Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

Purge server cache

February 24[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninya Loeppky[edit]

Non-notable, likely a hoax article. Only other contribution of the creator has been to add nonsense to Northern Exposure page Jtmichcock 19:54, 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 G4 (recreation of deleted material). (ESkog)(Talk) 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAA an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange[edit]

Delete POV fork of semi-protected USAA. - choster 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all POV forks. This should be a CSD. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork
  • Delete per JiFish. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attack page. Get a blog.--Isotope23 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4 recreation of deleted material. I put a {{db}} tag on it. --Aaron 16:46, 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. -Splashtalk 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougartown[edit]

Appears to be non-notable website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Previously {{prod}}ed by me. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The school might be notable in itself, but not its unofficial webforum. --Kinu t/c 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa rank of 800,168. Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Doesn't seem to be notable enough or important enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu --Ruby 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --James 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Website is valuable resource for history of Hawthorne, California, especially of items related to surf culture, car culture, and 60's pop culture vis-a-vis notable musical HHS alums, the Beach Boys. (Viz. non-trivial ref. Daily Breeze, etc., now deleted but in Google cache). One of the most active high school-centric sites on the web, nearly a decade old, the site has 700 pages of feedback from its vibrant user community, services alums spanning five decades, and also has served a notable role in establishing and preserving landmarks within the school and the community. Alexa ranking is poor because site users generally do not fit (decidedly narrow, I must say) demographic of those using Alexa toolbar; also, many of the heaviest users are on Powerbooks. Having deletion discussion on Feb 24, George Harrison's birthday, is an additional cruel irony to those who know Hawthorne High alumna and occasional site correspondent Olivia Harrison, HHS '78, George's widow.--Joseph Mailander
Yes but that website would be important to only one town. Jedi6 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Actually, it is an important site around the world. See the SLANGS listing in the notable section. The site is also very significant to the several towns in the South Bay area and is frequented by alumni from other schools in the area. The remaining Beach Boys also visit the site. --Don Di Tomasso. HHS Class of 1975. (Comment actually placed by user:69.234.158.44 --JiFish(Talk/Contrib))
  • Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Jedi6 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 12:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that Alexa rank of 800,168 is notable enough. Considering the existence about 100 million (figure may be higher-correct me if I am wrong) websites in the internet, it is a relatively popular site. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JiFish.--Isotope23 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe some clarification is in order. Cougartown focuses on Hawthorne High School but it is dedicated to discussion and preservation of the history and culture of the entire region. There are many Courgartown participants from the surrounding communities that make up the greater South Bay and Airport area of Los Angeles (Inglewood, Manhattan Beach, Westchester, etc.). Many of these people worked (or their parents worked) in the aerospace/national defense industry (e.g., Boeing, Northrup, Rockwell, TRW) This site captures "oral" histories similar to those captured by Studs Terkel and other writers devoted to reconstructing history and culture from the vantage point of ordinary people. Wikipeida Entry for Studs Terkel The Cougartown reader is able to trace the evolution of the national and Los Angeles area media from the 1950s through the present (radio, television, etc). Events, significant and ordinary, are viewed through the prism of generations of a working class community. Literally, there is no other site on the internet that can convey this unique, generation spanning perspective. To my way of thinking, this makes Cougartown not just significant but important. W1P 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Alexa is just too low. --Tone 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to believe people put any credibility in Alexa numbers. I don't see any reference whatsoever to basing deletion on Alexa numbers in the WP:WEB. Secondly, there's good reason for that: Alexa is incompatible with Mozilla and Safari browsers, which account for a higher percentage of traffic in certain communities. I've been actively using this site for eight years, and every time I've used it, it's had three-figure traffic that day at very minimum. I have no stake in the matter other than as a longtime user of both Wikipedia and the site in question, but this seems to me a generational thing. Because forty-, fifty-, and sixtysomething people use a site more than younger people doesn't mean the site's less valuable or even less tech-vibrant. This site's navigation and posting is made entry-level deliberately, to encourage the maximum participation across the widest swath of people, technophile and technophobe, web-sophisticate and newbie alike. It's really a remarkable environment, very unique. Aside: if you're measuring your own blog rankings by Alexa, you're blowing your time. Joseph Mailander
    • Double vote: this user has already expressed desire to keep above. --Kinu t/c 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I thought this wasn't a "vote" whether to keep the site but rather a discussion of the relative merits of keeping the site. That means the "double vote" accusation is irrelevant (not to mention your "second" contribution to the discussion)W1P 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What he means is your comment had "do not delete" in bold writing before it. This is potentally confusing, because a users final opinion should be presented this way. I careless closing admin may have mistaken you for two people, User:Kinu was simply making sure that wasn't the case. Anyway, you have corrected it now, thanks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not a vote it is a gathering of opinions for consensus, but it is Extremely bad form to bold preface a statement with opinions like Keep, Delete, or Do Not Delete multiple times and could be construed as an attempt to confuse the closing admin into believing this is an opinion from a separate person. Assume good WP:FAITH thought because User:Joseph_mailander is a new user and probably was not aware of that tidbit of wiki-ettiquette. Also, Kinu was simply commenting. You can express comments, replies, etc as many times as you want (and it's nice to preface them with comment), but rendering multiple opinions is not looked upon kindly.--Isotope23 21:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for the suggestion. That is a good option. Yes, I notice that there is no article on Hawthorne High School in Wikipedia.Hawthorne and Beach Boys are two possible options. However, I hope there is an ultimate decision to keep the site. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75
  • Do not Delete. As an official Alumnus of Hawthorne High , I wish to offer my opinion on the deletion of Cougartown from your encyclopedia. I strongly caution you against such an illogical & hasty action. The idea of deletion brings to mind the thought of censure and other forms of social control. To delete a factual reference to an actual website suggests there is fear of truth. We are not seeking a referendum to place Cougartown on Wikipedia; someone has already established that it already exists. An attempted deletion is an attempt to re-write history, or conceal an established fact. The senior graphic illustrator/draftsman at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii regularly references Cougartown because of its powerful value as a social tool. Although he attended Pasadena High School he finds Cougartown to be an accurate and important website.

    Where will you draw the line in regard to "deletion"? History when studied truthfully, accurately and completely is priceless, but a watered down, whitewashed & censured version of history is the product of fear. More than this is the very idea of what Wikipedia is designed and created to accomplish, the dissemination of information. To delete the reference to CougarTown in Wikipedia contradicts the core principle what it’s "founders" set out to accomplish. My I remind you that allowing someone to edit is altogether different than allowing anyone to delete! I would like to erase some things I do not like but it is far more important in this free society to equally regard opposing ideas. I have the notion that those who wish to delete Cougartown from Wikipedia may be attempting to cleanse their little cyber-world in order to create a perfect cyber-Eden. I suggest you leave well enough alone in the matter of deleting Cougartown, remember the moral of the Aesop's fable of Sour Grapes? Those wishing to delete Cougartown may simply be upset they did not attend such a "prestigious" run of the mill middle class high school that remains part of history. Thank You for your time.--- Neil LarsonHHS 71
    • Comment. The post from Neil Larson was sent at his request due to posting difficulties. The content can be verified by e-mailing him at [email protected]. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75
    • Comment: Another day, another diatribe about censorship, revisionism, elitism, fascism, etc., etc. Instead of expending energy by making blind accusations against other editors of Wikipedia and its guidelines, you should try supporting your argument to keep this page with facts that are both verifiable and establish importance (for example, per WP:WEB). --Kinu t/c 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. ...a tad self-righteous perhaps? Additionally, it would be helpful if you add more meaning to your terms: facts and importance. Perhaps, then we would not miss the mark. --Di Tomas.
  • Delete Importance of site to certain people does not merit an article. --Jay(Reply) 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ...but that can be stated about any site. Additionally, site importance is only one consideration. --Don Di Tomasso HHS 75
    • Comment: Anecdotal evidence of importance does not prove conclusively general importance. On the other hand, such anecdotal evidence suggests that the site might have more importance than has been suggested by some in this thread. None of the dissenters have addressed my earlier point about Cougartown constituting a unique source for "social history" Cougartown's "importance" on that basis(verifiable by reading the variety of entries on the site), standing alone, combined with the anecdotal evidence of "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention. W1P 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The action seems to have cooled on this discussion. However, I would like to point out for the record that my two comments discussing the importance of Cougartown as a site for "social history" stand unrebutted.W1P
      • I don't know what you mean by "social history", but that doesn't appear to be a criteria of WP:WEB. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It has to do with the "importance" criteron. I explained social history with the link to Studs Terkel. W1P 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As JiFish has tried to explain, "importance" is in and of itself not a criterion of WP:WEB. As a website, this topic is subject to different inclusion metrics. The comparison to Studs Terkel (who most certainly meets WP:BIO) is moot, as people and websites have different standards. The three criterion are listed on that page. Please read and explain how this site meets them, and we will consider that information. Also, your assertion that "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention is false; most if not all websites listed on AfD are obviously important to some people, but whether they are encyclopedically includable (again, if they meet WP:WEB) is crucial. --Kinu t/c 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You missed the point of the reference to Studs Terkel. So let me try again: Studs Terkel revolutionized historical scholarship by writing "social history" Cougartown captures "social history" I was obviously not comparing the Cougartown website to any Studs Terkel entry as a "person" or a "website." You've taken my "assertion that "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention out of context. For your convenience, let me repeat the full context (which was in response to the "delete" vote cast by Jay who said (paraphrase) that importance to some people does not justify rentention):
"Anecdotal evidence of importance does not prove conclusively general importance. On the other hand, such anecdotal evidence suggests that the site might have more importance than has been suggested by some in this thread. None of the dissenters have addressed my earlier point about Cougartown constituting a unique source for "social history" Cougartown's "importance" on that basis(verifiable by reading the variety of entries on the site), standing alone, combined with the anecdotal evidence of "importance" to "certain people" argues strongly in favor of retention." Thus my assertion regarding "importance" to "some people" was COMBINED with an assertion of a more generalized "importance" of the site as a unique repository of "social history" This discussion was directed to the "importance" criteria only. I am not qualified to address the other aspects of "includability" but to this admittedly uneducated point of view, it seems like several others have addressed those elements effectively. W1P 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ‘--James 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Hawthorne High School article if anyone thinks it worth their while to create one before termination of this AfD; and if nobody does, then Delete this.Staffelde 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. WP:WEB applies. Stifle 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since Wikipedia is not a repository of external links and since Cougartown is a primary source of social history and not a "repository of external links," this means that Cougartown should not be deleted. W1P
      • This argument makes no sense at all. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Not "we delete articles about websites that are a repository of external links." --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • JiFish, can you try to explain what you are stating in a different way? You lost me. Dondt1 16:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll try my best. User:W1P suggests that since Cougartown is not a collection of external links, it's article should be kept. This is not what the policy User:Stifle is quoting means. We don't care about the content of the site, so long as it meets WP:WEB. User:Stifle is saying Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. i.e. We should only have articles about websites that meet the inclusion criteria. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • JiFish, are you stating that Wikipedia does not permit external links in any area other than a page sectioned marked off as "External Links"? If so, is this an absolute requirement, a suggestion or a matter of percentage? Dondt1 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'll try one last time. We don't have articles about websites just because the site exists. They must meet an inclusion criteria. The reason why: Wikipedia is an encyclopidia, not a collection of external links. The content of the article isn't in dispute here. (Although, what you said is broadly true, it's just not the issue. For more information, see WP:EL.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you, JiFish. I understand now. Dondt1 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry if my earlier replies were confusing. Explaining things isn't my strong-point. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No problem, JiFish. Thanks for the explanation. Dondt1 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My argument makes no sense at all because it was a response to the assertion of Stifle that made no sense to me. It seems that "external links" means something different in this domain than it does in other contexts. W1P 18:32, 1 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 (blanked by author). — Feb. 24, '06 [07:25] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The K-Man Show[edit]

Appears to be non-notable pod-cast. No assertion of notability. Previously {{prod}}ed by user:Aaron for the same reason. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbow (talk • contribs)

Please, no personal attacks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo sorry tough guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolbow (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Vanity page by User:Kolbow, who appears to be a producer (I think) of this show. After a search, given that it debuted last month, I feel safe in saying that it's non-notable as well. --Kinu t/c 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity page.--Jersey Devil 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Also, its website has no Alexa ranking, and a Google search brings up only 22 unique hits. (Should I also mention the irony? :P) — TheKMantalk 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go slap a speedy G7 tag on the article, I dare you. *grin* --Aaron 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most podcasts are not notable --Ruby 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--James 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry everyone for wasting all of your time. Hopefully the article is fully deleted now...  :..( Kolbow 07:18, 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. - Bobet 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANTs Data Server[edit]

Deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTs Data Server, this was then recreated and thusly speedied. In the past, it has been a redirect to the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTs_Software. Deletion review asked for a review of this deletion. See here for the DRV debate. -Splashtalk 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and lock the title as to stop its future recreation. Bobby1011 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Bobby. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom ILovePlankton 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Bobby. --KimvdLinde 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, clearly. Kuru talk 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete any article I cannot understand. What is it? An ad? A technical spec? A progamming method? I don't care - just get rid of it. AndyJones 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyJones. Stifle 15:31, 28 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 "x in New Zealand", that is, 1965 in New Zealand, 1966 in New Zealand, 1967 in New Zealand, etc. Content has already been merged from 1965 to 1995. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tui_award_winners_1965[edit]

  • Delete/Merge Author is in the process of creating 40 separate articles, one for each year, regarding the New_Zealand_Music_Awards. All are brief, some as little as 1 line long, and from what I can tell there is no way they'll ever get any longer. All should be deleted/merged with New_Zealand_Music_Awards. I'm gonna bundle a few of them into this to make the point, but I'm not gonna put all 40 up for deletion (they're not even all made yet) until we discuss this. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Tui_award_winners_1966 and Tui_award_winners_1967 --Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say merge into Tui Awards, but that article doesn't even exist. So either create Tui Awards and merge all individual by-year articles into one, or else delete them all as non-assertions of notability. --Aaron 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote: Merge all individual year articles into New Zealand Music Awards per Xyzzyplugh. --Aaron 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New Zealand Music Awards are apparently known as the Tui's, so the article is there for them to be merged into. --Xyzzyplugh 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xyzzyplugh. 40 separate articles is nonsensical. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens the name is a little misleading as well. The awards were originally the Loxene awards, then the RATA awards, then the RIANZ awards, then the Tuis. The later articles should be a lot longer than one line, but keeping them is notthe best solution nonetheless. Deleteion is not a good option, since these are New Zealand's premier music industry awards. There are two reasonable possibilities here: Three options: 1) Merge into one long article; 2) Rename to cover all of New Zealand's music awards, on a year-by-year basis. Adding in the APRA silver scrolls and NEBOA Music Entertainer of the Year awards would lengthen the articles considerably; 3) Rename them further still to "Music in New Zealand in 19xx", allowing far more information, with timeline, awards, top singles and albums etc. Ovrall, I'd prefer option 3. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a music section in articles like 2005 in New Zealand, seems a logical place to add the year by year data. We can split music section out later if it gets big enough for each year. - SimonLyall 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xyzzyplugh. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to 1965 in New Zealand music or similar as per Grutness' 3rd suggestion. This allows the article to expand. The later years in music will have more content, and the set of 2003 in New Zealand articles don't go back earlier than 2003, so including music in those articles is not such a good idea. The existing Year in New Zealand articles should of course reference the Year in New Zealand music articles.-gadfium 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep-As per Grutness' 3rd suggestion Brian | (Talk) 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, 40 different articles on years in new zealand music. Why only go back to 1965, then? Why not stubs reaching back to the 1800's or 1700's? Should we then have hundreds of thousands of similar articles, so that every country has one for each year reaching back for centuries? Unless there is actual significant content to put in these xxxx in New Zealand music articles, I can't see the logic in having them. --Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- I am intending to create the "xxxx in New Zealand" (See Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board ) going back to 1900 in the next few days. Looking at Category:2002 in music the only country I can see is 2002 in British music and the British industry is 100 times the size of NZs. I would vote for merging these into the "xxxx in New Zealand" articles. - SimonLyall 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of xxxx in New Zealand music, or even The 1960s in New Zealand music if people hate short articles that much. Kappa 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into xxxx in New Zealand or one page (New Zealand Music Awards?) for the awards. xxxx in New Zealand music is excessive and not supported by the precedent of other countries. Ziggurat 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now copied the content of the articles into the music section of 1965 in New Zealand through 1995 in New Zealand - SimonLyall 03:37, 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 Merge with The Elder Scrolls: Arena. To demonstrate that AfD is not a replacement for the merge template, I'm going to stick the merge template in lieu of making the merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Silmane[edit]

Character in fictional software game. Probably should be merged into The Elder Scrolls: Arena. In addition, there is an entire Category:The Elder Scrolls characters, in which most of the articles are themselves are about individual game characters. Merge those into the appropriate Elder Scrolls articles, as well? Aaron 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge --Hetar 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Bobby1011 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge. I don't like AfD being used in-lieu of the merge templates! --Karnesky 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge someplace other than the main article. Kappa 14:18, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hidalgo[edit]

Nominated for deletion a few minutes ago by Arundhati bakshi as self promotion. However, Arundhati made a minor error with one of the {{afd}} tags, preventing the article from being listed here properly. I'm just putting everything in the proper place. Aaron 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: Might be notable if it had more information. --Hetar 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Page is suspected vanity, as it is by User:Ahidalgo. No vote at the moment pending further research into his notability, bearing in mind that a keep would require a cleanup regardless. --Kinu t/c 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Auto-biographies are discouraged, but he seems to real and has been in interviews for prominent business magazines. Bobby1011 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm in no position to slam Wikipedian autobio. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 12:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kinu. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and for violation of WP:AUTO.--Isotope23 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hidalgo is notable because he is the CEO of a NASDAQ-traded company. The article, however, is a poorly-written stub and needs to Add Content.  Cdcon  22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable bio. --Jay(Reply) 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being CEO of a company denotes notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone can make a one-man company and denote himself the CEO. That doesn't, in itself, make him notable.  Cdcon  18:31, 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 merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shaws Asylum[edit]

I think it's preferable to merge this information in with the main Kerrang! 105.2 article. Smileyrepublic 00:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Merge into Kerrang! 105.2 per nomination.--Dakota ~ ° 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Kerrang! 105.2. Doesn't merit its own page, but it seems reasonable to merge it into the article about its radio station. — TheKMantalk 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge. Why list on AfD if you don't want it deleted? --Karnesky 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TheKMan. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, then, you don't need AFD for this. Stifle 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above. thispersonis 23:28, 28 Februrary 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure House[edit]

  • SAVE How is this an advertisement? There is not money being made or fame to be conjured. Adventure House is already established.

