresive" Proposed Deletion? --Neigel von Teighen 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. One quick thing. What does "NN" mean? --Dave Seidner 10:05, 17 February 2006 (EST)
NN = Non notable. In simple words, only few people knows this and it is not worth enough to be in the encyclopaedia (unless you can verify and demonstrate that it is notable). --Neigel von Teighen 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also recommend that the requested move by the author be terminated pending the outcome of this decision み使いMitsukai 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Traffic Rank for everyonesacritic.net: 915,697 --Ruby 19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this site does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I am the author. I have once again altered the content to be from a neutral perspective. The entry does not promote the site, it just states facts. Regarding the NN claim, I refer you to the following press about the site: Yahoo New and Notable March 8, 2003. Seven Wonders Entertainment Site of the Week April 10, 2003 and Sydney Morning Herald - IT News February 21, 2004. Also this site has about 1500 users and the google search query "rate movies" brings everyonesacritic.net back as the number 2 listing. Similar Wikipedia entries that are not deleted: MovieLensMovieMistakesThe Diabolical DominionFour Word Film Review and others (just look at the "Movie websites" category). Dave Seidner 3:33, 17 February 2006 (EST)
No offense, but just because we haven't caught them yet doesn't mean that they've survived an AFD. We may have to look into those as well, and if they meet the same nn criteria as yours might (note I say might, as this AFD is not complete yet), they may be nominated for AFD as well.--み使いMitsukai 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Everyone's a Critic is a relevant and important film discussion website that deserves mention along with the Internet Movie Database. It may currently lack the enormous membership of the imdb, but it is a far more literate and inclusive site that is a central gathering for serious cineastes as well as casual moviegoers. I think this important site deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia strictly because of the lack of similar entries. People will find it relevant, interesting & of more interest than generic and impersonal sites like imdb or rotten tomatoes. TC Candler
Delete. Close call, though. I looked at the other movie wiki sites mentioned above, and the one thing they have in common is that they contain much fewer POV phrases than everyonesacritic. Nonviolation of NN is less important to this article than nonviolation of POV, so focus on making the article more neutral.Cdcon 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears "TC Candler" above has precisely one edit, the one above. He is likely a double for the author, in which case I upgrade to Strong Delete.Cdcon 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the persistent (and apparently good-faith) edits made to this article by its author, I switch my Strong Delete vote to a Neutral. See my talk page for details. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not-for-profit and harmless enough. The article is a bit NN, so I would support making the article NPOV if it's to be kept. --UrbaneLegend 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Cdcon's above accusation... I state that I am absolutely not a double. I am an accredited critic in London, England. I write for and am editor of my own film magazine called 'Coming Soon'. The publication has a circulation of about 100,000. I've run my own website for 6 years now and have a respectable daily readership. I am not a double. I am a member of EaC and believe that it is an important cinematic tool and a great place for aspiring cineastes to gather. - TC Candler
I'll take you at your word for that. From a quick google search I can see that you have some notability in some movie critic circles. However, keep in mind that it looks very suspicious when your first edit is on an AfD page. It usually takes a while for a new user to get to the AfD page, so I can assume you were led here by someone who wanted your specific point of view. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have changed my vote. Dave has made a good faith attempt to change the article dramatically and has demonstrated notability. If everyone when criticized behaved like Dave in putting up constructive arguments whilst remaining cool and polite, Wikipedia would be a better place. Well argued Dave. Maustrauser 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geez, talk about a persistant author. I don't think it holds much value, but I'll change my vote. ----Alphachimp 00:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Alphachimp 00:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
!!!!KEEP!!!! Everyone's A Critic is a relevant and innovative web-based community that fosters the development of its writers' critical thought processes, writing skills, communication skills and knowledge of everything related to the history and development of cinema. The discussion regarding its lacking of notability disregards both the documented three cases media coverage (meeting the requirement quoted by Wikipedia of "multiple" media representations. In fact, its notability is clearly greater than that cited for other websites in the same category such as "Four Word Film Reviews," a cite which lists only one such example in a "nomination" for a "Webby" Award. Thus, I believe that Everyone's A Critic falls clearly within the realm of notability required for inclusion. I do understand and appreciate the discussions being presented for deletion, however, I believe the discussions point more towards the need, which is being addressed, to edit the article in a way that educates rather than promotes. "Everyones a Critic" has gone considerably above and beyond the typical film website by: 1) Providing an active forum for participating writers to share their voices, become better writers and receive feedback on their opinions, writings and critical thoughts, 2) Empowering participating individuals to expand and explore their writings by taking the lessons learned on EAC and applying them as writers (Several of the active participants are either freelance or active film critics after first finding their voice on EAC), 3) Offering a benefit to the community by working in partnership with Indianapolis based 501c3 non-profit organization Tenderness Tour, Inc. (Yes, I am its Executive Director) in doing a year-long fund-raiser for Prevent Child Abuse America and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence AND raised hundreds of dollars through sponsorships of every review written in 2005, and 4) Creating a worldwide network of amateur and professional film critics who work, write, discuss and educate on all subjects related to film. Clearly, I believe very clearly, "Everyone's a Critic" is not only appropriate for inclusion but a fine addition to Wikipedia.
TendernessTour (aka Richard Propes)
KEEP: Part of what makes Wikipedia notable is community input over content. The same can be said for Everyone's a Critic. The community has been submitting and building its database as well as initiating content and function changes since inception. To deny that noteworthy trait is to deny the same for Wikipedia. EAC is also noteworthy for collecting an international community who continue to visit, some daily, for multiples of years. It is unique from other film sites in that the personal recommendations formula actually achieves its goal. I have been effectively matched with both professional and amateur critics whose recommendations have surprised and pleased for three years. I continue to receive obscure international and made-for-cable titles suited especially for me. These are titles that would not have been brought to my attention without this formula. The achievement of this goal will continue to foster the growth of this site. I expect Everyone’s a Critic to become to film sites what eBay became to auction sites. Imagine yourselves being the people responsible for deleting Auctionweb in 1995 (a.k.a. eBay in 1997)? All the great ones started just like this! --Nycsmile
*Comment. Frankly, when I look at the page, I still see what looks like not only POV, but outright advertising. "Words of Hope" as a section header? That's ad copy, not a section header. Links to awards vice simple mentions within the article? That's leading someone to go look and increase the validation of the article vice letting it speak for itself. I initially AFD'd it, because as the {{prod}} was removed makes it somewhat controversial and highly suggests that it needs to go to an AFD for further validation; I didn't have a vote on it one way or another. But based on what I see now, if I had to vote, I would vote Speedy delete based on what I consider to be WP:VSCA. Furthermore, by the increasing appearance of EaC members to come here and "protect their turf" is usually indicative of and done by minor sites that do not meet the notability requirements of WP. Lastly, by your nitpicking every bit of the rules, you are not ensuring that the article will survive; however, you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable.--み使いMitsukai 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)See below for my revision.--み使いMitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Dave: You stated under #2 that I refer to "NN" as the reason for deletion. If you go back and look at everything I've written on here, I cited WP:WEB as my reason for deletion. I never stated NN. I'm not trying to WP:BITE, but if you are going to refute my reasoning at least refute what I actually said. Now per your contentions of meeting WP:WEB, in my opinion the award you've cited (Seven Wonders Entertainment Site Award) doesn't qualify as notable and as Karmafist has stated below, the news articles are just blurbs. WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a rule, which is why Karmafist is voting to keep despite WP:WEB. He and I have a different opinion about this though. Again, it is nothing personal against you or your website.--Isotope23 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Isotope: Really, isn't that just semantics? Is there really a difference between "NN" and WP:WEB? Click on WP:WEB and it talks about Notability guidelines for websites. I have yet to see a link to a Wikipedia page for "NN". I was told "NN" means "Not Notable". So, what's the difference? And I've been accused of nitpicking.--Dave 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No it's not just semantics, but since I'm not changing my mind and you are going to continue to fight to keep a reference to your site on Wikipedia, this is pretty much a wasted conversation, so let's just leave it at that.--Isotope23 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of all above, I'm afraid this article is still basically promotion for a NN site. Agree with Ruby and Isotope 23. AndyJones 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Articles like this one are why i'm not a deletionist anymore. Yes, this site doesn't meet the Alexa test, yes this site is questionable on WP:WEB (the news piece is a blurb at best, and the award probably isn't notable), yes WP:AUTO was broken, which often makes articles a target for deletion (hell, Jimbo Wales breaks WP:AUTO all the time), but ultimately to me, deleting this smacks of WP:BITE. Dave Seidner here has a website that's on the border of notability, he wrote a decent length article about it that's following WP:NPOV, WP:V("Words of Hope" was some event, albeit, an also non-notable event) and he gets rewarded with an afd right off the bat, several sockpuppets coming to his aid here making things worse, and a few people who are slightly newer than Dave here smacking the "rules"(half the rules around here are broken anyway)in his face with his misplaced good faith contributions on his website here. Just leave the damn thing alone. Karmafist 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a new user. I believed EAC was being deleted for not being noteable. I know it is noteable so I made the recommendation to keep it and gave my own reasons. I did not act as a sock puppet. Discount as you must, but understand there was no bad faith on my part. It was simply my intent to contribute to the discussion. I believe the author has made every effort to address the concerns raised. I will make no further comments. --Nycsmile 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article Update Changed some of the section headers to sound more generic and less ad-like. --Dave 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the alexa ranking. Stifle 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I completely object to Stifle's attempt to stifle me. Stifle claims the reason he moved the meat and bones of this AfD over to the talk page is because it's too long and therefore too much to read (Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!). Yet, everything he's moved has been the author's comments (except one response to one of the author's comments). Many of the author's comments Stifle moved are a lot shorter than other people's comments he left on the AfD page. So why move the author's short comments and keep other's longer comments and claim it's because the AfD is too long? Then, after all that time Stifle took figuring out what to move over to the talk page be cause it's too much to read all those words; it's blatantly obvious Stifle didn't even read any of it, he just moved it. Why? Because he votes to Delete with the Alexa ranking as his reason when the author already pointed out that according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability. Folks here keep telling me to not take this personally, or no offense, but... and I'll tell you that I haven't been taking this personally. I do understand the need to edit and delete within Wikipedia. But, over time I'm beginning to take it a bit personally. When rules and guidelines are blatantly ignored, when Wikipedians justify the ignoring of the guidelines by saying "Well, they're going to be changed soon anyway." then how is a newbie supposed to take all of this? I'm trying not to take it personally, but some of you are making it difficult. --Dave 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to change to a keep vote, but because of this diatribe I am not. A drop of honey will catch more flies than a barrel of gall. You, and anyone viewing this, are also entitled to refactor comments to the talk page if they are too long. Stifle 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, you're right. I posted the above comment while frustrated over this situation. As a newbie, I didn't realize refactoring on an AfD is acceptable. I don't expect you to change your vote, but I do apologize if I offended you. --Dave 17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's not get too caught up in semantics. I think this entire AFD discussion arose from some personal vendetta; I'm withdrawing my vote because I don't really have an opinion on it. Stifle 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no vote yet): I have cleaned up the article by deleting some headers and a paragraph, but also adding the {{web-stub}} template. I would like to tell thse participating on this vote that they should be aware that this article is a stub. I say this because many people may have voted for deleting the article only because it is incomplete. Meanwhile, I'll take a decision... --Neigel von Teighen 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neigel for cleaning up the article. This is the guidance I was hoping for from a more experienced Wikipedian. I believe so much more can be accomplished at Wikipedia through positive feedback and guidance as opposed to biting the newcomers. I honestly appreciate what you've done, no matter which way you decide to vote.--Dave 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if and only if this article is turned into something like Lernu!. I totally agree with Karmafist, specially when he says that EaC is in "the border of notability". ([34]). But, I would also like to see this article quickly listed on Request for Cleanup (that forgotten tool that can help so much). --Neigel von Teighen 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems a useful NPOV stub when I read it (see time stamp). AND: I don't like the term wikilawyering either we have policies or we don't and either we apply them or we don't, no one should be criticized for pointing out a failure to adhere to our own policies. Carlossuarez46 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the work that has gone into the article to improve it immeasurably, I am changing my vote to a Weak keep. I still agree that it's on the borderline of notability, but it appears now to be within acceptible bounds. The article still has some edits more to clear sections that still feel like advertising, but it's far better than it was in the beginning. On another note, while I do agree with the concept that Dave was "Wikilawyering", this also does prove that the AFD process, as well as the criteria we use for the process, does need to be more heavily scrutinized. If this site were as nn as some (including myself) think/thought it to be, this should have been a far easier and simpler process (especially with the influx of "one-time responders" from EaC). Likewise, to defend it, I don't think that justifications of notability should have been turned into an epic saga. Everyone here's going to need to look at the processes we use both to delete and protect articles in the AFD process, or else we're going to be nothing more than a debating club that gets nowhere.--み使いMitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain... I've removed my delete vote above. I still don't see sufficient evidence of notability to satisfy me enough to vote keep, but in the interest of good faith and perhaps fostering a little less contentious atmosphere here, I'll withdraw my objection.--Isotope23 17:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... I'm a new user to EaC, this week in fact. It looked like it was just going to be a skeletal duplicate of the IMDb. But I've found it quite unique, and I've been spending much of my time this week adding votes, films, actors, etc. to the database and comparing votes to others. I'm quite impressed. I believe the site is valuable, and will be moreso as more people find out about it. Agreed that it shouldn't read as a promo.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for an unnotable short film that hasn't even been released yet. Xezbeth 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The home page of the film's production team has no rank on Alexa --Ruby 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Jokingly serious"? Yeah, this one's got Oscar written all over it. Delete.--み使いMitsukai 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, none of the principals are on IMDB. Big Smooth 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context, appears to be a amateur home film.--Isotope23 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no context and not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even released yet and no refs. --DanielCD 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. *drew 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is apparently linked to some kind of animu and should at the very least be merged with whatever spawned it if not deleted entirely. --Shuma-gorath 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: original AfD nomination was malformed. Re-listing under today's batch. jni 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable newly created martial arts. 91 Google hits, almost all from Wikipedia and its mirror. jni 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seven unique hits, when Wikipedia is removed from the search criteria ("Retsuken Ryu" -Wikipedia). -- Saberwyn 10:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De;ete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This is non-notable MMORPGcruft. Delete.JDoorjamTalk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My computer crashed after I put AfD2 up, but before I got to AfD3, and was only reminded of the article this afternoon, hence the delay in posting here. The other posts are from user(s) who saw the listing at the page, rather than at AfD (i.e., the page's author). JDoorjamTalk 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is notable, it is information on something which is a significant part of game, which a lot of people play. Over 40,000 people play Utopia, and HaJ is relevant to them all. There are about 1000 people for whom HaJ is more directly relevant, as they are (to varying degrees) part of it.