Non-notable subject matter, appears to be a vanity article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wikipedia is not the phone book. Bobby1011 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: The Adventure House IS notable to all the adventure community at both JMU and in Harrisonburg. Information is relavent to the outdoor offerings of the area.
  • Delete James 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable advertisement. --Hetar 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 12:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save important part of James Madison area enviromental conservation and Access Fund. Notable for local contributions. Dubiousandrew 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save This house is very well known in Harrisonburg and James Madison Community
  • Delete Non-notable outside of the immediate community that it serves. Could the above unsigned comments please be signed by their respective authors?  (aeropagitica)  19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE Strothra
  • Merge with James Madison University and wikify. Alba 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with James Madison University. The Adventure House is not globally important. Consensus on most-famous-building-on-some-university-campus AfDs usually end up being merge or delete.  Cdcon  22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being familiar with Harrisonburg, let me add this: Based on the address, this is not a building on JMU's campus at all, but instead the location of a private residence well to the northwest of the JMU campus, and the only likely connection between it and JMU are that JMU students likely lease space in the house. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Don't even start that wikipedia only includes entries that are globally important. That is a BLATANT lie. A 'yard of beer' is not globally important, but it has an undisputed entry. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and everyone attempting to delete is biased because they are not part of a rich community of outdoor adventures within Harrisonburg. Please be fair to all entries and not just the ones you agree with. I appreciate it. 67.23.53.26 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)warnerhw[reply]
  • Speedy delete. nn. --Jay(Reply) 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and looks like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable building. Not afraid to call out the puppetry that seems to be going on here. --Kinu t/c 01:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Alba. Staffelde 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely non-notable ad. Kuru talk 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAI, and flood of sock/meatpuppets. You can always tell them by the flood of "Do not delete" or "Save" comments. Stifle 16:13, 28 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 00:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Premiership footballers in the News of the World[edit]

Non-encyclopedic article about newspaper article about non-notable event. Was prodded, tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem, in itself, notable. Bobby1011 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - are we to have articles about everything that pops up in the scandal sheets? Alleged "Gay footballers" aren't even mentioned as there's apparently an injunction out against the "paper". Camillus (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. --Aaron 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion How about a move to Wikinews? Bobby1011 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is rumorcruft a word????Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now! Delete as rumourcruft. ergot 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOT a media-monitor blog. Daniel Case 04:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; ditto - this isn't even a notable news story -what effect does the sexuality of footballers have on the world?. --Notjarvis 12:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, nonsense. Enough of all this rumours. --Terence Ong 13:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unproven tabloid gossip about persons unknown does not belong here. Calsicol 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable tabloid gossip.  (aeropagitica)  13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT ComputerJoe 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete something for the tabloids --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rather useless and unecyclopedic. CaveatLector 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be a worthy article behind this, but this one is too specific and not useful. Grandmasterka 05:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like gossip, but also too ultra-specific to be of use. --SpencerTC 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for gossip pages, reprinting random newspaper gossip columns, and idle speculation about the sexual orientation of anybody. --Wingsandsword 04:00, 1 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 keep. Ifnord 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zappone[edit]

Vanity, see WP:BIO --M@thwiz2020 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Story seems to check out. He gets 15,000 google hits, many of which concern Kennedy. Bobby1011 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm fairly certain this was posted by someone close to Mr. Zappone, but I'm willing to wait and see if it can be turned into something useful. Slap a wikification tag on it and see what happens. Somebody can always nominate it again in a month. --djrobgordon 02:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion is NOT what Wikipedia is about MiracleMat 04:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Makes a pretty good case for notability. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable. --Terence Ong 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems a little vain, nothing really noteworthy here. Yanksox 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a vanity page to me. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for 15,000 google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I do not get 15,000 hits when I do a more specific search [1]. Interesting, but based on what I see he does not pass WP:BIO. PJM 15:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look for the bit about photographers in WP:BIO. Pretty sure this fits. - Jaysus Chris 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think he fits that criterion. Has he written in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more? On the other hand, he is locally famous, and is currently a somewhat well-known personality in the broadcast industry. I can't conclusively say that he is not notable.  Cdcon  22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Junior famous. --Jay(Reply) 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pro tem - borderline, but may turn out OK if developed. Staffelde 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Wikify; meets standards of notability. --Cymsdale 13:26, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lugermania[edit]

Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not relevant -- Robster2001 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Bobby1011 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is nonsense. --James 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If internet forums are generally considered non-notable, then brief events that occurr on an individual forums are even less so. --Hetar 02:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsenes.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not a vote) User EZ Does It blanked this vote at 05:00 UTC, 24 February 2006. I reverted the blanking. -- Robster2001 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls well below my notability threshold for memes.--Isotope23 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Utter nonsense --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 00:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense as above. Kuru talk 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense hoax. Stifle 16:14, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foglebeatz[edit]

Non-notable song by non-notable musician (the article on the musician was previously deleted by AfD--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamez). Delete. JeremyA 01:33, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Of Mind[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Music. They have toured regionally, but not nationally. They don't appear to be signed, as they sell their records off their website, with no indication of a label or availability from other sources. Delete. Joel7687 01:38, 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, after due consideration of all comments and evidence, keep. – ABCDe✉ 09:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. SPKx 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am a fan of the webcomic, but it is Not notable vanity. (see comments) Delete. -Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored large parts of the comments to the talk page to aid readability and so that people browsing the full list can skip it easily. This is not an assertion that the moved comments were less valid and I would urge reading them before you make a vote or comment. Stifle 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree that this article wreaks of vanity. It doesn't matter how long it is, it's still vanity in the end. Delete, please. -Pandaman87 04:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After a google search turning up 148,000 results it seems notable enought to me... --Amazon10x 02:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, searching all of the words (in other words, searching for every website that contains "neglected", "mario", and "characters", or websites that contain some of those words and link to websites that contain some of those words) comes up with 148,000 results, but searching the exact phrase "Neglected Mario Characters" gets only 766 hits. (Compare that to the exact phrase "Penny Arcade", which gets about 4 million, and the exact phrases "Cat and Girl" and "Perry Bible Fellowship", which get about 300,000) -Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only claim that this is an encyclopedic topic is the unverified, unreferenced claim that this "is the first known sprite comic." Lack of reliable sources makes this unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, and means topic does not meet WP:WEB notability guidelines for websites. -- Dragonfiend 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this looks like replay of AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters. IMO, those hours spent on Wikipedia could make a dedicated website, with no need to constantly watch against vandals and to struggle with deletionists. Pavel Vozenilek 04:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The content of this article and List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters would make an excellent section of the webpage that is the subject of this article. But it is not encyclopedic, and obsessive, nerdy deletionists such as myself will continue to argue that point.
  • Keep Phil Sandifer 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware that the closing admin may, at his or her discretion, disregard recomendations without rational. You may refer to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion where in addition to always explain your reasoning it makes plain that Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy and that majority voting is not the determining factor. Thank you.
      brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh go away. The two sides of the debate are adequately summarized. I have indicated which side I agree with. Do I really need to waste keystrokes restating the facts? Phil Sandifer 12:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for asking, it's a common mistake to not understand what we're actually doing here. If you want the closing admin to take your recomendation into consideration, yes you must be explicit. You might, for instance, be basing you "keep" on it being the first sprite comic. Then if evidence comes up that it's not, and you don't revisit the discussion, we wouldn't know that the rational no longer applied. It takes very little extra effort to say why you want to keep, and far less to say "keep per foo" than to say that you won't do so. Thanks! - brenneman{T}{L} 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:DICK Phil Sandifer 03:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know brenneman is only trying to help your vote count. This is not a vote but rather a discussion and if you want your vote to count you should at least explicity support someone else's opinion (by say, typing per SPKx or whomever you agree with. Manmonk 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless evidence provided that this comic has been mentioned in unprejudiced sources as the first sprite comic and that this does in fact have historical relevence, this does not comply with out policies on verifiability. Inclusion of this article in the absence of such would violate our policy on bias as there exist many many other similar webcomics that are not included. As there is clear consensus on notability demonstrated on AfD and in the various guidelines that support it, including all other webcomics is clearly not a viable way to redress this bias. There is no other conclusion than but that this should be deleted based upon the facts in evidence.
    brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are sources which cite this as the first web-comic. T. Campbell, whose webcomics history is coming in the summer, has cited it as such,[2] as does the article at 1UP, [3]. 1UP, going by it's entry here, seems to be a reliable source. On that basis, I urge you to reconsider your vote, Aaron. Hiding talk 20:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The absolute only thing going for it is the 1UP article; everything else goes against it. NC fails the popularity test miserably, no matter how you want to quantify it. Its article fails miserably at being anything but a mess (and resilient to cleanup tags; the one I added early on got removed without comment a day later). Nifboy 06:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rank 196,439. Looks to me like just another Mario fansite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brenn. Marskell 11:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Google score and Alexa rank. All available evidence shows this has failed to make much of an impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does indeed read like a fan-site rather than an encyclopædia article, and the arguments for its non-notability (abive passim) are convincing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup on grounds of historical interest. Yes, the article is too long and too detailed, but someone with the appropriate time and knowledge of the subject can easily trim it. Neglected Characters is still, as far as anyone knows for sure, the first widespread (even if not originally notable) sprite comic, and it certainly has grown to notability (even if not major notability) by now. Just fix the page (and shorten it. a lot.) and all will be well. CaptHayfever 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CaptHayfever. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is notable as the first sprite comic, and has inspired many spinoffs. GeoWeasel, a flash toon, was originally a sprite comic, and its motto was "the best thing to happen to sprite comics since NC." Google scores and Alexa ranks are not the only determiners of notability, guys. This article passes all three of Wikipedia's tests for inclusion. The sources are verifiable (read the comic and the 1UP article), the research is not original, and even if it is vanity, it can be edited down. The last thing I want Wikipedia to do is to claim that Bob and George was the first sprite comic and ignore NC completely. Its forum contains roughly 5000 members (the VGF forum contains 15000 members, and it's very possible that most of its members came to VGF via NC)Crazyswordsman 16:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of GeoWeasel. It's not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Although the sources are verifiable, (although the source to the only claim to notability, that it was the first sprite comic, is absent) the research is not original (although earlier edits of the article read like advertizements) and it may not technically be vanity, (the guy who runs the website that hosts the comic made it instead of the author of the comic) it is not notable according to these guidelines. I will need empirical evidence of 5000 members of this webcomic's forum, and even then, when a comic like Achewood gets several hundred thousand mentions in passing on Google, I really don't see how that helps your case.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those guidelines are merely suggestions, and are the opinion of those forming the page (it says so at the top of the page), not policy. And if you're so concerned about these matters, why don't you go look for verification yourself? Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're being a tad immature. Wikipedia is an attempt at a verifiable, usable encyclopedia. By creating an article about a comic that's only notability is the shaky clame that it innovated a minor style of webcomic, than you need to back this claim up. Being a Wikipedia editor is about verifiability. The burden of proof is on you. If you do not wish to take responsibility for the burden of proof, stop arguing against the deletion of the article.Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is one of those rare cases where longevity does amount to notability. The article does need a lot of work, and if it doesn't get fixed in the next month or so, and it came up for AfD again, my vote would change to delete. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean longevity in the sense of the age of the webcomic or longevity in the sense of the length of the article? I agree with you if it's the former, but disagree if it's the latter.Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Bob and George and 8-Bit Theatre are allowed to have in-depth character anylisis pages (which could be considered fancruft in many eyes, not mine, though), then NC definitely deserves an article. WP:NOT paper. Crazyswordsman 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bob and George and 8-Bit Theatre don't really deserve them either. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve Notability or Delete. By standard WP policy, this should be deleted: it simply has no claim to global importance. On the other hand, from a casual user point of view, I appeciate the ability to be able to view details about a popular comic on wikipedia. It would be helpful to include links to anything that might suggest that the comic is popular.  Cdcon  22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote. Could not find any evidence of notability, after thorough searching.  Cdcon  23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and comment) "No claim to global importance"!? It was the 'beginning' of sprite comics! I may not know exactly what 'global' importance is, but I'd say it has a lot of normal importance!LIII 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda pointless to say, but Jay, you actually edited it twice as many times as you said.LIII 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has yet to prove that it was the first sprite comic, or that it was the inspiration for subsequent sprite comics. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neglected Characters is a relatively unclever, unamusing and sloppily made webcomic. It's claims of being the first sprite-comic are entirely unsubstantiated, and to my knowledge this is the only pillar it is standing on to claim it deserves a space in an encylopedia. The article was as sloppily made as the comic strip. Remove. -- Griffinfuhrer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.90.69 (talk • contribs) .
    • You're personal opinion on something does not prove it does or does not belong here. I hate probably about fifty percent of what is on here. Do you see me nominating stuff like that for deletion? No. Stop being such an elitist. Crazyswordsman 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now now, just because it's bad, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Otherwise, I'd purge the Top 40 list from Wikipedia right now. However, it's also painfully unnotable, and should be deleted. Sinatra Fonzarelli
    • I never said it should be deleted just because it's bad. I inserted my personal opinion on the comic itself as well as my reason why it should be removed; the only claim to notability is the fact that it is allegedly "The First Sprite Comic", in an encylopedia, there should always be a plethora of facts to back up any claim made. There is absolutely none for NC Comics, so it should be removed. -- Griffinfuhrer
  • Comment In other words, you're saying it is in accordance with the deletion policy...because you hate it? LIII 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the sentiment that its only reasonable claim (being the first sprite comic) is shaky at best. --Kinu t/c 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into sprite comics. While it may be the first known sprite comic, it does not deserve an entire article. Manmonk 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how is the claim that NC came first shaky? If you think it is, go around the internet and find a sprite comic that was started before NC. I'm sure you won't find any that are still in production today. Crazyswordsman 02:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the first sprite comic ever, aswell as a very good comic. remember that if this is deleted, it will eventually be forgotten, which is bad because it links to many other good sites. plus it not only a comic website, it also is like the meeting place for Nintendo Fans. Besides, it is not a dead site. it was last updated 10 days ago. Keep, I beg you. -User:Tannotron the Real 010:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole internet isn't going to forget this supposedly "monumental" comic if one Wikipedia article is deleted. Besides, there's a reference to it in the sprite comic article and it's supposedly fully replicated on Comixpedia anyways. Pandaman87 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be rude, but isn't expression of concern that without this article, this webcomic will go forgotten somewhat of an admission that this webcomic is not very well-known? Regardless, you seem to misunderstand the cause of Wikipedia. This might be a useful link for you. Especially this, this, and this. Just because you enjoy something, even profoundly, doesn't make it encyclopedic. I don't have to make a Wikipedia article about the wonderful feeling I get when I walk through Old High Street, hang out with old friends at my beloved stomping grounds, or watch that one cell-phone commercial I really like for some reason to appreciate them. Just because an article brings Mario fans together, doesn't mean it is encyclopedic.Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only claim to notability, "first known sprite comic" is unproven. Pagrashtak 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, the above Archive link shows that NC existed before Bob & George, which was previously believed to be the first sprite comic. Now unless someone can show us an older sprite comic, the claim is true. CaptHayfever 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I stated above, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. I believe your claim that NC existed before Bob & George, but the claim is not that NC existed before Bob & George; the claim is that NC existed before all other sprite comics. Proving that NC existed before one particular sprite comic does not prove that it is the first. Pagrashtak 15:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, you start looking at one end of the Internet; I'll start looking at the other. The reason we "Keep"ers keep bringing up B&G is that it was called the first sprite comic until people saw the NC timestamps. What's it called when you're before the "first"? The real first. If someone finds an earlier sprite comic, then I very well might change my tune, but until then, this is the kind of claim that can stand in good faith until it is disproven. Besides that, NC is easily the longest-running sprite comic, as any that may have been started before it are completely lost and could safely be presumed dead. CaptHayfever 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see, we have has a long and heated discussion about the merits of whether or not NC should have a Wikipedia article. I say there have been good arguements on both sides. Yes, NC has not and probably will not be as notable a spite comic as Bob and George and 8-bit Theatre. However, you can't ignore the fact that NC is, if not the first, then at least the longest running sprite comic. When I first created the NC wiki page last May, I only wrote it as a short little history of NC (look at the archived page in the history for proof). I never intended all the bells and whistles that were added in the next 9 months. I did not ask for there to be a separate page created for cultural references. I did not ask for a wikiquote page. These were added by fans of NC, who felt like they should be part of the article. Me and CaptHayfever have been trying to clean up the page, so it will be a good median between the simple article I started with and the overblown article it had become. Yeah, there are better webcomics out there, however NC still has a history can not be ignored. Please consider this when decided to keep or delete the article. - SPKx 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When people want to know about something, they should have a Wikipedia article to look at. It was apparently the first sprite comic and it is apparently popular enough to start a debate far too long. Shouldn't that be enough for an article?Glyph Phoenix 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no way to say this without being rude, so I apologize if this sounds too frank: The vast majority of the argument for keeping the article is being done by SPKx (the webmaster of the site the comic is hosted on) and Crazyswordsman, his friend. with the occasional contribution from meatpuppets, including the creator of the comic. Part of the length of this discussion page is due to my engaging, if not provocing them, in a flame war, (and I was uncivil at times) and for that I apologize. I just want to illustrate that there is not a mandate. There's a close-knit group of fans of this unnotable comic. And it's not just people wanting to know about something. There are other websites that serve as directories, excellent ones. On Wikipedia, the subject must be encyclopedically (is that a word?) notable.Sinatra Fonzarelli 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a meatpuppet now? Interesting. As long as that gauntlet is thrown down, I'm going to explain that not only do I not work for SMBHQ and am not close to any of the staff, but I've read NC maybe a grand total of 3 times in my life, all of which were long after I had begun hearing about it. CaptHayfever 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize for overlooking you in my generalization. Your contributions to this page have been constructive. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to point out List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters, I know it's been mentioned already, but I'd like to make it explicit. Neglected Mario Characters has an entire article about it's "cultural references", every strip that mentions Spock or Cheesy poofs has it's own particular mantion and link. It was not deleted following the nomination, quite wrongly in my opnion, someone should take a serious look at that. I might nominate it later, but if the comic itself is barely notable, then a link farm to it is obviously not. - Hahnchen 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the seperate reference list is considerably excessive. I, for one, certainly wouldn't oppose an AfD on that. CaptHayfever 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say the site should get to keep a scaled down version of the article. Something branching off an article made for sprite comics in general. - Alph 1:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    This actually left by User:71.40.191.2 . --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I don't see much indication of significance. Friday (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This shows how pathetically easy it is to establish that NC goes back at least to October, 1999, and there is no reason to doubt the claim on that page, by the originator of the comic, that July 1, 1998 is the date "when NC was first given to my total control." The arguments based on unverifiability seem very strained indeed. While comparisons with Bob and George seem also to be overegging the pudding (the latter has been continuously sprite-drawn since April 1, 2000, with only 17 missing days), it does seem that NC featured regular sprite-based strips before 2000. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rides on the back of an extremely dubious claim to notability - that it was the first sprite comic, which has no reliable source and relies on original research such as that done by Tony Sidaway above - how do we know there isn't another sprite-based comic, possibly drawn before NMC, that we haven't checked on archive.org? Because the voters here say no such comic existed, ever? We're writing an encyclopaedia and we're not qualified to make those sort of assertions. --Malthusian (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have this right? You are actually claiming that the act of verification of a fact by obtaining information from archive.org is original research? --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All it verifies is that NMC is older than Sprite Webcomics X, Y and Z, for any given value of X Y and Z which you ran through archive.org. For us to call NMC the oldest sprite comic would require us to know that there is no Webcomic W which is even older. Now, if an independent, authoritative source, the sort we usually insist on when it comes to non-fancruft, says that there is no Webcomic W and NMC is the oldest sprite comic, then it becomes a verified fact, but when a Wikipedian presents himself as the source by saying there is no Webcomic W, that's OR. --Malthusian (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Until an alleged "Webcomic W" is found, you have absolutly no proof. LIII 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing vote to abstain, as the sources given elsewhere seem reliable. I'm still not convinced that being the first webcomic to copy and paste sprites from somewhere is a particuarly great artistic achievement, hence not a keep. --Malthusian (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: even if it's true, so what?! To me, the main claim to fame sees to be that it's a website that's been up for several years. I don't personally see that this makes it significant. Friday (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Sinatra Fonzarelli's analysis. In particular, I find his comparison of webcomics of various levels of notability persuasive. Nandesuka 18:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The thing I keep turning over in my mind is this: We've got sources which state the strip is the first sprite comic:[4], [5]. Now in an article on Sprite comics we've got to note that. So we create a red link if we delete this. Now sure, the article can redirect, but there's enough sourcable info here to have a perfect stub. I agree the article as it stands needs a heavy rewrite, but that isn't the debate. The debate is, should there be an article on this strip? If we take it as given that mention of it should be made in an article on Sprite comics, then I think it's taken as read that we should have an article, it's Wikipedia:Build the web, isn't it? I'd add I find the nominator's blog entry regarding this troubling too. [6]. Hiding talk 20:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The Wikipedia article was created on May 24 2005 saying "Nelected Mario Characters (also known as NC) is the world's first (if it wasn't the first, then it was at least the first well documented) sprite-based web comic." On Nov 7 2005 1up.com says "Neglected Mario Characters, the first sprite comic." This doesn't look trustworthy. Isn't it possible Wikipedia was there source? That promotional claims made in wikipedia arrticles are being picked up by other web sites? HotWings 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That line about NC being the first sprite comic was on NC's about page long before the wikipedia page was created (in fact, a good bit the original text of the wiki article was paraphrased from this page). - SPKx 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this verifiable, referenced, notable, encyclopedic, and in all other ways worthy article ➥the Epopt 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability can be debated, but you can't claim that this article is referenced, at least not the version at which I'm currently looking. Pagrashtak 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a number of references in the external links. --Tony Sidaway 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • External links are by definition not references. That needs to be fixed. Pagrashtak 07:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator: I would like to know why proof that NMC was the first sprite comic is still being demanded in the face of this edit. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never demanded proof that NMC was the first sprite comic. I demanded that defenders of the article offer proof that NMC was the first sprite comic to those on this page who demanded it. And they did. I think they've offered sufficient proof that it is the first sprite comic. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: my ability to AGF is getting bent all out of shape by this nomination. —Phil | Talk 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean that you're specifically not adressing the question of this article? Or is there an already stated rational that you're agreeing to? If it were presumed, for example, that was that this was the first sprite comic and it was then found not to be the closing admin might lend less weight to your recomendatins. For this reason it's always a good ides to explain yourself more rather than less. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to vote, but I have some thoughts:
    1. Being the first sprite based comic would seem to confer a certain de facto notability on the subject.
    2. Can we deem something notable ourselves in this way, by looking through the internet archive and comparing dates? Is this original research? I'm not sure what I think about that, but it is a point that stands out to me. How does this mesh with the idea of direct observation?
    3. Is it reasonable to expect that if the strip is truly notable, we would have some decent sources to inform us about it? At present we seem to have only a brief mention in a VG website article about the early history of webcomics. I am confident that, if we decided to keep this article, this would probably be one of the very least notable topics we have officially approved for inclusion on Wikipedia.
    4. I am impressed by the commitment involved in writing the article and fighting to defend it. Sometimes, when I am on the borderline between voting to keep or delete, that will push me just slightly onto the keep side. I figure: you know, I really don't want to be wrong about this, if we have somebody here wanting to develop our content on this subject, and committed to it. I would at least like to put off the decision for a while, or let people on the article talk page reach some decision on their own. Everyking 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably fancruft, but seems just barely notable. Stifle 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Archive.org evidence that it predated both Bob and George and 8-Bit Theater, I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep, Rewrite or Merge with Sprite Comic. Sinatra Fonzarelli 18:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - However, I would still be in favour of deleting the Cultural References page, deleting the Wikiquotes page, and scaling down the article significantly.Sinatra Fonzarelli 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I took the liberty of rewriting the article to a size that I felt appropriate for the subject. I feel that an article of this size could be kept. I apologize to anyone I have upset, as I know that dealing with me can be stressful.
      • I liked the paragraph you wrote, however I restored the rest of the article, since I believe we should try to find a median insteading doing one of the two extremes (very short or very long) - SPKx 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NC Article then and NC Article now. You have to agree that alot of progress in compressing the page had been made. - SPKx 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure how strong the precedent is, or even if it counts, but List_of_Cultural_References_on_Neglected_Mario_Characters was not deleted. If this page was deleted, wouldn't it be a bit odd for that one to still exist? This website is, in my eyes, more of a pioneer than some super-notable site these days. Back in the day it could have had the notability you site; however now this is in historical interest. The page could always be compressed a little, though. (Edit: I guess that page was changed to a redirect. Regardless, my vote still stands.) --Metal Man88 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: being the first work of any genre is notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if we agree that that cannot be demonstrated as per WP:V and WP:NOR you'll support delete, right?
      brenneman{T}{L} 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr Brenneman, it's already established verifiably and through a process very much not original research. I would hope the closing admin will take a note of that. Webcomics historian T. Campbell has cited it as the first, as has a column on a major publishing companies website. It seems redundant not to note those claims, which are verifiable and are not original research. Since those claims are citable, it is now up to those seeking to disprove those claims to cite otherwise. The burden of proof is with those disputing the sources. Any decision on those sources should be made consensually, not by a closing admin. No-one as yet has addressed those sources in great detail. Hiding talk 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no idea how notable or nonnotable this is, not being a big webcomic buff (I collect comic books, the old fashioned kind printed on paper, but haven't looked very much at the Web-based kind). I'm rather frustrated with the degree of histrionics that occur whenever a webcomic with a fervent fan following gets nominated for deletion, which often spills over to the wikien-l mailing list as well as discussion pages within Wikipedia itself. People, it's not the end of the world if this gets deleted, or kept. The AfD process makes mistakes sometimes, but the eventualist position holds that, in the long run, notable stuff will get articles and non-notable stuff will fade away, no matter what happens in the short run. There's no need to get all pouty and start screaming about how you're starting a forked site and abandoning Wikipedia... go ahead and start specialized sites on different topics if you want, but Wikipedia will stay around no matter what happens elsewhere, and bashing and sniping at it does no productive good. *Dan T.* 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Great job with the cleanup. I don't mind if the article gets deleted anymore, (although I prefer it be kept, thus my vote stays at keep). However, if it IS deleted, I'd like the Sprite comic page to still contain links to the Comixpedia article and the site itself. Crazyswordsman 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I would like to keep this discussion going on forever, this AfD has been up for nearly a week now. I think we should be getting to a verdict soon. - SPKx 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page has been changed so much it wouldn't matter if it was deleted. LIII 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morass[edit]