I'm sure that to someone that doesn't play the game Utopia, it is irrelevant, but thousands of other articles also seem irrelevant unless you already know something about them.
To be honest, considering the lack of space this page takes up it surprises me that it matters if it stays or not. If it is useful to some people, why not just let it stay?
It has had a blank page for a long time, I just thought I'd provide some further information.
Comment Actually, I came across this article while patrolling new pages. "Long time"? The page was created less than 24 hours ago.
Comment The article was not there, but the empty page, together with a link to that page from a disambiguation page, has been there for a long time.
--Kombucha 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (All contribs are to this article.)[reply]
I fear I must disagree with you when you claim it to be a non-notable game. Utopia http://games.swirve.com/utopia is a game of many players that involved intricate details of strategy, communication and diplomacy. Utopia began as a small gathering of 10,000 players in 1998 and has since then been growing. For a full review of Utopia please follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(online_game) to the game's wikipedia entry.
I must also disagree with your contention that HaJ is a non-notable portion of this game. The Honour and Justice alliance has been around since the seventh age of Utopia, marking it one of the oldest and best known alliances in the gaming world of Utopia. Honour and Justice has hundreds of members with hundreds more passing through her halls each year. HaJ has become an integrated part of the game and is note-worthy for such a venue of information -- wikipedia.
69.161.217.134 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Arthinius (4 contribs, all to this AfD)[reply]
Comment I never claimed the game was non-notable. However, " "Honour and Justice Alliance" Utopia" gets 7 unique google hits, one of which is -- Haj, a disambiguation page, and one is a mirror of that disambig page.
Comment The Honour and Justice Alliance is recognized by any player that is familiar with Utopia gameplay. Honour and Justice is the oldest surviving player organization in the game. It has spent many ages contending with other organizations and has dominated many game top charts. The organization is more than noteable within the game for these reasons.
Merge into the main article if desired, then Delete as non notable gamecruft. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使いMitsukai 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This kind of nonsense makes Wikipedia look bad. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate, incoherent cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and I propose the principle that player-created organizations in MMORPGs are inherently non-notable unless something extraordinary makes them notable. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gamecruft.--Isotope23 21:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and amen to JdavidB --Ruby 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per JdavidB Sandstein 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article is new, but if you search for "HaJ" you will find a disambiguation page, with the option of "Hajj" (a Muslim pilgrimage) or "HaJ" (this alliance.) Following the HaJ link takes you to a blank page.
I understand that to the vast majority of people, this is irrelevant, but there a still a lot that it is relevant to. There are many articles here that contain fairly insignificant information, but it is still vlaid information. Any information and a subject, if correct, is better than a lack of it is it not?
I see why a lot of people may not see a reason why it should be here, but I see no real reason why it shouldn't be here. If someone can explain that (preferably in a non-offensive way) I would appreciate it.
Although a merge would be better in my opinion than an outright deletion, I don't believe it is a good idea. Although HaJ is a part of Utopia, the Utopia article is not really an appropriate place for the information. To use an analogy that would probably make more sense to those that don't play Utopia, it would be similar to having information on Manchester United in an article on football/soccer.
I'm sure that to those that don't play Utopia or a similar game I must seem like a geek with biased views who places too much significance on something which is completely pointless, but I am trying to be as impartial as possible.
--Kombucha 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletion Policy does not include this kind of article as one that may merit deletion. Of course, the Deletion Policy is not final, but from what I can see, there is no need to delete articles simply because some people don't believe them to be necessary. Correct me if I am wrong and I have missed something.--Kombucha 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Who are you to judge what is worthy and what is not. This is an online encyclopedia, its whole purpose is knowledge. As the two above said, there are over 40,000 people that play utopia. What might not matter to you certinly matters to them. Open your mind for one second.
-Fionan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.170.75 (talk • contribs)
(One Wikipedia edit, to this AfD)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 February 2006
Should Have Been Speedied AlreadyKarmafist 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Utopia (online game) and let the editors there add an appropriate level of detail on this. Friday(talk) 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really doesn't belong on the Utopia page; even the page's author has said so. JDoorjamTalk 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable gamecruft. Jonathunder 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with main article, then delete all but a redirect. Not speedyable in my view, though. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really doesn't belong on the Utopia page; even the page's author has said so. JDoorjamTalk 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, why do you all post together?
Secondly, your posts are worth almost nothing, because you are not backing up your opinions with anything. You continue to say, for example: "non-notable gamecruft" and "Merge content with main article" when I have already given reasons why both are not, in my opinion appropriate. You have said nothing to say why you disagree with these views.
--Kombucha 12:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kombucha, you're probably more likely to annoy people than to get good results by telling everyone their opinions aren't worth much. As the author of the page, and as a new editor who's only edits have been related to this, many people aren't going to weigh your opinions very heavily. This is all about having an appropriate level of detail. If the main game is significant enough to have an article, that's one thing. But many editors feel that we don't need seperate articles on everything IN the game. Why not set up a wiki all about this game, and then you guys can have whatever editorial policies you want? Here, we're trying to be an encyclopedia, and that means we use verifiable information and discuss whatever is most relevant about the topic at hand. Friday(talk) 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding.
What I said was not that their opinions were worth nothing, but that their posts were worth little. My point was that they were giving no reasons for what they said, or responding to my previous points.
Wikipedia is not all there is in the world. Whether I have made a lot of additions or changes to Wikipedia or not, my opinions can still be just as valid and my points just as correct.
I understand that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. But from my point of view, that means containing as much information as possible. Of course, incorrect information is worse than no information, but this information is correct, and relevant to thousands of people. It is by no means the most important article here, not by a long shot, but it may be useful to some people. I see no reason to remove the article, it is doing no harm by being there, as long as it does not contain false information.--Kombucha 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On being asked to close this Afd
I'll add my two penn'orth. Somebody asked me to close the AfD on this "this slam-dunk gamecruft article" yesterday. I declined. I said in reply:
'I don't like to do article deletion closes. If I encountered this in AfD, I'd probably wonder why such an obvious merge candidate had been nominated for deletion, and why so many people were supporting deletion with no other rationale than that they believed it to be "cruft"'
I hope that whoever does close it will take into consideration all opinions expressed, but will honestly express our dictum: if in doubt, don't delete.