This is making my eyes hurt. This all seems to come down to the "first" thing, so could we have the evidence laid out nice and neat here? - brenneman{T}{L} 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is the first

Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is not the first

Other evidence that this is the first

  • Started in 1998[8] - SPKx 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. Campbell posts "BOB AND GEORGE wasn't the first sprite comic. That honor goes to Neglected Mario Characters. B&G was much more of a trendsetter, though." [9] - SPKx 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence that this is not the first


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bobby1011 24.02.2006

sposbag[edit]

Neologism; turns up 0 results on google Amazon10x 02:24, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerSpace[edit]

Classic example of vanitisement. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:06, 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 keep. Ifnord 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell church[edit]

- Was entirely original research, is now just plain blanked. Someone defined the neologism "cell church" as a small closely knit group of worshippers who don't meet in real churches and then had a sort of manifesto on how cell churches can get more power. Cyde Weys 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have improved a bit since the nomination. Now it's just a potential neologism, but considering that there's a large website using that very term linked in the EL section, and Google gives 103 000 hits, I don't think we can call it that, either. This article should probably be kept. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 100k ghits on english google 1 result on google Define [10] 307 google groups. [11] Nothing on google news. [12] some hits on google local [13]. It seems to be a legit phrase. Don't forget: Notability is a guideline and not a policy. ---J.Smith 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding is that "cell church" or "cell system" refers to a plan for church growth invented by the S. Korean minister David Yonggi Cho, and since exported to other Christian groups worldwide; it involves having lay leaders conduct prayer and Bible studies in their homes to "feed" converts gained by social networking into the main church body. This is notable, and the article seems to be a start. Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fuddlemark. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per J.Smith. PJM 17:41, 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 Speedy Keep. Reason: Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Bobby1011 24.02.2006

Kyou Kara Maou![edit]

Makes no assertion of notability. Appears to be nonsense, but see for yourself. Bobby1011 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lurel- sorry.... I'm trying to get as much as I can on it... please don't delete it and I assure you that I will update some more on a day when I have enough time! (^^;;;;)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChartNexus[edit]

Ad. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 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 keep. Ifnord 19:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lewis Spencer[edit]

Autobiographical, see contributions from 207.4.199.250, he identifies himeself in this edit Cacophony 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep WP:AUTO is not policy. Writing your own bio is discouraged, but this article has successfully avoided POV statements and the like, and notablility is well established. Bobby1011 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a Grammy-winning songwriter, he merits an article under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like it's worth keeping. Maybe the language could be cleaned up. Yanksox 13:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Grammy-winning songwriter. Sax player for Otis Redding. Vanity policy is quite explicit; "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion." Nomination shows either ignorance of applicable policy or bad faith. Monicasdude 14:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Myles Long 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Autobiographical articles are discouraged for two reasons. The first is that the subject often doesn't meet the standards of notability and verifiabilty required of articles. Secondly, subjects of articles often have difficulty in maintaining a NPOV about themselves. He meets our music notability guidelines and the article is NPOV. The article could be improved with more about the music that makes him notable. Capitalistroadster 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't like it because of its origin, should edit or rewrite it. Logophile 10:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with autobiographies, as long as they're well-written and of notable people. Stifle 16:22, 28 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11: The Road to Tyranny[edit]

Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) non-notable stub; any info should be merged back into Alex Jones (journalist). Page was created to prop up user Striver's push for a POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks Mmx1 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per nom. --Aaron 03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Though there is not much information to merge. Bobby1011 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep Tons of Ghits. [15]. Also, it has an entry on IMDB. Can't find any info on sales numbers, but it seems like there is a lot of controversy about it. I perhaps disagree with the reasoning, but it looks legit. ---J.Smith 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not legit, but there's hardly any information for it to stand on its own. Every other Alex Jones movie has a two-sentence blurb on the Alex Jones page. Don't see why this is any different. --Mmx1 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per J. Smith. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It should be allowed to grow --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is no information about the subject of the article and it's a recent event, it's clearly not notable to warrant an article in the first place. Dbchip 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real movie. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge I'd love to see enough information on the movie to qualify for its own article, but until then... --Talain 11:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real movie, notable creator, made lots of controversies, great many hits... If this is going, what does it need to keep a movie stub? Or is it that we dont allow movie stubs? Or maybe, we should delete the { {movie-stub}} template? Could you please tell me how this is not a legit movie stub? --Striver 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not IMDB. Stub is never meant to be a permanent status. In this case, it's far more useful to have it point to Alex Jones and give it the context of a series from that documentary maker than have an essentially empty stub. As the sparse IMDB site indicates, there's very little promise for the article on its own. As it stands it's just pushing the agenda of the film. --Mmx1 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on the account of the article being created yesterday, and still being a stub, you argue it will NEVER be anyting more than a stub, and should be delete. Have i understood you correctly? --Striver 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no media coverage of this film whatsoever, no Ghits other than people pushing the film, no critical third-party discussion of it or its contents, and short of transcribing the film (and using WP as Alex Jones' soapbox), what would go in this article? Clarifying nomination to Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones. I'm not saying this movie shouldn't exist on WP, but it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for any more than a stub. Better as redirect to Alex Jones. If someone wants to work on it I can see an argument for spinning off Documentaries of Alex Jones from that page. --Mmx1 16:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've added a cleanup tag, because as it stands this is not an article (it's a timeline of a film), it's not sourced, it's not NPOV. No opinion right now since this article was just started, but I'm going to revisit this article in 30 days or so (assuming it is still there based on the current opinions here) and if it has not become an actual article, I'm going to AfD it.--Isotope23 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated[edit]