If I encountered this article in cleanup, I'd probably just merge a sentence or two into the article on Utopia (online game) and redirect. That is all that needs to be done here.
I am glad to see that someone in a neutral position is at least disagreeing with the idea of deletion. I would like to point out, again, that a merge would not be a particularly good idea, and would be akin to merging an article on a famous sport team to the article on that sport. Kombucha 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's one or two key differences: a famous sports team would surely have reputable sources talking about it, and most editors wouldn't find it an inappropriate level of detail to have an entire article about just one team. Friday(talk) 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why what I have written is any less reputable than an article that most people would write on a team. I assure you that what I have written is true. If you would like me to prove this in any way, I will, if it is possible. It is rare for articles to prove what they say; this article does not contain an unusual level of statements that are not backed up.
Edit: How would you (or anyone else) suggest that I improve this article with sources? Due to the nature of the article it is not easy to supply a source for all the statments there, however, I will do what I can. Kombucha(talk) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for heaven's sake, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Why would it be such a bad idea to edit this article right now to redirect it to Utopia (online game)? In what way would Wikipedia be harmed by my ending this debate by doing that now? As an experiment, I shall try that now and we'll see if Wikipedia is irreparably harmed by this action. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HaJ is not the same thing as Utopia. It makes no sense to redirect to Utopia. The reason no one has done anything like that so far is because we are still discussing it. Whether Wikipedia is irreparably harmed or not is not the point. Kombucha 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This biography contains claims of notability but they are unreferenced and given the hyperbole in the edit history are of doubtful veracity. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without reliable sources, it reads like vanity and self-promotion. CDC(talk) 23:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Monkeyman 03:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary author, please see arguments in RS discussion page. RedManPlus 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any reliable sources cited supporting his notability. Stifle 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" i own all of RS's catalog. i can't believe anyone would even be bothered by this. jealousy and insecurity are such nasty traits of emotional weaklings. get a life, haters.
Keep Even though Mr. Stolp does not appear in Rolling Stone, he is a highly valued, respected artist of our generation. Interest in his musical pursuits as well as artisitc faculties is growing at breakneck speeds. It would be a great disservice to present and future generations to stifle his quest of informing people of his talents and making them aware of his place in this world of everything online. I myself own a highly sucessful website, which proudly displays a link to his work. I recieve numerous inquiries about his work daily. How can an artist wether it be musical, canvas, or the written word, be invalid? One must wonder if this form of communication and advertisement was around since the beginning of time, would someone had suggested a Beethoven entry here was vanity? Would Salvador Dali be put up for deletion due to someone judging his entry as self promotion? Furthermore, would a user decide that Einstein's theroy was impossible, thus put it up for deletion based on their own judgement that it was improbable? What has society dwindled to when people are so quick to jump on the judgement train. I say KEEP Mr. Stolp's entry loudly and proudly.
Keep Over the last few years I have watched Mr.Stolp's career grow..With each passing cd his music has gained world wide recognition and critical acclaim. Not only do I own his cd's, but I own a web site where Mr. Stolp's, web address appears.. To delete him due to vanity or whatever other claims that are being brought against his entry at Wikipedia, is ridiculous. He is proud of what he does, he is honest, and he is talented. The trumped up charges agaisnt Mr. Stolp have no merit. Keep his entry in tact. His talent, integrity and dedication to his art, is proof of the kind of man he is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to spliff, with a redirect to wiktionary article on skin up in that article. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This describes a slang term for Spliff, which already has its own article. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It googles about 215K hits, so that's somewhat notable, but I don't think it needs its own article. Merge and redirect to Spliff.--み使いMitsukai 20:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry, instead of bringing it here, a revert might have been more appropriate. Redirect to Wiktionary entry. Peyna 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article descibes many aspects of skinning up, related culture and useful advice. Give it some time for others to add to it.Jonty 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps a candidate for Wikibooks but not here. Maustrauser 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skin up is not the same as Spliff. The spliff is the thing you smoke, to skin up is to make a spliff. (so I understand. I wouldn't know myself, of course! "Cough splutter"!) Jcuk 22:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is that the article consists of not much more than instructions (which violates WP:NOT) plus a few song titles and lyrics. The entry for Spliff already has links to "how-to" guides. The Spliff article notes that "Skin up" is a popular term in the U.K. for the act of creating a joint/spliff. The author of Skin up, User:Jonty303, seems primarily interested in looking for excuses to insert external links to his personal websites (losethegame.com, etc.). See [35] and User_talk:Jonty303. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term is common in the UK, but this is a how-to. Vote delete and redirect to spliff. AndyJones 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia is not a how-to, or a dictionary, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Well-written article, but just not the right kind of content for Wikipedia. Stifle 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite - at the moment the text belongs to Wikibooks (if at all). An article is different from a HowTo. -- mkrohn 22:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Transwiki. Shanel 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A page that is a list of quotes - put simply, this should be on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, this information is not all that article-worthy or interesting, or particularly relevant to the subject matter of Stargate. Suggest moving it to Wikiquote. Alfakim -- talk 20:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom.--み使いMitsukai 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. i doubt that Wikiquote would want this. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case maybe we should keep it? It looks well thought-out and well written. Would be a shame to waste. James Kendall [talk] 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the writing has no bearing on the encyclopedic-ness of the article. There are well-written hoaxes and badly-written articles on notable subjects. -- Grev 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Stifle 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom --Ardenn 06:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom --Hmackiernan 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom MarineCorps 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Punkmorten 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy I realize articles like this can be ticklish, but I nominate this one for deletion primarily because its an autobiographical entry. He may be perfectly notable, but I get a funny feeling when I see autobios. I have no problem with userfying Bugwitgrunt / scribbles 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability is insufficient to meet encyclopedic inclusion guidelines. Userfying is fine too. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no claim to notability. -- Krash (Talk) 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Violates Wikipedia:Autobiography and appears to fall short of WP:BIO criteria on the notability of being a published Author (Amazon ranks his book around 1.4 million sales rank). Assume good faith that user didn't know about Wikipedia:Autobiography criteria and will post to his talk page to let him know why this is being AfD'd.--Isotope23 21:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding its last pargraph, this is just an ad. AndyJones 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an advert. - Rudykog 11:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and unverifiable. -- Krash (Talk) 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使いMitsukai 21:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't reliably verify any info. --DanielCD 21:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Chick Bowen 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as tagged.--Isotope23 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is blank.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge or Delete Survivorcruft. Arnzy 10:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible as per Decikiller. - Rudykog 11:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Though, I think that all or most of this info is already in the Survivor: Palau article, so probably just RedirectAdamJacobMuller 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Redirect to Jak and Daxter. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I decided to simply do so. Feel free to revert if the outcome of this discussion suddenly changes. - Andre Engels 10:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was: Speedied as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and userfy if requested. Falls just outside a Speedy.--Isotope23 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd be tempted to speedy. In fact, I'm going to tag this as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His claim to fame is running for student government--not even a major position within student government, not even the office-holder. NickelShoe 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article does not meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines. Sliggy 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of certain schools, which WP:Is Not. There is already a list of Bible colleges so this is a fork to promote certain Australian bible schools. If this group of schools is notable it isn't demonstrated. The group's webpage fails to explain notability [36], which is also just a list of "independent" schools. Arbustoo 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 22:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a list. It is an association in existence since 1969. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a date, how is it more than a list? Arbustoo 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, Ruby saying that these associations exist? This organisation does exist! Paul foord 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point was we don't know what educational clout/recognition this "association" has or why it is Wikipedia worthy. Arbustoo 20:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its such a slippery slope...as if writing an article about this institution would cause other institutions to be created. Then we would have to write more articles. Oh, the horror. savidan(talk)(e@) 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the association exists, it is international in scope with some notable members, the list can be put on the list of Bible Colleges if desired, but the Association at least deserves a stub. -- Paul foord 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable association which has been in existence since 1969. Cnwb 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of the above Jcuk 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not just a list. Its an article about an association, which is notable. savidan(talk)(e@) 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is not lists, but this is a valid, international organization with numerous members. Sandy 15:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.