The article is no longer a stub. All delete votes on account of it being a stub are now redered void. --Striver 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that you can't simply declare votes invalid. If I were you, I'd notify those people and give them a chance to change there votes. ---J.Smith 23:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're not votes. They're users expressing their opinions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Bobby1011 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice attempt at filling out content with multiple 1-sentence sections but if you strip the section headers it's still a stub (and unencyclopedic). Or do you plan to transcribe the movie for us? --Mmx1 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If things get so ridiculous that i need to transcript the whole damn movie, ill do it. This is totaly incredible... --Striver 18:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article should defitiely be kept per norm. On the other hand, the article is still a stub (as per the formal definition WP:Stub). Cdcon 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly belive that the reasons to delete this article right now, after 24 houres of creation, is nothing more than ridiculous. People, at least be honest, write: "Delet: No conpiracy movies on WP". --Striver 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed my point. Other than regurgitating the content of the film (which, beyond a brief synopsis, is beyond the scope of WP), what other encyclopedic content could be included?
I'm not saying delete Alex Jones. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about his documentaries. But you created this page specifically to cite a particular quote from the documentary. I do not see in anyway how this page adds to the body of encyclopedic information beyond what already exists on Alex Jones. This movie was already on WP prior to the creation of this article, and would have been much better served with a redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) than the POV-pushing content that currently exists.--Mmx1 19:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Ill see if i can ablige. Thanks for clearing that out.--Striver 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better? --Striver 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source for "The movie became very popular in short time"? "Critica dissmis the film as hysterical and non-factual." I can't even find people debunking this they way they do "Farenheit 911" (and people claim that the two contain similar material). That's how little attention it's gotten. --Mmx1 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has not been improved at all by recent edits. I do not know what WTS 01 and NWO are supposed to stand for, and this article presumes that I do. Likewise, the "Burning of Rom" means nothing to me. Rome? Or are we talking about ROMs? This is not encyclopedic, it is a list of things that happen in a possibly nonnotable film, and even if it were to receive the huge amount of cleanup that it demands, I seriously doubt whether the result could ever be appropriate here. I can't imagine this being useful in an encyclopedia. When people want movie reviews, they go to IMDB. And I really don't like the idea of establishing a precedent for people creating outlines of movies. ergot 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed everything you demanded, and also, take a look at this: Lists of films. --Striver 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I guess that it would really need to be encyclopedic would be reactions to the film from both supporters and detractors of Jones. Also, the archive.org batting average is a pretty good indication of notability, but I wouldn't mind seeing further evidence (comments on it by noted academics would go a long way). You have definately improved it, however. ergot 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why didnt you just add a request for expansion, instead for a delete vote? This article was created for 2-3 days ago, you cant expect a perfect article within 3 days, or vote to delete it. --Striver 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I don't expect you to be able to find what I'm asking for, in which case I don't think that it would be properly notable. Prove me wrong and I'll change my vote. Also, as I said above, the possibility of setting a precedent for movie plot outlines being kept makes me uncomfortable. ergot 18:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleaning up but is notable. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia should be about collecting information, not throwing it away. We should aim to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabalamat (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Mmx1. Sandstein 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, people do listen to Alex Jones. Rhobite 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for having little or no info, and more or less a duplicate of what is found under Alex Jones. Merge whatever is possible, then replace with redirect. Bjelleklang - talk 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, nn--MONGO 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Alex Jones' first movie. Kappa 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately the truth is that Alex Jones is well-known within the 9/11 'truth' movement and this movie is very well known within that movement. Merge and Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) I understand the anger at Striver's rampant vandalism and heavily POV edits on Wikipedia, but we can't let that be the reason we delete articles. Lastly, I think there is enough people in these afd threads that think it's time that we close the door on Striver's editing on Wikipedia. The User has exhausted the community's patience.--Jersey Devil 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain one thing for? I ask this in good faith: I have heard lots of people say i do "POV edits". I dont understand what they mean. Could somebody give me some practical examples of me doing "pov edits"? As is now, i feel "Striver does pov edits" have become a rally cry, devoided of factual truth. As i see it. Maybe it could help comunication if somebody cared to show me.--Striver 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Significant project of very noteworthy individual. Again, this sort of AfD seems to serve no other purpose, aside from being a distraction, than to dismantle articles that do not conform with the nominator's pov. Ombudsman 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was AFD'd it consisted of nothing more than a quote from the movie for the specific purpose of citing for a discussion on Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks. Striver has since attempted to improve the article to encyclopedic standards but has only a movie outline and metadata (user comments) from archive.org. There's sources for this article other than the movie itself. I'm not asking to dismantle it, I'm saying that properly belongs on Alex Jones (journalist) until there's enough content for it to stand on its own. I'm holding off on editing the article to give Striver a good faith attempt to create an encyclopedic entry, but if you reduced this article by WP:V, you'd be left with nothing more than already exists on [[Alex Jones (journalist). Ask yourself, would the article be better served as a 2-sentence stub or as a redirect Alex Jones (journalist)? --Mmx1 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about giving a article more than 24 houres before deciding its worthless and need to be AFD'd? --Striver 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Noteworthy individual and article. Bogus deletion attempt for reasons cited above. SkeenaR 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand why this is a "bogus deletion attempt". I had to think for a while before deciding keep. Please be civil to your fellow Wikipedians. Isopropyl 02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Without actually looking up the definition of "bogus", I basically take it to mean "not valid". And judging by the the results of voting on this recent rash of deletion attempts, it doesn't seem that they are valid. SkeenaR 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs work, but the movie is notable as one of the more widely known 9/11 conspiracy documentaries. Georgewilliamherbert 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • if it's so widely known, how come we can't find any citations other than metadata on archive.com? --Mmx1 22:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. Appears to be a notable enough film. I would like to see it rewritten; copyeditting appears to be absent, and I think the "content" section could stand be merged into the "summary" section. Isopropyl 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Merge/Redirect. Initial vote was based on article being rewritten at some point; author seems to be against POV removal, reverting edits which change his wording. Probably better for everyone if this gets redirected. Isopropyl 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect to Alex Jones (journalist) per nom. If it grows there, it could be recreated. I'd be OK with keep and cleanup too; better to have a short stub than a long but very sketchy outline. I do think Striver is going overboard creating these, but they do concern one of "the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century", so it's understandable that more articles on the topic will be added to the good many that exist already. Imagine if WP had existed at the time of the Kennedy and King assassinations? Schizombie 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When looking at the article, apply WP:V. Anonymous comments on archive.com do not constitute a source.--Mmx1 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not sourced; needs to cite at least one source published by a reliable publisher. The film itself is a primary source for this article. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS. The web citations do not satisfy this guideline since "they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report". Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. If it ever gains enough notability or the article grows to where it needs it's own article, it can be moved out of the Alex Jones (journalist) article. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alex Jones (journalist). The author of the article disallows any editing of what he calls "his view". I don't think there is a way to make this article into something that gives the reader a truthful non-biased account of the film. It is not worth eroding reliability for a film with such low notability. Weregerbil 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge with Alex Jones (journalist)#9-11: The Road to Tyranny. Also, there should be verification as to whether or not the movie has been accepted as a legitimate documentary. (It seems to be the source of a (rather silly) theory rather than documenting one.) Peter Grey 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd say this film is a "documentary" the same way Weekly World News is "investigative journalism". This is what Alex Jones says at the beginning of the film:
Hello, I'm Alex Jones, a syndicated radio and television host based in Austin, Texas. And for many years I have been exposing the criminal activities of the global elite, also known as the New World Order. And this collection of power mad megalomaniacs has been using a successive string of terrorist events to usher in their corrupt world government. A world government where populations (their own documents show) will be herded into compact cities, will be issued national ID cards, and yes, even implantable microchips. But in this film we are first going to look at some historical examples of tyrants and governments and oligarchies alike using crises, in many cases terrorist events that they themselves perpetrate against their population ...
Sort of goes downhill from there. Documentary film is one that is intent to remain factual or non-fictional, does the intro give much chance of that...? :-) See for yourself, the film is freely and legally downloadable on the net.
Here are some more of Mr. Jones' regular antics (that link was mentioned in the "criticism" section of the article being AfD'd here until the entire criticism section was removed by you guess who.) Weregerbil 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge - I've reviewed the debate and thought hard about it. I think merging would be the best option. ---J.Smith 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge - Even though I personally consider Alex Jones to be a kookbar of the first order, I would have no issue with this entry if it were rewritten from a neutral point of view (one which accurately represents both sides of the story). Since the original author has resisted such rewriting, however, the next best option is to merge the information with Alex Jones (journalist). Mary Read 09:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has some significance, the film is real, the information is so far as I can tell accurate. Google has 19,500 hits for the name. The movie's message may be unwelcome and its delivery may not be unbiased that can be mentioned in the article. The article definitely needs work, but can be kept. Cool3 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge - per nom Prodego talk 19:18, 3 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Khialvi[edit]

Seems to be a nn Pakistani poet. It also seems to be unverifiable, judging by the comment at the end of the text.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ar the least because of the inability to meet WP:V per authors' own admission. --Kinu t/c 08:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I am writing all this because I need people to know such a great Sufi and poet..." Hardly a claim to notability; citations, references and bibliography required to illustrate the article.  (aeropagitica)  14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly as unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, We do have poets in Pakistan who are notable but have not enough representation on the web. I think we should keep this article and ask for citations. Check also [16] for the writer, this is by his student, whose link is [17]. --Falcon007 03:34, 1 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrokradio[edit]

This radio station appears to be nn. It has supposedly been around for 2 months, has only 500 google hits. The website doesn't seem very good and the google hits look also very amateurish for a commercial website.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's an online radio station with no substantial following. Bobby1011 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it has a tripod website... that should be speedyable! :) ---J.Smith 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 month old station, Tripod website... non-notability asserted. --Kinu t/c 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This Is A Vanity Page For A Nonnotable Radio Station Whose Website Is Hosted On Tripod. Also, The Creator Of This Article And The Radio Station's Website Both Seem To Have The Odd Habit Of Capitalising Every Word, Sort Of Like In Leonard Cohen's Novels When He's Addressing God. ergot 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn ComputerJoe 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not listed on iTunes (though it's aacPlus, which wouldn't be anyway), only 3 google hits, conflicts with a WROK radio station in Illinois anyway. Haikupoet 03:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook case of a non-notable bit of pseudo-advertisement. --Wingsandsword 04:06, 1 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 no consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bowman[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Article created to illustrate notability of subject for purposes of user Striver's POV argument on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks.

Full bio of Mr. Bowman can be found here[18]

Judge notability for yourself. His primary claim to fame is his self-proclaimed directorship of the "Star Wars" program under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, when in fact he headed up a space defense program under Presidents Carter and Ford, prior to the proposal by President Reagan in 1983. We do not need a page for every program administrator, particularly as the program was non-notable prior to Reagan's 1983 proposal. On the basis of military service alone we also do not need a page for every person who attained the rank of O-5; there are Generals and Admirals who may not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Mmx1 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand The reason for creating the article may be in poor form, but the subject deserves an article. Bobby1011 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. Which criteria of WP:BIO would this article pass? The subject has 2 major claims to notability:
  • Director of "Star Wars" under "Republican and Democratic" administrations, which turns out to be hyperbole
  • His claims regarding 9-11.
How would this article be expanded? The autobiographical info on the link is heavy on non-notable details "In his wife's chancel drama ministry, Dr. Bowman has portrayed Peter, John the Baptist, and Caiaphus, among others." The preponderance of information on google about him is autobiographical, and outside of a few articles quoting him or his appearances, no one has seen fit to write about him. From what source would this article be expanded? The lack of verifiable third-party sources is for me a sign of non-notability. --Mmx1 04:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is also running for congress [19]. Bobby1011 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He also passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics point 8, as he was awarded the "Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award, The Society of American Military Engineers' Gold Medal (twice), the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, and numerous other awards." He was an Associate Professor, Department Head, and Assistant Dean. Bobby1011 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That criteria is for academic achievements. There are none listed here. Remember that this is essentially a campaign ad so take the claims with a grain of salt.
  • I'm not familiar with the Eisenhower Medal, but there appears to be a prestigious one awarded by the Eisenhower Foundation, starting in 1988. I find no indication he received one from the Eisenhower Foundation. Other recipients of the Dwight Eisenhower Medal from the Eisenhower Foundation are Walter Annenberg, Colin Powell, George HW Bush, George Shultz, Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, and Alan Greenspan. Does Robert Bowman's resume compare in any way to the other recipients?
Most likely he received another award (e.g. Johns Hopkins has a Milton S. Eisenhower medal) but did not cite the organization that gave it.
  • Google for the George F. Kennan Peace Prize only turns up Bowman's own sites and articles quoting that bio (bad sign).
  • Republic Aviation Airpower Medal, I imagine, would be from the firm Republic Aviation.
  • The President's Medal of Veterans for Peace is an award from a PAC, given by the President of Veterans for Peace, not the President of the US.
  • SAME is a professional organization like ACM or ICEE
I will not endeavor to count out how many assistant deans do not have a Wikipedia entry. This is the sort of stuff you find on a mid-level CEO's resume. Fancy-sounding titles that don't mean much.
--Mmx1 05:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a recipient of the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, which is unusual for a professor (note. the awards do not have to be for academic achievement). Other than that he is running for congress. That is notable in and of itself. I know, I know the WP:BIO page specifies holding office, but it also says that the list is not exclusionary. I think that a decent article may come from this, but I agree with you that what is there now serves no encyclopedic purpose. Bobby1011 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics states "Note that many academics are notable for reasons beyond their academic profession. The following are guidelines for judging the notability of academics based on their academic achievements." I feel that of all his claims to notability, his congressional candidacy and academic credentials are the least impressive.
--Mmx1 06:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Even if not a single of his merits where notable, wich i doubt, his combined achievments makes him notable. Even if not that, then for sure is teaming up with Andreas Von Buelow to creat a website that says USA did 9/11 make him notable. You can rest assured that we have a lot of much less notable people here on Wikipedia. I mean, is a porn actress in cheap movies really so much more notable? --Striver 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is strongly suspect...I came upon several websites that appear to be pure propaganda. [20], [21] which originates from [22].--MONGO 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is being used for off-topic non-encyclopedic propaganda, a "type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information". Example: [[23]]. See: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Joema 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His claim to notability seems to be his involvement with researcher questioning the official account of 9/11. I think his biography would be best maintained there, as it is now. Incidently, I'm surprised that Program Director of SDI would have been an O-5 position. I'm pretty sure a position like that would be filled by a major general, not a lieutenant colonel. Tom Harrison Talk 14:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't heading up SDI, he headed up what he calls the "Star Wars" program before the term was coined. SDI under Reagan was headed by an O-9 (Lt. Gen James Alan Abrahamson), and he doesn't have an article. --Mmx1 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the bias: "His biography should be on another page, and not on his biography article".

If the guy is notable enough to have a biography ANYWHERE in wikipedia, does that not make him notable enogh to have his own biography? This is really easy: He says USA did it, since people cant stand him, since he must be deleted. That is systematical bias. C'mon, only for being in Scholars for 9 11 Truth, and nothing more, mankes him notable.--Striver 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you're going in circles here. Elsewhere you claim this is a notable supporter of the 9/11_Bin_Laden_conspiracy_theory, then you claim he is notable because he is a supporter of such a theory. You want to know what he is? He's a retired Air Force administrator trying to prop up a mediocre political campaign with exaggerated claims about working on "Star Wars" and grossly inflating his awards. Claiming by ommission to have won the Eisenhower Medal when in fact he did not win the prestigious Dwight Eisenhower Medal to me constitutes borderline fraud. It's akin to the doctor in the Schiavo case claiming on his resume to be "Nobel-nominated" to try to hitch on the prestige of the Nobel when in fact the phrase "Nobel-nominated" is complete bunk (nominations are never disclosed and can be submitted by anyone)--Mmx1 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sourced, and many of these claims are not WP:V because they cannot be independently verified (the sources I could find are highly suspect). Unless someone can source these claims, Bowman fails WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve Verifiability or Delete. The claim that Bowman was the Director of the Star Wars initiative is almost certainly true. However, there needs to be a citation from a verifiable source. The other claims made in the article are of dubious origin and importance. Add content. This article needs more biographical information. It is currently a stub. Cdcon 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article's citations and content have been drastically improved since my first review.  Cdcon  15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly WHAT claim is not sourced? It says that the biograpy makes that statment, and there is a link provided to the biography. I expect the admin to diregard votes with false statments. --Striver 19:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, when I said "Not Sourced" this was the version of the page I was seeing: [24]. You added the link after my comment. Please try and assume WP:FAITH before you make accusations. The other issue I have is that when I went out and independently tried to source and verify the claims in this article, I found his autobiographical site. He makes a bunch of claims there, but as Mmx1 and Cdcon have pointed out, these claims cannot be independently verified. As for running for congress, he has declared himself a candidate and anyone can do that. He doesn't even have the requisite signatures to be a primary candidate at this time. Until that has happened, IMO he is not a serious candidate. It's the equivelent of me going onto my blog and declaring that I'm running for Congress at this point.--Isotope23 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that, i lost my temper. Even in the link you provided, the autobiography is there, in the external links section. peace. --Striver 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... I didn't see it in the external links when I first looked at it.--Isotope23 00:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From his campaign website [25], where the claims are toned down, Col. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division." This may or may not have included the forerunner to SDI, but the term "Star Wars" was not even coined until the mid-80's. There was no significant work on SDI until Reagan was informed of the theory in 1983, five years after Col. Bowman retired. --Mmx1 19:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, a second source that proves his notability. I am starting to get a bit cranky about seeing a whole army of people yeling "no notable" as soon as they step out of the box and question say USA did it. How is that NOT censorship?