The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.
This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Gweedo767 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, Vanity. Cdcon 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with you that this page is to trivial for Wikipedia, I should note out to other wikipedians that Gweedo767 is the administrator of a rival website. Just to put things in perspective. IRbaboon 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I could not disagree more. This is not self-promotion because I decided DS Meet needs mor exposure. It's a legitimate, growing community. Just as Nintendowifi.com and Nsider get pages, DS Meet does as well. It's the same service, just an alternative form of it. Agahnim 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a perfectally good page, it has plenty of interesting information, and is not plugging the site. It has some real knowlaedge in it. Lattyware (Not Logged In) --81.79.50.2 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates the following rule: "This page could be considering plugging a website. Any form of advertising like that is a violation of Wikipedia policies." catchphrase 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I then move that we delete the Nsider, IGN, and GameFAQs entries, based on the fact that they are plugging a website. Agahnim 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being suitable for Wikipedia is more then just a definition. The site should be sufficiently large, recognisable and popular. IRbaboon 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this entry does give keen information to readers. If this entry is deleted, than the NSider, GameFAQ's, and others should be deleted too. We are an alternative. Streetsim 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DSmeet is a well run community of DS players with a very active exchange of gameplay and game related advice. Plus with MKbot and AC:WW automated catalogue they have helped many get the most out of thier games. I think anyone searching for DS and DS related topics would be better off with knowledge of this site. WillofWarrior
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DSmeet is a great site, and it is not "trivial" though it is small.
Comment Above User has less than 10 edits. J.J.Sagnella 08:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa rank, though not stellar, is in the 90,000's, which is higher than most non-notable forums. Google presence[37] isn't insignificant either. I don't really feel I know enough to judge whether this is notable though; no vote. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant policy is WP:WEB requiring outside verifiability. This article does not appear to comply with it. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything notable is verifiable, not all that is verifiable is notable; not all that's deleted is non-notable, not all who wander are lost ... hey, where was I? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, WP:WEB is, ideally, there to make decisions easier for us, not to make our decisions for us. I do agree that this is tending towards non-notability, and WP:WEB is important here. It strikes me as a (somewhat) close call, though. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn game forum --Ruby 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am disgusted by this. --DJH47 01:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJH47 and I are friends, so he likely feels angered that the website of his friend ended up on Wikipedia in what he feels is vandalism or self-promotion. I had nothing to do with the creation of this article, but now that it is here I must admit that I wish it could stay. --Echelon 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that the move for deletion was brought on by a competing website. Gweedo767 happens to run WitendoFi, and he has repeatedly tried to comment when DSmeet or other websites that compete with his are mentioned on blogs or other websites (this instance on Wikipedia is another instance of such). Some evidence: [38][39] I believe this is the motivating factor behind his push to delete this article, and I ask that you consider it when you make your decision. As for whether or not DSmeet is actually a notable website, I have some thoughts on that as well: DSmeet has a fair Alexa rating, and has beenmentionedofteninthepress. I believe that the impact this website serves in the Nintendo community is absolutely not trivial, and I also believe that Nintendo is closely monitoring websites like DSmeet to see how to best conduct their future online endevors, as this is an important new direction for their business with the Nintendo WFC. Full Disclosure: I am the owner of DSmeet and I do believe DSmeet is non-trivial, but I also acknowledge that I am a heavily biased individual. In any matter, I await your vote whatever the outcome may be. --Echelon 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DSmeet simply isn't a big enough community to require a Wikipedia article. A compromise would be to add a section on friend code sites in the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection article giving a brief summary of each website (all while keeping an NPOV). Most of the article is indeed plugging a website and is an article that simply isn't needed. (Sidenote: I am a moderator on this forum and yet disagree with this article being online.) --Sakurina 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse User:Sakurina's proposed solution as reasonable, but don't feel qualified to do this myself. User:Sakurina, would you like to try for adding this section? Worst that can happen is getting reverted .. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about my earlier proposal, and I actually must go back on it. DSmeet has, by far, more users and traffic than the others combined. It's more impacting in the Nintendo community. I think if we did a general article on all friend code websites, it would simply ignore the reality that there is only one "big" and "active" directory/service. Consider this: I now think of this issue in terms of an article on, say, an IMDB competitor. There are hundreds of them scattered about the web, but none of them are as significant or well known as IMDB is. If we were to make a general "DS Friendcode Services" article, it would be the same as creating, say, a "Movie Database Websites" article. I think that would miss the point--IMDB is significant in movie culture. DSmeet is significant in the Nintendo WiFi culture. --Sakurina 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 55,000 Google results for "DS Meet" and "DSmeet." I'm not sure how many are necessary for it to be considered "notable," but, at any rate, if the problem is that the article is plugging the site, why not just correct the article instead of deleting it? It would be a fine part of a collection of articles about the online communities Nintendo's first true venture into online gaming is creating. -Wild Bill 03:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote: Keep. I'm changing my vote because I completely forgot that we could simply edit the article to modifying the non-NPOV/plugging aspects of the article. And with the recently posted proof that DSmeet is more notable than I thought it was, this simply made me want to change my vote. --Sakurina 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just about. Glad I looked at the article though, I thought at first it was some Dom/sub forum or something! Jcuk 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's immature for a competing site's member to have his competitor's article deleted. --HydraPheetz 05:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree with DS_Meet being considered a "trivial" website. As previously mentioned, DS_Meet has received alot of recognition throughout the web. Users join DS_Meet to fill a void left by Nintendo's own community and are provided with useful tools and information to enhance their gaming experience. I feel it is a notable website and should be allowed to remain in Wikipedia. Gweedo767's reasons for requesting removal are clearly personal and should be discounted as such. --NisMax 07:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all four five. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn vanity. This one along with the others are also a little ticklish. They appear to have a bit of notability to them, but they also smack of vanity, self-promotion, and nepotism. Bugwitgrunt / scribbles 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons listed above:
Keep as notable/with work as part of the historical record in the field. Noontide Filmworks is a 6 year old production company incorporated in New York State which has past, present and future productions of note, copyrighted material that has had nationwide notability and is listed on imdb (0127891). Jon Chang, also listed on imdb (1645971) is the main producer, writer and director for Noontide Filmworks. Jon 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable/published author. Paul Chang has contributed to the science of artificial hip joint replacements including software used in measuring gait impact as it relates to such technology. He has several publications and is an engineer and product designer of note. Paul Chang Design is the entity through which he currently makes his contributions. Jon 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable/published author. Wallace H.J. Chang has served as President of the American Association for Hand Surgery, contributes regularly to the American Board of Plastic Surgery board exams, is the inventor of tools for use in carpal tunnel release surgery and a humanitarian who devotes much of his time to operating free of charge in 3rd world countries with established entities such as Operation Smile, Alliance for Smiles, Rotaplast and Northwest Medical Teams International. Jon 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The three keep votes above were all added by the author of the articles in question. --Bugwitgrunt / scribbles 05:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Bugwit is correct - fact was not purposely ommitted that these articles are respectfully submitted to keep as noteworthy articles by myself, the author. Thanks. Jon 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also seems to be a mechanical translator text-dump (conceivably a mechanical copyvio from another language). Makemi 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, opinion, bad tone, nonsense, vanispamcruftisement, etc. -- Krash (Talk) 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research type thingy. Stifle 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally listed for prod, but was redirected to Dayton, Ohio; since that is an inappropriate redirect (Liberty Cab is not unique to Dayton), I've put the original contents back and brought the page here. No assertion of notability, fails to meet WP:CORP. Peyna 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not just redirect to Taxi then if you don't like the redirect. There is no need for this AfD. -- JJay 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting in hope of some loving, tender debate. Note also how it is possible to write a relisting note without using garish red.-Splashtalk 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. No Guru 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article is an advertisement for a multi-level marketing scheme with a bait-and-switch component. I tried to fix it, and I have debated what to do with it over several days. I believe it needs to be deleted. It contains numerous links to articles singing the praises of this obscure numismatic company that produces this product. It also encourages people to pass NORFED's privately minted coins, which closely resemble some older official U.S. government issued coins. This article and the accompanying links, and as a result Wikipedia, come very close to encouraging illegal behavior like uttering, passing counterfeit money, fraud, and theft of goods and/or services by deceit. This is definitely something Wikipedia should distance itself from. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
First nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NORFEDmikka(t) 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is too little neutral, verifiable information to prevent this from being an advertisement for the product. -Will Beback 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was one of editors who some time ago worked to clean the bullshit from the article. In my opinion it is financial snake oil and crookery, but it is notable snake oil, hence deserves coverage. If anything, it needs a heavy-handed POV control, but not deletion. mikka(t) 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a bit more than MLM snake oil, it's an issue associated with the Libertarian Party (United States), the 3rd or 4th or so largest political party in the United States. Here, take a look at Libertarian Party of New York Economic Issues. It's also a well written, balanced article (not that that should decide whether the issue is worthy of an article at all), and we document many worse things than MLM here, see Bloods, Crips ...GRuban 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming this is a pyramid marketing scheme is a paranoid reaction. I receieve over 600 scam e-mails a day and not one has ever mentioned this currency. The wikipedia page comes across as a factual description of a novelty item which nobody in their right mind would confuse with government issue currency, and the article in no way led me to believe that the NORFED coins were genuine government issue currency. The BrianGCrawfordMA user indicates that wikipedia is encouraging people to engage in "theft of goods and/or services by deceit" but I was in no way encouraged to do so by this article. Please examine:
Where you can clearly see that to be committing fraud there would have to be the suggestion these NORFED coins "are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" but there is no such suggestion and the wikipedia article paints them as a novelty item private individuals may if they wish swap with one another in exchange for objects or services.
If NORFED novelty coins were widespread and commonplace then the Federal Reserve would no doubt manipulate the LAW in any way it considered necessary to eradicate them. They however, are not - and this is almost immaterial as the wikipedia article is descriptive and not suggestive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.172.204 (talk • contribs) and is the only recorded edit by this user.
This seems to be a noteworthy topic (passes google and might just squeak media coverage) but the POV in the article is overwhelming. The article is obviously comprehensive and well written but is entirely designed to give an impression of these objects as valuable, sensible and popular... I would need to hear evidence from respected sources (not blogs, local papers and anecdotes) that assert this scheme is sensible and not just someone's pet nest-feathering project or a scam which claims to work on "libertarian principles" in order to rip people off. As is I'm going to abstain because although there is way too much POV here, the monetary system is inherently fraudulent and just plain wrong and anything that tries to give it a kick up the backside is fine by me, something I feel so strongly about that even my deletionism is pushed aside. If it can be proved to be a scam, delete. If the article is wikified, keep. It has to be said that the above unsigned post really tries my patience and I believe it's author should declare themselves and any involvement they had in the article or with NORFED if they want their opinion to be considered in this debate. ++Deiz 01:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of the above opinion, I have and never have had any involvement with NORFED or with the article. I read pieces of wikipedia regularly but have never seen a discussion about if an article should be deleted or not before - hence my "unsigned" nature, I am not really a big part of forming the site nor intend to be. I am suprised my comment made ++Deiz emotional and I do not wish to be involved in a heated dispute about this. As to declaring myself, I do not know what you wish me to to declare? I came to the article looking for information about the Liberty Dollar and it provided me with the information I was interested in. I do not understand how shrinking the knowledge contained in wikipedia is to anyone's benefit, but I am willing to admit that perhaps I am simply hardened to MLM-style nonsense and my brain filtered out everything except the facts I was interested in. If you want to do something about the page, why not re-write it in it's entirety yourself, leaving the factual information about what the coins are, their weights, NORFED, etc, remove anything you find "salesy", add the comment many people consider this to be an MLM and the rational behind this - because to me (and I admit I did not consider the intention of NORFED in their manufacture - because it is immateral to what the objects are) they just came across as novelty coins that people could use in a "club like" fashion to trade with one another - should they be so disposed.
Could you please elaborate what exactly is POV in the article (in its talk page, not here), so that we could fix it? mikka(t) 02:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I searched extensively for such sources, but could find almost nothing. See my vote above. -Will Beback 06:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had about the same success as Will Beback on this. I did several searches over several days, trying to find something written by someone who is not involved financially with this project, but I couldn't. With the exception of the news story that says that two men were arrested for passing one of these to a shopkeeper, which is linked in the article, all the stuff I found was written by people who had paid the $250 to become an "Associate" and thus, they had a clear financial interest.
I don't think this article can be made neutral without original research because of this very real problem, and that's another reason I felt it needs to be deleted. Compare Liberty Dollars with silver coins minted for circulation by the U.S. Government. The Liberty Dollars are cunningly designed to look like U.S. Government issues. Like U.S. coins, they have the word "liberty" spelled out on the obverse above the stylized head of a woman. Sound familiar?