THE SINGLE FACT THAT HE IS RUNNING FOR CONGRESS AND SAYD USA DID IT MAKES HIM NOTABLE. --Striver 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have mentioned two sources. Let me go over them with you:
  • Autobiography. It is a posting from the United Catholic Church. It has roughly the same worth as the biography of the CEO of a company posted on a company's website, which is approximately zero.
  • Biography. It is a posting by Bowman for Congress. The same rationale as above can be applied here, rendering the value to this source as approximately zero.
Your two sources are very poor. Please find better ones.  Cdcon  19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're ALL autobiographical. Every bio of COL Bowman online is sourced from his autobiographical page(s). Note in WP:V the section "Self-published sources". If I put up a page saying that I'm the Queen of England does that make it a source? My god, do you know how many Tom, Dick, and Harrys run for Congress in the US? ~500/2 year term * average 2 candidates per term. Five hundred candidates a year. That's not by any means notable. --Mmx1 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for loosing temper, i do that sometimes... sorry. --Striver 19:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. We can all get emotional and defensive about our strongly-held beliefs. --Mmx1 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep needs to be expanded though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyeights (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2006.
  • delete Jcuk 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not known for anything but his involvement in the 9/11 group. Rhobite 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Striver has a point. When people say that somebody is not notable, sometimes I think they mean "not notable to me." I have seen articles on this list who are notable in fundamentalist Christian circles, which apparently some people think disqualifies them for notability. I have seen musicians listed because they are "not notable," even though they may be the principal player in a well-known orchestra and have several recordings. Because they are not pop singers, they are "not notable" to some people. Let's be careful. On the other hand, I would like to see the information verified. If it isn't, then the article should be highly revised or scrapped. Logophile 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I nom'd the delete I have made a good faith effort to lookup and verify all claims made by the subject and have found no references that aren't autobiographical. Neither, so far, has the author. --Mmx1 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per striver. Kappa 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He may be worth a small article as a congressional candidate (and a bigger one if he actually gets the Democratic nomination), but as it stands it's a PR POV entry. --Aaron 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Clearly notable; reason for AfD is clearly to remove an article that does not conform with nominator's pov. Awards underscore recognition of notability by significant stakeholders. Ombudsman 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Good faith is not the issue here, as placing an article on AfD is by it's very definition a statement of pov, to which the nominator is entitled. Mentioning the obvious motivation behind the AfD has little or nothing to do with whether or not the nominator is acting in good faith, as everyone is entitled to their own pov on what falls within the bounds of good faith. You seem to have a narrower definition of good faith than what the phrase means outside the Wiki. Ombudsman 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perfect example of POV pushing. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Noteworthy individual. SkeenaR 22:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and POV --rogerd 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but needs work. I added two books he authored (possibly the second is a revision of the first, but I don't know). I can't determine if he is the same Robert M. Bowman as this one http://www.biblicalapologetics.net/About_Rob_Bowman.htm who has written about the Star Wars movies [26]; some of the SDI Star Wars books on abebooks.com do give his name as Bowman Jr., but that could be in error. Perhaps he's the father of the apologetics one. Schizombie 03:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, taking another look at the apologetics page above, RMBjr indicates he has a son named Robbie, and RMB's family photos page indicates he has a grandson named Robbie [27]. For what it's worth. Also, some books citing RMB:
      • Reagan's America by Lloyd deMause (1984) ISBN 0940508028 quotes RMB: "Carter's space weapons chief, Col. Robert M. Bowman, called it 'the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable,' which would give the nuclear holocaust 'a hair-trigger of milliseconds.'"[28] citing "Bowman's appearance on 'The MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour,' WNET-TV, November 10, 1983. Also see his statements in 'Star Wars-Pie in the Sky,' New York Times, December 14, 1983, p. A35."[29]
      • Space Policy: An Introduction by Nathan C. Goldman (1992) ISBN 0813810248 citing RMB's "Arms Control in Space: Preserving Critical Strategic Space Systems without Weapons in Space" in America's Plans for Space (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1984).
      • Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire by Carl Boggs (2003) ISBN 0415944996 citing RMB's "Wounding National Security, Star Wars II Endangers the American people." The News Insider, July 23, 2001.
      • Censored 2001: The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories, by Peter Phillips & Project Censored (2001) ISBN 158322064X citing RMB's "Our Continuing War Against Iraq," Space and Security News May 1998.
      • Smashmouth: Two Years in the Gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush by Dana Milbank (2001) ISBN 0465045901 quotes RMB.
      • The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (2005) ISBN 1566565960 blurbs RMB.
    • He's also quoted in:
      • "Air Force Reports First Firing of Space Weapon" by Jeff Gerth, New York Times January 22, 1984
      • "Shuttle Repair Capacity Called Militarily Useful" by Wayne Biddle, New York Times April 19, 1984
      • "Split Over Buchanan Splinters Reform Party Convention" by Mike Allen, New York Times September 26, 1999


restart[edit]

Ok, ill start again. Basicly, he is among the people holding my view of 9/11 that has the highest social status. Sure, anyone can run for congress, but not many that hold my view of 9/11 do. Also, he is a member of S9/11T. So, by deleting this guy, you are in fact shrinking some of "cabal" that hold my view of 9/11, and right now, they arent all over the place. So, based on this, i argue he is notable.


I mean, how many other people with like him do you find that hold that view?

He might not be notable in the big world, but he is notable among people that hold my view of 9/11. Comments? --Striver 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As you admit, you have very specific and uncommon views of 9/11. Also you admit having a personal stake in this: deleting his article shrinks the group agreeing with your views. Wikipedia says this about letting personal views influence articles: Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Wikipedia says this about letting a personal stake affect articles or references to articles: "Creating...references to autobiographical articles...in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." Joema 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, i view my self as a representative of the people sharing my view, at least here in WP. I belive the policy you are mentioning is about not using Wikipedia to gain personaly from it, for example, selling a product one has created, or further some theory i have inveted.

But that is not the case. I do not try to sell anyting, or make comercial for anyting, or further any theory i have invented, neither partialy nor completly.

My personal interest is comparable to the personal interest a Mormon has in trying to keep a prominent mormon from bein excluded from wikipedia. The only argument he can offer is that the person in question is a prominen mormon.

And that is my arguement. Robert M. Bowman is a prominent "Mormon", if you get my point.

Please dont delete my "Mormon". --Striver 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we are comparing to mormons, look at this list of mormons: List of Latter-day Saints. Many of them are far less notable to mormons, than this guy is to those holding my view. --Striver 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, i found this guy in the list: Itula Mili. He is nothing to mormons, compared to what Robert M. Bowman is to those of my view. Still, nobody is suggesting to delete his article. And this is not a anomaly, the rule is that people corresponding to minorities are compared to others in their own group, not to everyone else.

And Robert M. Bowman is very notable AMONG the people holding my view. --Striver 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An one last thing about soapboxes. I dont care to convince you about my view, i have hardly mentioned what my view is. I want it represented, i dont care for anyone acctualy beliving in it or not, not in Wikipedia anyway. So in no way am i trying to soapbox. --Striver 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete user has been trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to spread '9/11 truth'. Look at his page history [30]--Jersey Devil 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia. And you call me a soapboxer for that? I take great offense in that. Would the opposite be soaboxing for the Bin Laden theory? Allegations as this makes my angry, i see this as clear evidence of people not even recoqnizing my basic rights to have my views represted, exemplified in deleting prominent people holding them. --Striver 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not soapboxing[edit]

You are misstaken. Read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. A soapbox is:

ONE:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. [31]

I do not break NPOV when editing. That means i am not soapboxing, what i am doing is "report objectively about such things". I am reporting objectivly about the "Bush did it" view, i am not propageting or advocating it.

TWO:

Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. [32]

I am not personaly involved in any of the events that i do articles about, and i am most certanly not personly involved in Robert M. Bowman.

THREE:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. [33]

I do not make articles about companies or products. --Striver 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You owe me an apology for wrongly accusing me of soapboxing --Striver 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You've admitted several times you have very specific and uncommon opinions of 9/11, and you want to express these in Wikipedia. According to Webster's dictionary, a soapbox is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" [34]. By your own admission what you're doing is soapboxing. Joema 14:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, i do not "want to express these", i want to REPORT these. Who cares about Webster when im qouting WP:NOT? Further, i do not "delivering opinions" i REPORT opinions, a great difference! --Striver 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already admitted your goal is expressing your uncommon personal views on 9/11: "not many that hold my view of 9/11...I want it represented"..."i am trying to have me view represented on Wikipedia" Using someone else as your mouthpiece doesn't change this fact. Joema 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying i am soapboxing when i add articles to Wikipedia, since i want them represeted? --Striver 15:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing is "something that provides an outlet for delivering opinions" (Webster). You've said you want your opinions represented on Wikipedia via this article. IOW, you're using this article as a vehicle to express your views. So yes, I'd say that's soapboxing. Joema 15:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, my question is: Why are you using Webster to define a Wikipedia term? Why dont you use WP:NOT? --Striver 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because when there's a question over the meaning of a word, the standard practice is go to the dictionary. "Soapbox" is not a Wikipedia term. It's an English term that's used in many places, including Wikipedia. Joema 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? In that case, you are soapboxing. You are using wikipedia to delivering your opinions regarding me, and hence, you are a soapboxer. How about that? --Striver 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating my opinion -- I'm just repeating what you yourself have admitted about your goals. Joema 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are, it is not my oppinion that im soapboxing, so it must be your, considering this is a dialog. You see how ridiculous this is getting? Acctualy, you are a bigger soapboxer than me, by your own standards, since i didnt add my oppinion when i was creating articles.

Essentialy, what you are saying, is that one shuold not be allowed to creat articles if the articles is about something one belives in. --Striver 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating my opinion -- just repeating what you yourself have said. You said you have uncommon opinions about 9/11 and want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to express these. Joema 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mine or your oppinion that i am soapboxing? --Striver 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the above postings, it appears to be several people's opinion you are soapboxing. Joema 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which conflicts with the Wiki contention that Carol Rosin originated the term "Star Wars". I'll pull his 1985 book from the library and see what it says. Would like an SDI expert to weigh in on who was more prominent at the time, Bowman or Rosin and where the term originated. Maybe I'm cynical, but since when did news stories plug the subject's website? Mr. Bowman has pushed a lot of propaganda about his involvement in the SDI, but he was apparently never worth a mention on the SDI nor does his ISS appear to be any more than a one-man press release machine.--Mmx1 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When was Rosin supposed to have originated it? Whoever did it, I'm sure it happened early on, it's a fairly obvious nickname. Schizombie 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1983, I believe, according to the SDI article; it is unfortunately not very good. Have posted on Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative asking for feedback. Have lexis-nexised him and found 1 NYT and 1 CSR editorial; the other articles quote him as a consultant and aren't very useful for notability. --Mmx1 20:11, 27 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 deleted —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-24 07:40Z

Fob Five[edit]

Local band. Prodded but contested on talk page. NickelShoe 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - this article was originally up for speedy delete, and I still agree that it easily fits the criteria for a non-notable band speedy. Doesn't the contesting statement "this is a hot new local group" give it away? --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete an per Smith. Bobby1011 03:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above. Non-notable garage band --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 06:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete after reading the talk page. Definitely nn. Daniel Case 06:59, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girisanchar[edit]

Annual outdoors trip involving less than 200 participants. Google only has 5 results, external links are only to personal websites. Notability in question. No vote. └ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 03:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotion w/o encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy as a NN-club. ---J.Smith 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, promotional. And their website is on GeoCities... --Kinu t/c 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable informal gathering.  (aeropagitica)  16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The DAE in question seems to be the Indian Department of Atomic energy, and it seems that this is an all-national event for the departments employees with a 17 year tradition. Borderline notable, in my book. Zocky | picture popups 20:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original author (User:Rajiv13) sent me the following by e-mail. It is relevant, so I'm forwarding it to this AfD vote, copied below: --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1.My emphasis was to explain the word GiriSanchar and context in which it is being used.
2.The lack of google hits is very obvious as the net accessibility is still limited in India.
3.But I have no intention to advertise it. Because no body other than employee of department can take part. [And getting permission to go for Girisanchar is very difficult, I got permission after 12 years of serving the deptt]
4.DAE is Dept.of Atomic Energy in India and BARC is Bhabha Atomic Research Centre([[36]])
5.These unescorted treks are done by each group 20-25 persons each of and only help is white arrow marks created by pilot trekker(s).
  • Weak keep or merge - In response to the above reply I received, I am changing my vote from an abstain to a weak keep. It is an official event involving government groups. If not keep, perhaps finally create a stub for India's Department of Atomic Energy and add this as a section. There are a number of sub-groups of the DAE that have articles (e.g. Centre for Advanced Technology), but the DAE itself does not. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's notable based on Smith120bh's comments above. -- Samir ∙ TC 01:36, 1 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novick[edit]

Vanispamcruftvertisement by a comedian with only 65 Google hits, most of which are similarly self-promotional. Daniel Case 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Vanispamcruftvertisement" What sort of a neologism is that? Bobby1011 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've honestly never heared that term. Bobby1011 04:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's why we defined it for you. Stifle 16:23, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watcher (of msn conversations)[edit]

NN subject that's probably handled better under lurker; posted by a user who's doing a lot of this sort of thing tonight. Daniel Case 04:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteas neologism. Bobby1011 04:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no comments realy... ---J.Smith 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Not worth a redirect as this is not a logical search term. --Kinu t/c 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proof of this and it could easily be summed up in a sentence on MSN. Jedi6 07:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-24 07:39Z
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above ComputerJoe 12:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Notjarvis 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom: Lurker will do as an article, there's nothing to merge here.  (aeropagitica)  14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR, WP:V, neologism...--Isotope23 18:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom; I don't see anything worth merging unless the sexual thing can be verfied. ergot 15:34, 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 Speedy deleted as non-notable singer. I'm from Canberra and he isn't even well known there. 

Capitalistroadster 05:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we was quite notable in the Canberra area. He is a regular figure in the busking scene, and can be found busking daily at the major shopping centres. He's also noteworthy because he has cerebral paulsy and is quite well known Australiawide in the CP community and a number of other disability circles. In my opinion this is enough to be noteable... how many people are there worldwide with CP who derive the majority of their earnings through musical performance, writing and publishing?Frade 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ James[edit]

Lounge singer in greater Canberra area (Canberrea?). No relevant Google hits. Daniel Case 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as non-notable band WP:BAND --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7. Famous local lounge singer doesn't seem like much of an assertion of notability. Would be delete anyway. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn singer. Perhapse speedy? ---J.Smith 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Kinu. Bobby1011 04:53, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOFUS[edit]

I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion as nonsense. Unsourced, I can't find any relavent Google results. At best, it's an over-done dictionary definition of a new word (as the response seems to claim). At worst, it's a general attack page. Note that I copied the creator's talk page response below. I stand by speedy delete. └ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Talk:HOFUS: "To all the hardworking Wikipedia staff who are so discriminately judging this page after a mere three minutes of its existence, please be informed that this page certainly does not discuss meaningless nonsense. The HOFUS is a rapidly-spreading term used to describe a kind of classroom problem throughout the United States as well as possibly other nations. This article gives its reader a detailed description of the HOFUS, as well as select methods with which one may rid oneself of its presence. By not reading this article, certain unfortunate individuals may not have the opportunity to learn about and rid themselves of one of the primary reasons they fear the arrival of the school bus each morning. One such encounter has happened to us, and we would regret missing the opportunity to alert the world to the presence of this nuicance. Please consider the value of this article more carefully.
After looking over your criteria for patent nonsense(ie: Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like "1`- 5bl[9 1vn]304 0=10am[0v9a1 7", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever), it is obvious that we do not fulfill these standards at all. First of all, our writing is a completely, fully-constructed work that an intelligent human being can comprehend. Included in this article, you will find no random strings of random letters and numbers punched into the keyboard. Secondly, as we have stated in our discussion topic, the information clearly illustrates an inherent problem and is in no way confused, discombobulated, or written in an unintelligible manner. Although words such as HOFUS may seem strange at first, once you begin to accept different ideas, a piece of information that seems useless may soon become a masterpiece. A word such as fnord, for example, may at first seem like complete garbage, but your article about that term has shown there is a great well of knowledge to be found in that uncommon word (see wikipedia article on fnord). Please consider this as you edit and reconsider your descision to delete our article."


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy Deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Resop[edit]

Vanity article. My name gets more Google hits than his name. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters. Speedy deletion. -Sinatra Fonzarelli 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If you want to nominate this for speedy deletion, you should put the {{nn-bio}} tag on the page. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Pandaman87 05:41, 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 Speedy deleted as unverifiable and possible hoax -- Longhair 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian SCOTT[edit]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and there is practically no encyclopedic value to this article. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Australian English. Bobby1011 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • if verifiable, which I severely doubt it is. I get 68 unique Googles for ["Australian SCOTT" nuclear], from 113 total hits. The majority of the hits on the first page are news 'summary' pages, with information concerning one of the Bali Nine ("20 year old Australian Scott Rush") appearing on the same page as media-quoted concerns over nuclear testing programs in Teheran, Iran, and Japan. As an OR aside, I'm Aussie, and I've never heard this term used. Delete, unless externally verified. -- Saberwyn 06:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, never heard it. It's either absurdly recent (non-notable), localised or just plain bull (patent nonsense). In fact, judging by their user page and contributions such as Image:Sw3gc2.jpg, I'd bet on the later. — Graibeard (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of it either, and I doubt there's anything worth merging. However, I'd just like to note that "Speedy delete, never heard of it" will live on immortal as one of the most unfortunate phrases ever offered up on AfD. Heehee ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was originally a plain delete vote, but the more I looked the more it seemed a speedy. ie: patent nonsense. Apologies for my poor phrasing, enthusiasm or whatever. — Graibeard (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as short article with little or no context. Probably unverifiable and certainly not notable even if verifiable. Capitalistroadster 12:01, 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. - Bobet 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canton Highschool Coach Shooting[edit]

Non-notable event, sounds like something wikinews rejected. Delete. --InShaneee 05:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable as news, but not as encyclopedia content. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as old news and unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best worthy of a short mention in the high school article if it were verified. Capitalistroadster 12:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Suronging," clearly this was winged and it's not worthy to be noted. Yanksox 13:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local news item, non-encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn event, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's basically just a news story.
  • Delete, nn news event. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were verifiable, it would belong in the respective high school article, not notable enough by itself. Silensor 23:24, 27 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 merge/redirect. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tryggvi Gíslason[edit]

Sorry to say this, but looks like a vanity article by User:Tryggvia. Does not state anything that would take the person above my notability threshold. Prod reverted, see also Talk:Tryggvi Gíslason Conscious 07:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge merge into Akureyri Junior College since he is just notable alumni. Jedi6 07:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria for his own article. Merge into whateveritis Junior College only if desired. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Jedi6 Kcordina 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vanity page, as the creator is 20 and the subject is 73. However, merge or delete as per above. Stifle 16:26, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep Apnea Web Ring[edit]

This is a two line ad for a "web ring." This article has no notablity and is clearly just a link to the webring. Also delete the redirects The Apnea Board, Apnea Board, The Sleep Apnea Board, Sleep Apnea Board, Apnea web ring and The Sleep Apnea Web Ring. Arbusto 07:05, 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 06:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Guests[edit]

Advertising puff for an obscure band. (Amazon sells at least one CD by "The Special Guests!", but those Guests do not appear to be related to these.) Wikipedia is not for advertising and nothing in the article suggests that the band is in any way notable. -- Hoary 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons above. Incidentally, www.thespecialguests.tk, linked to at the foot of the article, is mere commercial Javascript gimmickry that my browser (Konqueror) gagged on and which yours may like no better. Reading through the "source", I found that the ads were supposed to be diversions on your way to this, which in turn does nothing more than announce this, in which, we read, "few to none of the links are working": very true. -- Hoary 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn per above. Primary site mentioned above is now unavailable, secondary site is simply a myspace blog. Kuru talk 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've deleted everything that wasn't factual, and your left with practically nothing. And they are nn 10:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roomrate.com[edit]

Delete It already had the advert tag, and that at least would need dealing with. But I'm not sure that this idea of a website is sufficiently notable in under a year to be included in Wiki. JGF Wilks 07:33, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade British Nursey School and Cascade British Nursery School[edit]

  • Comment As I placed this article and I am new to wilkipedia I feel it is unfair of me to get invloved in your process of voting. However I definately feel aggreived that other schools are listed and deemed to be more important than a Nursery. Early years education is carried out during the most informative years of any childs life and as such a high priority should be placed on it. For anyone to say it is less important and therefore non-notable is taking quite an uninformed view. Iaingm 12:43, 26 February 2006

Advertising/borderline spam for a nursery school in Kuwait. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advert for non-notable nursery. Kcordina 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per wiki/schools Jcuk 22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its an encyclopedia. Not the classifieds. --Jay(Reply) 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are hundreds of nurseries in Kuwait identical to this one. -Zer0fighta 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has nothing to do with Wiki/Schools. This has to do with common sense. Denni ☯ 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to vote keep on this because schools are notable, yet this is a part of a grey area (i.e. nursery schools). I say keep it if there is some precedent for articles on nursery schools, and strictly nursery schools (I found a bunch of schools that start at the nursery level but extend to grade school). Pepsidrinka 08:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note duplicate entry deleted. Tim | meep in my general direction 09:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing published in credible sources to add to this article Tim | meep in my general direction 09:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable school. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cascade British Nursey School has been deleted as a duplicate article. Stifle 16:25, 28 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 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helios Eclipse[edit]

Appears to be non-encyclopaedic fancruft/fanfiction from some fictional universe. PROD tag was deleted without comment by an anonymous user. Sandstein 14:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Establishes too little, if any, context or notability, way too specific. JIP | Talk 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like bad anime. Is there any chance this a legit new anime or manga? Otherwise delete as fancruft. Thatcher131 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You'd never know it from the article, but it appears this is a Japanese released manga by Kaoru (Kaoru Mori perhaps?) that some fanboys at www.mangarebels.com are in the process of translating to english and posting for download. No idea or opinion of the notability of this, but I'll slap context and cleanup tags on this. If kept it should read more encyclopedic.--Isotope23 17:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's authored by Karya KAORU, according to the cover shot.--Isotope23 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: relisting 24/02/06. The article has changed significantly since the last person opined, and enough people relied on a "no context" reasoning. The question is: should this be deleted even though there is now sufficient context? I don't feel that question is answered by the above discussion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still vote delete as per freshgavin above. Sandstein 08:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my vote from delete to abstain. How can I judge the notability of a maylasian comic book? There may be a lot of english language graphic novels in wikipedia that aren't notable in Maylasia. Thatcher131 14:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per freshgavin. --Terence Ong 14:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the cleanup, I have to agree with Freshgavin. --Kinu t/c 01:21, 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. Mo0[talk] 23:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java and Visual Studio[edit]

  • Delete for comparing apples and oranges (Java is a language plus a set of libraries; Visual Studio is an IDE). I don't think a meaningful comparison is possible between the two, so I don't think an article on the subject has merit. pne (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article about a platform and an Integrated development environment releted to another platform sounds weird. -- Szvest 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete per nom, doesn't look reasonable. --Terence Ong 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wrote the article and agree with the objections. Pne, thanks for telling me about it. --Uncle Ed 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless drivel. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 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. Mo0[talk] 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti HBs[edit]

Delete, nothing useful here that isn't covered at Hepatitis B Xorkl000 08:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed, covered on HBV page -- Samir ∙ TC 10:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing encyclopaedic or useful. --Terence Ong 14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as anything relevant is already covered elsewhere. Stifle 16:29, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Loaney[edit]

Claim to fame is being creator of the podcast Gamecast (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamecast). Also sound recordist on a few productions. 15 google hits, most of them from forums (though he is listed on imdb). All in all, nothing notable: Delete. Rasmus (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I got 9 google hits excluding message boards. Sorry, unfortunately not notable. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as autobiography Snargle 22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sound recorder on Australian television and has a podcast which appears not to meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Cnwb 22:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely nn. --Bduke 23:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if being on the IMDB isnt enough then I dont know...


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecast[edit]

Australian podcast. Alexa: Not in top 100.000. Googling the website gives 5 hits. Delete. Rasmus (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn podcast. --Terence Ong 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because the podcaster created it. Snargle 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this podcast meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. agree with above. --Bduke 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not deleteGamecast is the only podcast listed on the Xbox Australia website http://www.xbox.com.au and the reason http://www.gamecast.net.au isnt in alexa is because thats not where the episodes are distributed from. Gamecast is distributed by Spectre which is the company the Microsoft has hired many times to organise events for them and Spectre is also the owner of Australias version of Amazon: http://www.spectreworld.com.au, Gamecast complys with the Notible rules so I dont see why Gamecast has been nominated for deletion.
  • Delete all podcasts. Since the format has only existed for a few months, I contend that podcasts cannot have existed long enough to be notable. Stifle 16:30, 28 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 A7 nn bio (and obviously written by Brian Veitz). Will offer to undelete into his user page if he wishes. Tim | meep in my general direction 09:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Veitz[edit]

US singer. No published albums (self-published one is due in April]]. No other claim to fame. Delete Rasmus (talk) 10:04, 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 keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Icelandic[edit]

This seems a vanity page. On a question for references on the talk page: no answer. More then 10 languange wiki were flooded around the same time by a few Belgian IP's with the same (translated) article. On nl-wiki, Sockpuppets were created to try preventing deletion (see Talk:High_Icelandic#Vanity_Page). Seems someone is trying to use internet and wikipedia to make their hobby-project known to the world LimoWreck 10:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is true that this article and the subject of the article are mostly (but not solely) the work of a single Belgian. However, that does not qualify it for deletion. Neither does any action that the author has taken on other wikis. The fact is that High Icelandic qualifies for a wikipedia article as the subject is notable and the article is balanced and well written. On the issue of notability and references you can for example see the newsgroup is.islenska [37] where the subject Háfrónska (High Icelandic in High Icelandic) and High Icelandic have dosens of posts. Stefán Ingi 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Háfrónska movement is being watched with some interest in Iceland and many of the words they create are very interesting and would do well to replace older borrowed words. The head of the movement is a notable Icelandic priest, known for his creative use of language himself and for creating words (known as pétríska). That Braekmans seems to behave irrationally at times and not corteously shouldn't deter from the actual content of the articles, once it has been cleaned up to remove obvious bias. --Stalfur 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Before simply voting, we should notice a few oddities about all this.
    • First of all, in a relatively short period of time, articles have been added to the wikipedia versions in over twenty languages, all by the same person, or at least by the same small group of people.
      Yes, in all probability most (all?) of these articles have been written by Mr. Braekmans. That is not a ground for deletion. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All these people, mostly anonymous IPs but also a few registered users (in all probability, sockpuppets), are from the same part of Belgium. Despite the fact that he/she/it/they call themself Icelandic hyperpurists, he/she/it/they seem to be able to communicate in any language except Icelandic. See is:Talk:Háfrónska and da:Diskussion:Háfrónska.
      Yes it is doubtful that Mr. Braekmans speaks Icelandic. On the other hand he knows a lot about Icelandic words and their etymology and also about the history of the movement in Iceland to create new Icelandic words instead of borrowing foreign words. Of course he has taken this to a ridiculus extreme with the creation of High Icelandic and that is the impression that the article gives, of course without the use of such loaded words. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All this creates a quite strong impression of a campaign, no, a propaganda offensive, in which several unacceptable methods are being used.
      Yes, many of his actions stink of propoganda, including his insistance to place a link to High Icelandic in the article on the Icelandic language. Still, that does not say that we should delete this article. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of messages to the Usernet group in question seems to have been written by the creator of Háfrónska himself. Quote: "A loan-word in Icelandic sucks. every Icelander who accepts a loan-word in his language is a coprophiliac. He likes to swallow shit. It is about time that this is going to end. [...] Every Icelander shold stay in a camp for half a year when he is eighteen, he has to wear a device. When he pronounces a loan-word, he shouls get an electro-shock." This is not exactly in line with the moderate language used on the language's homepage.
      Mr. Braekmans has repeatedly shown himself to be capable of writing very different style of text and some of his writings can be considered inappropriate. But the text in the article is appropriate and even acknowledges that Mr. Braekmans has made himself unpopular in several places with his work. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One question I've asked at several occasions: who is the creator of this language. Well, let's look at the following apology he wrote for the words quoted above: "I came home early in the morning and I was under severe influence of drugs and alcohol, I head-banged all night on black metal music and I was extremely frustrated and foamed of anger." This gives me the impression that Mr. Braekmans is an angry teenager rather than a mature, professional linguist.
    • Yet, it has to be admitted that some of the arguments used by the supporter(s) do make sense. Indeed, there has been a TV programme about it, and the language seems to have been written about in the Icelandic press.
      This is the main point I am making, despite anything, Mr. Braekmans has managed to make High Icelandic noteable and therefore the article should be kept. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The supporter(s) of the language claim(s) that the language is véry well-known in Iceland, and that there are lóts of people over there who support it. If so, why are there so little Icelanders involved in these articles, and in the discussion about them? Note that even the article on wikipedia.is about this so-called "President of the High Icelandic Language Association", Pétur Þorsteinsson, was entered from a Belgian IP.
      It is an overstatement to say that the "language" is very vell known, but it is known. The Icelandic wikipedia is small and therefore it is not surprising that nobody other than Mr. Braekmans has written the article on Pétur Þorsteinsson but he is infact a minister in an independent congregation in Iceland which has official status. See [38], Óháði söfnuðurinn in the top right column. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All in all, I don't have the faintest idea what we are dealing with. It could very well be a case of six bored teenagers: one Belgian who together with his Icelandic pen-friend created a list of Icelandic loanwords, substituted them with native equivalents, and subsequently started pushing it all over the Internet. Gosh, I could do something similar for Dutch in two days! And who knows, perhaps suddenly somebody will turn up and say: "There, you see how easy it is to stuff Wikipedia with nonsense?" But on the other hand, perhaps we are dealing with a phenomenon that is notable indeed. Who knows? I'd like to hear some input from Icelandic wikipedians before issuing a vote. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 12:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes if somebody were to do something like this and two days later write a wikipedia article about this then that article should be deleted as non notable. But since High Icelandic has been discussed both in print and TV media in Iceland it has become notable and therefore should be kept. This is my personal opinion as an Icelandic wikipedian. Stefán Ingi 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and non-notable. Articles like these belittle the authenticity of Wikipedia. --OscarTheCattalk 13:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet. On something like this, I'd defer to the judgment of Icelanders: is this movement of any note in Iceland? (Though I understand the poet caps are quite fashionable.) Perhaps we should get reactions from Icelandic speaking Wikipedians on this. Smerdis of Tlön 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a message on their article's talk page and their village pump... Hopefully we get some insights from the Icelandic wiki community. But beware of sockpuppets !!! (although it seems the authors can't speak icelandic themselves, on the Dutch wiki there were two newly registered users making us believe they were neutral people who tried to show us how important the subject must be) --LimoWreck 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm an icelandic wikipedian and personally voted for keep. It is a very interesting linguistic movement and one which icelandic linguistics have noticed, many judge it to be irrational (such as translating every name in the world) but they do admit that it contains various gold nuggets which in time might find their way into the language. That the original creator of the language is doing his best to push it forward into the limelight shouldn't be seen as deterring, the articles should be cleaned up (as was done on the icelandic entry) to remove obvious bias on his behalf (and we even had to remove several later of his edits) but the overall impression of Háfrónska is interesting and we will be keeping it. Icelanders care a lot about their language and we have committees who do wordsmithing as we are loathe to copy words from other languages (even if it does happen). --Stalfur 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to add to this that there is no such thing as a "High Icelandic movement" this is the creation of one man and a couple of his online mates in Iceland. (The poet cap does not exist outside the computer generated image.) --Sindri 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep in that case. <sneer> "Activists" </sneer> pose a difficult metaphysical issue. It is possible to impose yourself on public notice by vigorous self-promotion. It seems that otherwise disinterested people in Iceland itself have taken some notice of the armor on the vital egg, and that's enough to make this no longer pure self-promotion. (FWIW, my tongue was firmly in cheek about the poet caps.) - Smerdis of Tlön 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may be crazies, but if they're notable crazies I'd have to vote Keep. However, it seems like if they were notable they'd have been discussed in the CONLANG group, and a search of those archives found nothing. So, I'm lead to conclude that not only are they jerks, they're nobodies, and can vote Delete with a clear conscience.DenisMoskowitz 15:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're notable crazies, then we should keep the page and ensure it shows them as crazies, a little like the Flat Earth Society page. --OscarTheCattalk 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep - based on the arguments of Stefán Ingi and Stalfur, it's looking more and more like these are notable crazies. The Icelandic TV interview may satisfy point 1 of WP:WEB. I know it's tempting to punish them for writing about themselves, but perhaps a better "punishment" would be to make the article as NPOV as we can, possibly removing crufty details such as some of the examples or the large pictures. DenisMoskowitz 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear People,

I am the neologistic skáld Timbur-Helgi Hermannsson. I have indeed 'dumped' 8 articles at once on various wikipedias. I wanted to have a small version on other wikis. That has been interpreted as using wikipedia for the spread of ideas. And I can understand this argument. Many accuse me of fascism and manipulation. I am not like that at all. Read the preface of the High Icelandic language centre.
The truth about High Icelandic is that I work 14 hours a day (with Icelanders like Pétur Þorsteinsson, the president and many others) on creating killer-neologisms and I have a lot of Icelanders who support me in my neologistic endeavours. The hreintunguþingið, a forum for Icelandic language purist will come on line next month in order to speed up neologistic endaevours and the development of High Icelandic as a solid language variant
There has been an article in the newspaper DV in the early nineties (written by Sigurður Hreiðar). Ari Páll Kristinsson, a former linguistic advisor of the Icelandic broadcast service wrote a column in Tunguatak (1996?), a paper about Icelandic language use. I have done 2 radiointerviews in the late nineties, the first time with Ásgeir Eggertsson, who has been working for the, I don't remember the name, it was "Tölvuverkfræðiþjónustan", I visited the building of the Icelandic language commission at Aragata, Reykjavík twice in the 90's and had a chat with Baldur Jónsson, the president of the commission. But these records can't be found on the net. This was long before Háfrónska.
I choose the name High Icelandic in 2003, because it is the most logical name for a purer form of Icelandic (think of High Norwegian (høgnorsk) the most conservative form of Norwegian, or Tolkiens High Elfish (Sindarin).
The pictures are important because High Icelandic is also a subculture, the nýyrðaskáldshúfa, Fjallbarnið (I added the webpage of the Mountain child as a link on the English wiki page. It is under construction. It showes that High Icelandic is more than a language variant, it presented as kind of life-style, a fashion and art.
A lot of Icelanders do like my project and many Scandinavists in the world love studying the word-list.
Two Ductch wikipedians Mig de Jong and Bessel Dekker have pushed other people to remove the article based on their own aversion of the phenomenon. Mig de Jong has send a message to other wikipedias to influence the people to delete the page. Before it was decided whether or not the page should be deleted.
Will you please stop accusing people? Nobody is "pushing" anyone, and the claim that Mig de Jong and Bessel Dekker act out of some kind of aversion against this phenomenon is merely your speculation. If you say that others try to influence voters, you're doing exactly the same thing with your statements - it's called 'discussion'. Xyboi 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I ask here is: listen to the facts and make an objective, neutral judgement. Mig de Jong and Bessel Decker are pushing aside evidence (like the TV program) and the statement of Icelanders on this discussion that High ICelandic is a known phenomenon in Iceland along with reference value of the work with regard to etymology, neologistic work. Maximiliaan

For your information. The user signing with Maximiliaan is the same one as the one calling himself Timbur-Helgi Hermannsson. [39] Good thing that's clear, because on the nl-wiki, it was a registered user, and it's clearly a sockpuppet now.... --81.11.185.4 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remember my log in, so Ihad to change it into Maxximiliaan And you knew from the start that it was me, you'd just had to ask. Furthermore, it is competely normal that I defend the project. Maximiliaan