I guess what this comes down to is a lot of people think that the U.S. Government is irresponsible and should not have gone off the Gold Standard, regardless of the fact that it is one of the basic responsibilities of any government to completely standardize its currency and so prevent frauds like this. Now these people are willing to pay twenty dollars for a piece of silver they could get for eight, just to prove a point. Even worse, they want you to buy the overpriced silver to prove their point too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I would remind everyone that this is not the place to promote a personal agenda, but I fear this falls on deaf ears. There seem to be people involved with the Liberty Dollar who think this is a fine place to promote their product.
This is an ad, it's hopelessly POV despite my substantial edits, and there's no reliable information to be found anywhere about the Liberty Dollar. To pretend that this article is neutral is to lie to every reader of this article. Please delete it. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the raging debates on the talk page and done some more digging, I've come to the following conclusion: The article for this topic will never be NPOV, but this topic will always have an article. Catch 22. Is there a WP policy for this situation? BGCMA and others who are willing to police it, good luck... I'm going back to the safety of stoner rock and Korean baseball. ++Deiz 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, changed from delete. In spite of how repugnant this scheme is, upon further research I have come to think that the material in this article should be made more concise and merged with either the article for "Commodity money" or "Private currency." "Liberty Dollar" and "NORFED" should be redirected accordingly. Maybe then this information would get the broader context it desperately needs. "Phoenix Dollar," a similar currency/program/movement should also be merged and redirected to one of these topics, but maybe that's a discussion for another time. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support a merge & redirect per BrianGCMA ++Deiz 20:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid this is not how wikipedia works. A separate topic is a separate article, unless there is nothing much to write. mikka(t) 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still in favor of Keep. Make it Strong Keep. Three reasons:
The fact that most editors think it's a scam shouldn't influence whether or not we have an article on it - it should merely influence the tone of the article. If you think it's a scam, back your opinion with research, and put it in the article. Google gets 85,000 hits on "Liberty Dollar", it's pretty clearly notable, so if we don't have information on it, that's a gaping hole in the Wikipedia. We've got articles on Amway and Herbalife and Ghu knows what else, whether or not it's a scam is not a reason to either delete it or hide it as a subsection of something else.
Second, I'm not sure why people keep saying the article is an ad. Every section of the article has some pretty critical lines: "not endorsed", "not legal tender", "not widely accepted", "resulted in arrests"... What more could we want? The very fact that it's hard to find any criticisms of the scheme elsewhere is a reason to keep our article, it's one of the most critical articles on the subject out there! And it does have links to criticisms in the External links section, which otherwise would be quite hard to find.
Finally, unlike Amway and Herbalife and similar organizations, the Liberty Dollar is a political statement. Even if the MLMers are trying to make a fast buck, the actual users aren't in it for a buck, they're just doing their best to criticise the "soft money" policies of the US govt. That's worth expounding on. GRuban 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article simply describes what LDs are, and doesn't encourage anyone to go out and get them. Furthermore, if the Federal Reserve, Department of the Treasury and the Secret Service all deem the LD to be legal, then it's legal. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.10.106 (talk • contribs) on 00:40, 18 February 2006 and seems to have been (hopefully unintentionally?) deleted by User:Will Beback on the very next edit.
Speedy Keep No-brainer. Also, (1) That you fail to understand something does not make it a scam; (2) Even if it were a scam, that's no reason not to include an article on it; (3) If you have problems with the content then fix it, don't delete it. Kurt Weber 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CrunkJuice, you voted for Dirty Sanchez (sex), a previously transwikied dicdef of a non-consensual act of wiping fecal matter on the upper lip of a passive partner in sodomy by the very one who had sodomized him or her, so I assume you'd vote to keep any indiscriminate salad of letters, numbers, and symbols as long as it had a title. With voters like you, every inconsequential elementary school in the English speaking world has a good chance of getting listed in Wikipedia and staying there forever, and every bizarre sex act will be catalogued.
Kmweber, I don't "fail to understand," as you put it, how the Liberty Dollar works. It's a great way of separating fools from their (real) money. Unless you are one of NORFED's very own "patriots," I'd bet you don't know as much as I do about it, as I've spent several days on crackpot militia movement and survivalist blogs that extoll the virtues of NORFED, the Liberty Dollar, von NotHaus, and any other brave soul who purports to put a boot in the Fed's ass. Let me know how much junk silver I can unload on you at twenty bucks an ounce. Buy it for Freedom.
Yes, Kurt, I have plenty of problems with the content, and I will keep fixing it and changing it until the NRA, NORFED, Ted Nugent, and the Aryan Nation and all their associated, so-called "Libertarian," gun-show loving, sh#%-kicking ilk pry my keyboard from my cold, dead hands.
I still don't understand why these righteous freedom-loving patriots in right-wing crackpot communities across the country are so keen on silver, a commodity with a highly variable price that has lost a huge amount of its value over a relatively short time. I'd rather barter with smoked hams than Liberty Dollars. At least you could eat the ham, and it may outlast NORFED.
Yes, I want to hurt this article as much as it has hurt me. Yes, it deserves to die, and I hope it burns in Hell! I may have no real beef with NORFED as long as they keep their propaganda to themselves, and I'd never heard of them till I found out about them spamming Wikipedia articles, but when "Liberty Dollar" survives this vote, you can bet your life I'll be on this article like white on rice, and NORFED will no longer be able to rely on Wikipedia as a free advertisement for its scam. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the comment: how exactly has this article hurt you? GRuban 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy keep' - This one is a no-brainer. This is definitely notable. Cyde Weys 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable attempt at privately-issued currency, whether it's a good one or not. *Dan T.* 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. Alternative currencies can be notable, and this one certainly is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly seems notable to me. Might be an MLM programme, might be rather crap, might be somewhat of an advert, but not anything serious enough to delete. Keep. Stifle 21:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have studied the Liberty Dollar. It is not an MLM program. It's not perfect; what is? Keep this article. Thank you.12.28.14.1 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your first edit!Deiz 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I've known about the liberty dollar for some time - seen their presentation - and am skeptical about their claims. After reading about the Fed M3 stunt on for March 23, I decided to consider the liberty dollar as a safe haven from the crashing dollar. I came to wikipedia to see the LD discussion and was happy to see the views of others that are skeptical. So, as long as there is a "criticisms" section - I think the article is valuable and should stay - for the sole reason of keeping people from foolishly buying into it. Brer Vole
Keep Its an interesting article that discusses currency backed by metal, as well as being about private currency in this modern age. --O.F.Fascist 08:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Wikipedia is NOT: the thought police, nor the editorial section! KEEP this and all other articles on the facts. Brian G. Crawford, mikka & others who go around saying people need to be "protected" from certain organizations are no better than book burners--who's next? Democrats? Christianity? the NRA? Islam? Grow up! --Lance W. Haverkamp 15:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per all arguments above. It is notable, and a viable alternative. Joe I 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-canon (probably fanmade) character. None of the hits on Google (which were few) were related to this character. Wookieepedia also had nothing. KrossTalk 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he was in the extended universe, why isn't there any citation as to what book/game/comic/whatever that the character was in? Delete unless verified.--み使いMitsukai 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as meaningless cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article was dleeted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names. It was taken to deletion review where deletion was endorsed, and several expressed themselves satisfied with its continued existence in Project space at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names, since it failed WP:NPOV. This seems to me to be a pretty blatant attempt to get round that by citing other people's POV - including some newspaper space fillers. I don't want to provoke a war here, but I am greatly disturbed by this apparent forking. I realise it's slightly different in conception, but overall it really isn't significantly different to the old article in that it is still POV and OR, it just says so up front and then appeals to the appeal to authority fallacy to justify it. In the end, "Fucking" is only funny to a sophomore Anglophone - in its native language it is not actually that odd - and the places listed as producing many "unusual" names are merely an artifact of dialect or influx of people from non-English speaking countries. So this should, if anything, be a list of place names considered by an arbitrary subset of people to meet some arbitrary definition of "unusual". But in the end no amount of saying "look, this is not the same thing, really it isn't" doesn't make this any less a fork, in my opinion. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I think the original article should come out of Wikispace, doing an end-run around the rules isn't going to make things any better.--み使いMitsukai 23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks to me like the previous version was nominated and deleted because of a lack of sources. This has sources so it is not the same article. We can't penalize people for making the effort to provide a verified treatment of the topic. Therefore "forking" does not seem relevant and I hope the article remains on this more scholarly track. -- JJay 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. Too indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash. rodii 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Imperfect as this article is, it is many orders of magnatude better than the other, as this one has sources. As it was sort of created as a compromise between having the other one (which includes anything anyone happened to toss in) and having nothing, I guess it should stay, just to help keep the other one away. As long as the entries in the articles have sources (real sources, not some "ain't this some funny shit" blogs), I'm not really against it. -R. fiend 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the old article to Project space was the compromise. This is at best trivia, at worst an attempt to ignore consensus. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 10:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but change title to "non-traditional place names"-- unusual sounds POV to my ear, and perhaps a more accurate reflection of content. --Hansnesse 02:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is referenced. A different name doesn't indicate a fork - this is a more NPOV name than the old one (saying that a name is considered unusual is more NPOV than saying that it is unusual). World wide focus is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. This kind of phenonmenon occurs in other languages - for example, there were plans to call the Iraqi army (ok, not a place name, but same principle) the New Iraqi Corps, until it was realised it'd be arabic slang for f***. Andjam 06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (1) vague name. (2) potentially endless. (3) very prone to be a target of jokers from all over the world. The Fucking, Austria will get them started. (4) more-less recreation of AfDed article under slightly different name. (5) current infrastructure of Wikipedia simply doesn't allow to maintain such type of articles. After it improves article may be considered but not now. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "current infrastructure of Wikipedia simply doesn't allow to maintain such type of articles"? Andjam 13:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stable versions mainly. Such article will be left to horde of kids trying to outwit one another and no one will be able to maintain it. Not a first case here. Pavel Vozenilek 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a reason for deletion. We have lots of articles that will continue to get much more vandalized than this one. Nor are the other points you raise valid. Turnstep 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more such articles the worse situation. Limits of growth. Pavel Vozenilek 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put George W Bush up for deletion, then. (Only kidding) How about only deleting articles with real problems, rather than deleting articles because of potential problems which may or may not eventuate? Andjam 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (and thoroughly agree with) nomination. --kingboyk 19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or move the old article back into article space. This is a list of place names that are famous for being strange, to the point that they appear in newspapers or other reliable sources. --Sertraline 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good arguments for deletion have been advanced. This is not POV, the items are sourced. "Other people's POV" is not a problem at all - the important thing is that it is not *our* POV, as the previous article was. Seems like a good-faith effort to address the strong verfification concerns raised previously. Turnstep 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the parameters that were being placed around which references might be used for determing that a place name was unusual, this article will not be able to develop much further beyond the few entries it has now. Place names are easily verified, that the place names are considered unusual seems not to be according to the criteria for sources which as been demanded.--A Y Arktos 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is significantly different to the old list because it has a few examples which are sourced with references, rather than hundreds of unsourced examples. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is venue-shopping to try and avoid previous consensus. Stifle 21:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? The only consensus was over a compromise. Andjam 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic. WP:V is pretty clear that assertions in articles don't need to be true; they just need to be sourced. Some place names are of interest; in fact, I would cite Mary Pukui's fabulous Place Names of Hawaii (ISBN 0824805240), currently sitting on my shelf and my invariable companion in Hawaiian expeditions, as an example of a way that an editor can compile interesting place names in such a way as to produce an encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV text. This article doesn't violate wikipedia policy; although it's currently in pretty sorry shape, I think it might one day turn into an article like List of people believed to have epilepsy, a "list" that rewards the encyclopedic reader by its perusal. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. The argument that this game is not played by anyone else than a small circle of people was never rebutted. The keep votes provided no real arguments. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable card game. A "prod" tag was removed yesterday, apparently by the creator. It's a well written article, nicely formatted, with a picture, but unless we see a couple of references that this is played by more that just the 2 guys who invented it and their friends, it really should go. GRuban 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting game idea. Still not notable. Delete.--み使いMitsukai 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, Google search for ""El hombre de oro" + wrestler" turns up 3 results, even if he is a real wrestler, he isn't notable. Also, the image added to the article is a very bad photoshop, thus contributing to the hoax factor. lightdarkness (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though that crappy Photoshop job made me laugh. --Kinut/c 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Probable hoax. Stifle 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 11:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Skandia where this has been merged. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV fork of Skandia. There is plenty of room in that article for criticisms, and I feel very skeptical when criticisms of a company are moved to a separate article, without even a link in that article. Smacks of censorship. Delete. Makemi 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Skandia, ensuring the material is NPOV. There is no need for a separate page for this paragraph. -- Mithent 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge NPOV and verifiable text back to parent article and then delete. -- Krash (Talk) 01:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not place for a crusade. Pavel Vozenilek 02:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pavel/Blnguyen. - Rudykog 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Corporate brochure. Does not meet WP:CORP. Monkeyman 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks, walks and quacks like an ad. -- Krash (Talk) 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26k google hits.[40] I going to have to say weak keep and rewrite. -- Krash (Talk) 01:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet marketing created by a user who says on his user page, "More about me at JE Hochman & Associates - Internet Marketing." --Ruby 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Roper Industries. This is a subsidary that doesn't alone meet WP:CORP, but is notable in the context of the parent company. --Karnesky 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Full disclosure: I have made substantial contributions to this page.) and I also agree to MergeJehochman 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Karnesky. Both this subsidary and Media Cybernetics would be more valuable additions as subsections of the main article, rather than remaining as stand alone stubs. MartinRe 18:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(talk) 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
02:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
SoothingR 09:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
13:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
SoothingR 17:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