Right, not having 5 logins would be easier to remember. Please read Wikipedia:Vanity_page. It's not up to you to write about your own invention, nor to fake other users writing it... --81.11.185.4 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not completely my own invention. I compiled neologisms that have become obsolete during the last 200 years. This is almost 40% of the vocabulary. My contribution to the whole thing is maybe just 20% of all 12000 neologisms of the High Icelandic word-database. I just made a compilation of words that have existed, work of other neologists (sources added) and words created by myself during the last 15 years. When you add the pure part of the ICelandic vocabulary to these words it is called High Icelandic. So it is a compilation project based on the work of many people and has a high value as a neologistic reference work. It is noticed in Icelandic to an extent significantly enough to deserve a wikipedia entry. Maximiliaan
  • Improve Verifiability or Delete. The five links shown in External Links section are very poor sources. Without me knowing anything about this subject before the AfD, after reading all the relevant material it appears to be a somewhat notable movement. I can't tell how notable this is until good sources are provided. Cdcon 19:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are mostly in Icelandic. I can vouch for them being "proper". Djöflaeyjan.com is a known webzine and Ísland í dag is a national TV shown without fee on the largest pay-per-view channel Stöð 2. --Stalfur 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This policy indicates that you should include English-language sources whenever possible, as this is an English site. I can't read the Icelandic sources, but according to the policy, I don't necessarily have to take them into account when making my argument.  Cdcon  23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per user Stalfur. Icelandic Wikipedians of good standing have verified that this movement exists and is notable. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Stalfur and Stefan Ingi.Staffelde 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I work on creating killer neologisms" - doesn't get much more incriminating than that. Denni ☯ 04:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Killer neologism" is a term used in the following sense: It is almost impossible to create a neologism of such a quality that it will uproot an inveterate loan-word. This is called 'the blocking principle'. It is hard to break habits, especially in the spoken language. A killer neologism is a neologism of such a quality that it can break this habit. I was told about this term by some of the Icelandic neologists I'm in touch with. I don't think it can be found in terminology lists. But it expresses the phenomenon well. Timbur-Helgi Hermannsson

  • Delete article and all associated images, non-notable neologistic vanity. Angr/talk 12:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable as is evidenced by the media coverage in Iceland and the fact that this project has been adopted by notable personalities besides Braekmans. The English and Icelandic versions of this article give a fair and balanced view of the project as there are people who can counter the obviously biased contributions from mr. Braekmans. I would not be surprised to find the articles in the other languages in a rather poor shape but that does not detract from the quality of this one. --Bjarki 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Icelanders above. —Nightstallion (?) 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bjarki. A borderline case, to be sure, but I'd say the Icelandic media coverage is just sufficient to merit an article on the topic. Haukur 16:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is one mans hobby and obsession, it is as irrelevant as my plastic model building hobby. --Sindri 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. After long deliberation. The discussions of the last few days have given me a rather strong antipathy against the creator of the language and his numerous sockpuppets. However, Icelandic media coverage and the like... Since our resident Icelanders quite unanimously confirm that it is a notable phenomenon, I'll rely on them. I dó believe the most propagandistic elements need to be removed from the article. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per majority of local Icelanders . Delete the stupid pictures please. Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the version on Czech Wiki is literally translated English version (including the pics). (Who got interested in translation there is beyond me.) Pavel Vozenilek 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the pictures, we really don't need to display 4 propaganda images. I say pick one and delete the rest. --Bjarki 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a subject that has already been discussed in the Icelandic media, and therefore is not original research. Wiwaxia 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the discussion in the Icelandic media is not the source for this article so it doesn't realy make this not original research. (AFAIK the Icelandic media used wikipedia as its source)--Sindri 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Icelandic and English wikipedia was already accepted by Icelandic wikipdians at that time. May I remind you that the original stub on the ICelandic wikipedia was written by an Icelander, not by myself. Maximiliaan.
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete this. However, I suggest that Jozef Braekmans be barred from further editing of this page, whereas he is unable of taking a neutral stance with regards to this page - he will continue to edit and improve on this page indefinatly if allowed to do so. Likewise, this page should be cleaned up and made more verifiable. In this case verifiability is tough since the entire language was created by one man, however lengthy Usenet discussions on is.islenska should provide some level of verification, and likewise the Háfrónian website. Jozef: you know my e-mail address. If you disagree with me, feel free to mail me. --Smári McCarthy 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not encyclopedic, no matter how many sockpuppets it's inventuor uses. Migdejong 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people on the Afrikaans wikipedia are very displeased with the way the Dutch wikipedian Migdejong sends advices on his own behalf to all wikipedias to delete the page. I just don't like to be accused of unfair tactics by someone who plays such tricks. Timbur-Helgi Hermannsson, nýyrðaskáld
Sigh, You have nothing to like or dislike. Mig de Jong may send his messages where he likes. However, the one using "tricks" and "unfair tactics" is yourself, by writing an article about your own hobby project, which qualifies perfectly as WP:VANITY... --LimoWreck 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the 1000th time: Since half a year, things have evolved very quickly and it is no longer a hobby project of myself. There is a movement, a small one, but a movement and she is lead by Pétur Þorsteinsson. And the original stub on the Icelandic wikipedia was written by an Icelander, not by myself. Maximiliaan
Reality check: this still ís the English WP right ? Not the icelandic one ? You have writtin this article yourself and different other versions, and you áre using these article as "verifiable source" on different other sites, blogs, groups, etc... If the subject ís that relevant, some neutral non involved user will create an article in the long run; however, you now that this version is a WP:VANITY page, solely used as propaganda, and all the problems we see now are actually those we are warned for in WP:VANITY --LimoWreck 14:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down to appropriate size and rewrite to reflect that this project is basically a word game played by a small group. Otherwise, weak delete. --Palnatoke 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this version of the article, as a matter of principle. However, if the subject really has some notability, a moderate, NPOV, balanced, non-propagandastic article may be created in time (as long as it's not submitted by another sockpuppet). I see most people vote keep but change the article, well, i'm afraid not much won't change unless this propaganda-version is deleted, so a new user can start from scratch... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs)
The pictures are necessary to give people people a graphic example of the 4 most important symbols of the High Icelandic subculture: the Hammerflag (Þorsfrónvé), the Armoured Egg of Life (brynfjöregg), the Woman and Child of the Mountains (fjallmæðginin) and the cap of the neologistic poets (nýyrðaskáldshúfa. I disagree with the opinion that it is a vanity page, because I have clearly mentioned the fact that I'm inpopular as a person with many Icelanders because of my behaviour on usenet. Further more, the word 'one-man project is no longer appropriate. The project started out as a one-man project, but now it's a different scenario. I haven't created the High ICelandic symbolism alone. So the text 'Braekmans also created High Icelandic symbolism is wrong. Pétur Þorsteinsson and some other Icelanders provided the bulk of the symbolism. Maximiliaan
  • Keep - I hate the way wikipedia has been abused here by one Belgian person. But since it seems to be notable in Iceland it should stay. On these kind of issues it is best to let wikipedians in good standing from the countries it is about inform you and listen to them. In this case it is virtually impossible for a wikipedian not in Iceland or not interested in Iceland to form his/her own opinion. I regret the delete votes therefor. Waerth 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to add one thing. I have to conquer that for some reason MigdeJong has decided to make a crusade against this article. Not because he knows anything about the subject matter. But that is his style. He has done the same thing with me on some issues. Waerth 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt Migdejong's respect for the wikipedia values. But respect for these values are so big that any kind of violation makes him react like a furious mediaval witchhunter. Don't let fury blind you from the fact that the phenomenon is known in ICeland and has got media attention. I have done wrong and I admit it. I used the name maximiliaan because I forgot my password. I really have a bad understanding of wikipedia and this resulted into the "sockpuppet-misunderstanding". If you check my IP address on all my comments, you will find only one. I use maximilian because it is my wiki-name now. I'm not a dishonest man. Maximiliaan
Please do not react any further. I hate it that I have to side against a fellow wikipedian. That is bad enough. Waerth 19:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little anecdote as input into this discussion, although it seems exhausted at this point: Braekmans' work looks to me like art - an art of parody of Icelandic linguistic purism, along the lines of some other recent Icelandic artists who have challenged the distinction between "art" and "real life". One should not forget that until a few years ago there was a radio program on the Icelandic state radio that specifically and categorically criticised certain developments of Icelandic as being "foreignisms" and suggested "good Icelandic" alternatives. The line between "good" and "bad" Icelandic has indeed been drawn on the basis of the concepts of "pure" and "original" words, vs. the bad foreign loan-words and loan-structures. This is also by no means a peculiarity of the Icelandic language establishment but can be seen in some other recently independent states as well - especially those that promote the idea of "one language - one nation - one state". Braekmans work (especially the images) are attempts to bring these ideas to their (absurd) logical conclusion. Also, his wordlists demonstrate how infinitely poorer and uglier Icelandic would be if it were truly devoid of loan-words. The wordlists are also, as stated here by Braekmans himself, very useful. Myself, as a contributor on the Icelandic wikipedia, have often been able to find there old Icelandic words for historical things, that are nowhere to be found elsewhere on the Internet or in modern dictionaries. Just recently I was able to retrieve there the Icelandic version of the word "carrack" (a type of ship), which I had been looking for all over the place (in specialised literature as well as in dictionaries and on the Net). It is, of course, a foreign loan-word, like most Icelandic words that have to do with ships and sailing, but Braekmans had found the specifically Icelandic version, and suggested a High Icelandic neologism for it that I would never dream of using. But... thank you Braekmans for finding this word for me. In my mind there is no doubt that these word-lists are important and impressive as Icelandic lexicographical work. I cannot, of course, judge whether High Icelandic is relevant on other wikipedias, or how it should be presented as I feel that it is intended to defy classification, but as a contributor I have found it very interesting, funny and also practically useful. -- Akigka
Well Akigka ... as far as I read wikimedia's goal ... it is a goal to produce an encyclopedia about all human knowledge in all languages. So our endgoal is that all lemma's will have equivalents in all other languages. Will this ever happen ... no because it is to much work. But if the Iceland wikipedians judge this article to be worthy I feel that it means (because it is a subject with regards to Iceland) that it has to be placed in all language wikipedia's eventually. As the only way to make all human knowledge available to everyone is to have it in all languages! Waerth 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Icelandic papers since many years so I have no knowledge about the recent articles in newspaper. I do have the first mentionings in the press of my early work in the 90's, when the word háfrónska didn't exist and my work still qualified as a solo-project
These are the only articles from that time I know about.

- A page-long article in DV, one of the four main Icelandic newspapers (edition of Januari 30, 1999, page 51)

- An article in Tunguatak (late 90's, I can't remember the date), a paper about language use for the people of the Radio broadcast service (Ríkisútvarpið), written by the language advisor (málfarsráðunautur) of the service, Ari Páll Kristinsson, a later president of the Icelandic language committee (Íslensk málnefnd). Ten of my neologisms were mentioned in that article.

- In the late nineties Ásgeir Eggertsson had a interview with me on the national radio ( ríkisútvarpið) about my neologistic work. This program was called 'Samfélagið í nærmynd' (May 13, 1996). In the interview the opinion of Baldur Jónsson, the then president of the Icelandic language committee was asked about my neologistic endeavours and said that some of my neologisms were impressive. Ásgeir Eggertsson left the radio broadcasting service short time after. I don't have Baldur Jónsson's e-mail address, but here's Ásgeir's. http://www.lv.is/employees.asp?catID=12&teg=alphabetical&EmpId=13 you can call him on this number: 003545159112

But I can't find the edition of tungutak anymore. Can the Icelanders on this page could help me and search the archives for me? Because some Dutch wikipedians are convinced that I'm a sockpuppet and a manipulator, the above mentioned records are but bullshit for them until evidence is presented. I will scan the DV artcle tomorrow and put it on a page. But Icelanders need to help me find the article written by Ari Páll Kristinsson. These records should shed a disambiguating light on the nature of High Icelandic. For the time being, I added the link to an article about High Icelandic in Birtir, the local paper of Akranes. I happened to find this. Maximiliaan

This is the article in DV, one of the four main Icelandic newspapers (edition of Januari 30, 1999, page 51) http://users.telenet.be/Hafronska/DV.article.january.30.1999.pdf

  • Keep. This article and this hafronska linguastic movement seem to be a kind of concept art or a joke and in Icelandic it is very witty. Not untrue but an art of parody of Icelandic linguistic purism like Akigka has noted. There has not been much media coverage about háfrónska in Iceland, I searched through the database of the main Icelandic newspaper and found no occurences of this word. The websites of the movement are like parodies or art and make totally no sense to me but many other movements are the same - strange and unlogical. Salvör 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam, the High Icelandic Language Movement is a srious movement. No humour or jokes, but serious neologistic work. Everything that is pronouncable with human sounds must be translated in Icelandic: 50 million place-names on earth, millions of names of organic compounds, all personal names of 6 billion people. With the aid of artificial intelligence this job can be done in one day and low cost by 2070. Now it is still an absurd project in the eyes of most Icelanders. Paying a team of 1000 toponymologists appointed by the ministery of culture would mean that taxes would have to be raised in Iceland. Icelanders would never accept this. So it is up to the High Icelandic language movement to lay the foundations for these projects now so that the first computer expert systems can easily built further on our lists. We have started the fjörgynjaráætlunin, the translation of the earth's place-names into Icelandic. At the end of March the first part of a list with the place-names of Britain (a 5000 names), names from A to E will be published on the net along with information about the etymology of the English place-names and the choice of the Icelandic equivalents. Maximiliaan

The article has been deleted on the Swedish wikipedia. the people there didn't take any of the arguments here into account. Sad, reallly sad. Maximiliaan.


Ahoy. This evening I mentioned this debate to a couple of coleagues of mine, who notified me that a certain Icelandic radio show holds regular vocabulary competitions, in which there are typicly five or so words mentioned that people are asked to define; according to my sources said radio show has during recent months had one or two words from Háfrónska per week, which I'd say is a definite reason for there to exist such an article on Wikipedia. Like it or not, Icelandic vocabulary is taking a few words from Jozef Braekmans invention - heck, I even use a few myself. --Smári McCarthy 00:35, 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 deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needtobreathe and Need to Breathe[edit]

Doesn't seem to pass the wikipedia notability guidelines for bands. Their first mainstream albumn is yet to be released. --Martyman-(talk) 10:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, also album not released - wikipedia is not a crystal ball Kcordina 11:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a better article on the same band at Need to Breathe, which I'm adding here. I'd also swear up and down that we've deleted it before, but I can't find a deleted article at any likely title; maybe I'm just deluded. —Cryptic (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find evidence of previous deletion. The band fails WP:Music as it hasn't released one album on a notable indie label, let alone two on a mainstream label. No single chart positions or notable members either. Although the debut release is to be in April, WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  16:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both, {{nn-band}} and the myspace test. Stifle 16:30, 28 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. — Phil Welch 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler carter[edit]

Page is false and untrue. The person who made it has created a fantasy page, nothing on that page is true. DELETE Lil crazy thing 10:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Work of fiction. Google finds none of it, wwe.com has no Tyler Carter, alleged official site is unrelated, IMDB disagrees with alleged movie role. Article started life as carbon copy of Ashley Massaro, then evolved into current form. Weregerbil 11:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure nonsense, along with the fact she uses pictures of three different women to present them as the same person. --Oakster 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as page recreation vandalism of a hoax previously AfD'd on Feb 2nd [40] . Is it just me or is that a pic of Kelly Clarkson?--Isotope23 18:30, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwollenEyeballs[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable website and related stories at Dynmamars --Martyman-(talk) 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Dynamars which is about a related series of shorts stories and makes no claim of notability: --Martyman-(talk) 13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn per nom. Kuru talk 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. It is not a necessary contribution to the site
  • Delete both per Martyman. Stifle 16:31, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Fooks[edit]

Nice article and he looks like quite a character. Not notable enough for inclusion though, in my opinion. Delete Spondoolicks 10:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain because of the quality and the effort invested. --
  • Keep even if the subject isn't too strictly-speaking notable (and that's debatable) the links are good, and the writer should be encouraged to continue on the Wikipedia 212.179.45.178 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. Sidney Fooks, over his 103 - year life was a minor published poet of the First World War and was a teacher still remembered by many today. Jeffrey Maynard.
  • Delete non notable. Google returned 3 hits. External links point to sites not directly related to article and does not mention Fooks. -Dodo bird 21:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE THIS: Worthy Material~ CW
  • Delete per nom. I would also note that it could still be a copyright problem, because we only have permission to use on Wikipedia, not to release under the GFDL. Stifle 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETAIN: At the very least he was a "village Hampden", worthy of remembrance. His influence through all those he taught, some distinguished, has been considerable and future histories of WW1 will carry reference to him for his contributions in later life to various researchers.
  • Keep as there aren't any copyright problems - as evidence, both J. Maynard and C.Dickens have called for keeping this page.62.219.213.74 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain This is a most interesting and well researched article on the varied phases of the life of a centenarian who clearly influenced so many people, particularly through his action in the First World War and as a teacher of rare quality who is still remembered favourably on the Harrow County website by so many of his former pupils who are still alive today. It would be nice if the article stimulated further detail on the award of his Military Cross of which he appears to have been so reticent to speak to his pupils in later years. Philip J. Levi.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 09:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Irish Studios[edit]

This buisness doesn't assert it's notability. The page was created by it's the companies 20 year old owner Justin Harris and seems like advertising to me. --Martyman-(talk) 10:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Justin Harris (Which I note has just been listed on proposed deletion).

  • Comment I {{prod}}ded Justin Harris to give him or another editor some notice to added notable achievements but I think that the AfD process takes about the same time.  (aeropagitica)  10:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is making companies think that WP is free advertizing? Stifle 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like just an advertisement, what have the really done that's notable? Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. --Wingsandsword 04:14, 1 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 Delete. - Bobet 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Roe[edit]

No sources. Delete Likely vanity. Included with several other articles relating to "Roe Family" and "Modern Kings of Munster". Guliolopez 10:55, 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 Delete. - Bobet 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Roe[edit]

Delete No sources. Likely vanity. Included with several other articles relating to "Roe Family" and "Modern Kings of Munster". Guliolopez 11:01, 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. - Bobet 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Robert Roe[edit]

Delete No sources. Likely vanity. Included with several other articles relating to "Roe Family" and "Modern Kings of Munster". Guliolopez 11:06, 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. JIP | Talk 16:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluffing (Yazza)[edit]

Delete , Original research, vanity page, nonsense, false, take your pick - SimonLyall 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does provide a more insightful representation of what bluffing entails, perhaps the 'coining by Yazza' part could be removed but the examples allowed to remain.

Although there isn't perhaps a major difference between bluffing in this context and in the more familiar context of playing cards, there is a subtle difference between the two and the article makes it clear that this type of bluffing, to use the author's wording, is not quite the same as the more familiar term. The article could be a fake; however there is no real evidence for that. According to the article, the term has only recently come into use and it would take time for it to be widely accepted and even widely heard about. As a local article it might not fit the criteria necessary but if it does extend more widely than that, even if it isn't well-known, it should perhaps remain. It is at any rate an extension on the term bluffing and that is what wikipedia is about: extending people's understanding of a word or topic.

  • It's not a vanity page, nonsense, false and i'm not sure what you mean by original research. The name was included merely for background knowledge as names are often included on wikipedia articles, where relevant, and here I would have thought that applied; however it is open for debate. I myself know of several people across the country who understand bluffing in this context so don't consider the article of local interest only as has been postulated. Equally, because the term is known across the country it can hardly be a nonsense page or false, surely! - Miniyazz 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. Claims can't be verified and are not sourced. Furthermore, by the author's own admission, this is a neologism "...the term has only recently come into use and it would take time for it to be widely accepted and even widely heard about."-Isotope23 18:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Cite sources and Transwiki) or Delete. This is better suited to be a dictionary entry, if it is valid. Claims are not sourced. There are no external links. There is no assertion of the importance of Robert Yarham. The explanation of the distinction between normal bluffing and Yazza variant is not concise. High risk of vanity. Cdcon 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed any possibility of it being a vanity article (in my opinion), at risk of losing some of the meaning of the article; I've also tried to clarify the distinction between the types of bluffing. - Miniyazz 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might not be much of a vanity article anymore, but it's also now not meaningfully different from other articles on bluffing. It's borderline original research and unverifyable. --Wingsandsword 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then perhaps, given that the other article on bluffing related to this meaning is merely two lines long and, to quote above, "it [the article] provides a more insightful representation of what bluffing entails". - Miniyazz 17:54, 2 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 Delete. I discounted all the "delete and merge" votes as that is not a valid action. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bab Successor Letter[edit]

AfD is not for suggesting merges. Royal Blue T/C 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a new page, we are far from over with it. This is just the first salvo in the war. Merging it into any other page will just make that page grow beyond any usefulness. Wjhonson 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - Agree with sentiment above. This is part of a much larger subject and leaving it as a stand-alone document would leave it not much more than a stub. MARussellPESE 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - Agree with MARusselPESE -- Jeff3000 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per all of the above. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C)

Please remember that if anything is merged, the edit history needs to be retained as well to comply with the GFDL. Therefore, deleting the edit history while keeping the material is not a valid vote. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
'Delete and merge' is not a valid vote. - ulayiti (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for proposing merges, and, having proposed a merge, you certainly cannot then delete the history. Given that the only "delete"rs also want it merged, this is probably a prime candidate for delisting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The letter and the existence of multiple versions is already covered in the first chapter of Bahá'í/Bábí split. This article appears to be an abbreviated version of that. As it is, this article lacks {{context}}, and adding it would just make the two articles even closer copies of each other. Weregerbil 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Weregerbil. -- Jeff3000 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content and redirect - as above Cuñado - Talk 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil. This topic is already covered better there. This is just a stub. MARussellPESE 13:44, 27 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. Mo0[talk] 23:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlatformON[edit]

Does not meet WP:Corp. Advertising. Not notable. Google gives only 111 results for platform.com Sleepyhead 12:26, 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. JIP | Talk 16:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manberry[edit]

Delete: Possible Neologism Aksi great 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A neologism it does indeed appear to be - 616 hits on the googlometer, most of them for the small town of Manberry, Western Australia. Kick this article in the sposbag manberry. Grutness...wha? 13:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per above and WP:WINAD Schizombie 02:20, 3 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan grant[edit]

Delete - Nonsense and nn. The article has sentences like "There is conclusive evidence that he duelled with jack the ripper on numerous occasions..." Aksi great 12:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --OscarTheCattalk 12:58, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nobody[edit]

Delete - NN Aksi great 12:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under A7: doesn't vaguely meet WP:MUSIC. --Karnesky 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. Kappa 13:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A little minimal in the notablity department. --SpencerTC 22:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Stifle 16:33, 28 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 ʕ 22:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF? Records[edit]

Delete - NN record company Aksi great 12:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and their homepage is on tripod. Stifle 16:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for a consensus. JIP | Talk 16:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Evil[edit]

Non-notable; self-promotion. Few google hits other than the company's own site. Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per Tom - Aksi great 04:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Pure evil removed the afd3 tag for this page from yesterday's log. See his contributions. So I am readding the subst:afd3 tag here. - Aksi great 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep i am a dufus...

here is the new version of the entry..

PURE EVIL

Internationally known street art or graffiti artist based in London UK . The PURE EVIL character is a naive fanged vampire rabbit, inspired originally by Californian graffiti artists TWIST and REMINISCE, Horror films and Death Metal Imagery, Pure Evil street art pieces first appeared in the East End of London in 2001, most notably a large piece under a bridge on Kingsland road that said "WAR IS SO LAST CENTURY" attributed to the SO FUZZY CREW an alias of Pure Evil.

Pure Evil artwork appears on the streets of San Francisco,New York, Berlin, Barcelona and Antwerp and appears on the shirt designs of cult clothing label PURE EVIL CLOTHING distributed in Europe and in Asia . http://www.pureevilclothing.com

In 2004 Pure evil moved into producing works on canvas and exhibits his work worlwide and on the Web on the beautiful crime website, and has recently started a new project called GraffitiTV , a full time Graffiti Television channel with art films and documentaries and feature films about graffiti. http://www.graffititv.net

related links

http://www.beautifulcrime.com/public/exhibitions/view.asp?ID=58

http://www.steal-life.com/features/75pureevil.html

http://www.woostercollective.com/2005/05/vitamin_f_2_pure_evil.html

http://www.sztuka-fabryka.be/festival/17thfestival/program01.htm

http://www.pureevilclothing.com/evilbunny.html

http://www.fotolog.com/pureevil

http://www.flickr.com/people/pureevil

EXHIBITIONS:

BEAUTIFUL CRIME ONLINE SHOW http://www.beautifulcrime.com

THE NEW EASTENDERS with Adam Neate and Waleska Nomura 2006

ZOO ART FAIR 2005

KILLER RABBITS IN NEW YORK 2005

PURE EVIL VINYL SHOW 2005 www.factmagazine.co.uk

BREAD AND BUTTER BERLIN WALL 2005

DEATH ON KINGSLAND ROAD : PURE EVIL ONE MAN SHOW 2005

PARIS STENCIL PROJECT 2004

The INDIVISIBLE CITIES show http://www.toyshopcollective.com/indivisible.html

The HOLLYWOOD SHOW http://www.woostercollective.com/

International DOODLEBUG day no.7 London

VINYL KILLERS http://homepage.mac.com/klutch/PhotoAlbum98.html


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Pareto Notes[edit]

Advertisement for an exam guide, nothing notable or interesting about it either -- Aim Here 13:34, 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 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal zamprelli[edit]

Not many hits on Google using query "Pascal zamprelli" lawyer. Also, content of article sounds dodgy. --A bit iffy 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Presumably, if Zamprelli set a precedent in Canadian case law there will be a reference to the trial in an official legal journal? If this can be provided then the individual may well be notable. If not, delete as unverifiable hoax.  (aeropagitica)  13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Cite sources, Add Content, and Add Notability) or Delete. This is a stub, because there is not much information. Zamprelli is probably a real person and has probably done some notable work. There is a high risk of vanity. Cdcon 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the legal profession in Montreal and I can assure you that Mr. Zamprelli is a well-known and well respected lawyer in that community. While it is true that there aren't really any hits for him on google, that's because most of his work is recounted in small trade journals or word of mouth. Still, I feel that there is a certain bias on wikipedia towards including people who are "famous" in the sense that they have lots of links on the internet. It's not like Mr. Zamprelli's stub is taking up a lot of bandwidth. Leave it up. By the way, the legal precedent he set was not reported in an official reporter, though it was widely talked about in the legal profession... many important canadian legal judgements are never formally reported.

  • Delete per above. To the anon who posted the comment: content on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable, i.e. published in a reliable source. Stifle 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless verifable independent sources can be provided. Saying that important legal judgments are often not formally reported sounds very dubious too, if it's so important, wouldn't there be some verifyable records? If some links to independent news articles, or on this precedent were brought to light, or citation in a legitimate legal archive were provided it would be highly relevant. --Wingsandsword 04:43, 1 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay.NET[edit]

Delete as a non-notable website. Article looks like an advert, smells like an advert, feels like an advert. Isopropyl 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article looks like a good candidate for deletion. We aren't given a reason to care about the group, other than as advertising copy. It's potentially a speedy delete as an article about a group which doesn't assert notability, but there is arguably such an assertion there, and that's not why you argued for deletion anyway. By the way, I note that your speedy argument was better than your AfD argument. You haven't mentioned WP:WEB here, or indeed done anything to distinguish your nomination from a vote. Nominations make the case for deletion, as strongly or weakly as the nominator is able, and generally should not include votes (that's just letting the side down!). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website, ad. --Terence Ong 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Innovation requires collaboration. Many US corporations have cut training budgets to nearly nothing. To gain skills people need to learn. Bay.NET like INETA and SDForum provide education for about free. I feel that is notable and worth an entry on wikipedia. --erpguru 01:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 04:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 16:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert and fails WP:WEB --Wingsandsword 04:34, 1 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IKaaro[edit]

Despite its neraly 70 unique Googles I find it difficult to substantiate the notability of this software package. Just zis Guy you know? 14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:I am sorry but have you ever looked at what this is before making assumptions that it should be considered for deletion. it is a free open source project.--Khine 17:03, 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. JIP | Talk 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mukto mona[edit]

Delete This article is about a simple Yahoo! forum[41] for Bangladeshis online. There are thousands of similar forums and information regarding these forums is not appropriate to be in an encyclopedia. There is no purpose of the existence of this article in wikipedia other than giving some publicities to this website.Thinker2006 14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mukto-mona just exists online. It is a Bangladesh based Yahoo group. Even the article claims that it is an "online congregation" of the rationalists. This article is an advertisement of a non-notable website. Thinker2006 23:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn James 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Generally I'm against keeping forums/website pages in Wikipedia. However, contrary to the nominator's claim regarding "yahoo only", there does exist a website for Mukto-Mona, which seems to be quite rich in content, articles etc. There is precedence of other "online only" group articles in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Ragib 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a website, where they basically archive the articles being posted in the group. Therefore, the website is based on the Yahoo! group. Even for Bangladeshi standards, this website is a very non-notable site. There are other similar Bangladeshi websites, which are much more popular. Thinker2006 04:32, 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 Merge back to Palpatine. Deathphoenix ʕ 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine as a ruler[edit]

Delete Star Wars cruft. Obviously some work has gone into this and I feel a touch guilty but this doesn't belong. It's a meandering series of thoughts and comparative observations on a person that doesn't exist. "Certain of his superiority and merit, Palpatine lost no sleep over various massacres"; "Needless to say, all these facades merely masked Palpatine's ultimate goal: eternal life and power"; and later "Palpatine wrote extensively on political theory, military strategy, publishing them to considerable acclaim and circulation. Few realized that these writings would prove to be a roadmap which Palpatine himself would follow to gain and maintain his empire (in an eery parallel to the scant heed paid Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf)." Uh, no. I particularly dislike the precedent of "...as a ruler." I suppose I could live with "Churchill as a tactician" but in terms of fan-cruft it's just not encyclopedic. The main article on Palpatine may absorb some of this but it's already 66k. Marskell 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cited essentially everything in there; fancruft is a bit insulting when it is official canon material. --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my def of fancruft is overbroad. And I do realize the page has many cites. But "official canon material" on any fictional topic does not in itself accord notability. Palpatine is not a person. This level of detail would be questionable for any subject. This page consists in large part of derivative observations on a movie character. If the main article can't accomodate this then you may have to consider whether it belongs at all. We have 66k on Palpatine to begin with. Marskell 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page was separated from Palpatine (see edit), where it's no more crufty than the rest of the article. I can't see justifying its deletion as a unique entity without creating a precendent for the parent article as well (and by extension, a lot of other sci-fi/fantasy articles). Though I'd suggest a possible retitling as something other than "Palpatine as a ruler," per nom. - Rynne 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love Star Wars, but this is just an unnecessary fork. Some of this information could be merged to Palpatine, but the level of detail here ("Palpatine as a writer") is just too great for a general encyclopedia. Apropriate for Wookieepedia, but not Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like it either, but the Featured Article people insisted that it be split off, and I trusted them on this... --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? That is just ridiculous, but... Could you perhaps link me the talk page or request that it be split off? I'd be willing to reconsider some sort of rename and edit solution if a credible editor made such a request.--Isotope23 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. Look at the FA request- 'twas Silence, I think, who asked that that be split off. --maru (talk) contribs 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Palpatine, as the creator and as per Rynne. I wouldn't particularly object to a rename into a subpage of Palpatine like Palpatine/Ruler, but weren't subpages deprecated? --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Palpatine, obviously. Alba 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this is a fork, and today I hate forks, ever since they turned on me and jabbed me on the inside of the mouth. Ow. Croat Canuck 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Palpatine. Grandmasterka 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Jedi6 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Summary style is a merge or delete criterion here. This page is not summary style. Marskell 08:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says that you can have stemmed off articles like this one if the main page is too long. The page may have to be renamed and redone though. Jedi6 08:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Kappa 13:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as how there's a wiki for Star Wars (cited as sources), I am fully unapologetic about deleting the matter and letting the author move it over to the independent wiki. This is unencyclopedic (discussing the fictional writings of a fictional character? This is lunacy) I love Star Wars. But it's fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or merge into Palpatine, although a better name would be nice if it's kept. BryanG 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge this is clearly not notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. --Ben Houston 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kind of original material, as someone would have to research it. Merge it into another Star Wars atricle. --SpencerTC 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Can you explain that research comment? --maru (talk) contribs 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was kinda thinking/typing out loud. I mean there's nothing out there that as a main source covers this, so someone would have to research all the mentions of him in the works and weave it together. However, I think that comment (and half-baked thought) was a little off, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sry, I'm having one of those Wikidays. I'm changing my vote to Merge, or perhaps re-conceptualize it somehow, Star Wars Rulers or something. --SpencerTC 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense. Actually, the Dark Empire sourcebook has ~5 pages devoted solely to this subject- with that material and with the help of Publius' polymathic knowledge of Star Wars (who seems to have researched all those mentions), I pulled that together. --maru (talk) contribs 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge, possibly reconceptualize --SpencerTC 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Palpatine (or Weak Keep). If the FA people have a problem with this, then they nead to get themselves on the same page with the rest of the eneyclopedia. Deckiller 23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back, although that'll probably doom Palpatine's FA bid. It can still be a good article though. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palpatine's FA bid was doomed a long time ago. And it's already a GA, last I recall. --maru (talk) contribs 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as summary style fork from main article, though the main article could use more than a two sentence summary. If Palpatine re-organized, then this can be deleted or moved later. --maclean25 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Palpatine. I think this can be substantially trimmed to the point where it wouldn't bloat the main article too much. --BinaryTed 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Palpatine. --Wingsandsword 04:18, 1 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 NA since it was speedied. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ゲームマスター[edit]

'Speedy Delete'merge and redirect: Where to start: Fist this page is not in English. I noticed it in the articles needing translation. I've tried to add a link to translate it through google. This was removed twice. [42] [43]. Along with the removal of this attempted translation dissapeared the tag requesting that this page need translation or else it will be deleted in two weeks. As I write this, the page appears to being vandalized for the afd template seems to have been removed from the article [44]. Anyway if you look at this version and click on the translation you will notice that this doesn't appear to be a notable game. There are no references. This is my second or third afd on wiki so I may have overlooked some procedure however I feal that I have respected wiki process --CyclePat 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is an extract of the conversation happening at the translation board!
Japanese - about game master (or ga-mu-ma-sa-ta), as suggested by the title and english subtitle. I wouldn't know what to do but probably not noteworthy. СПУТНИКССС Р 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, never mind me. I'm just really stupid. This article already exists at Gamemaster, and there is already a Japanese article about it. СПУТНИКССС Р 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged it notenglish and yes, it is a Japanese article about Gamemaster. I'm not sure if it should just be deleted or redirect to the same article on one of the language's Wikipedias. --TheKoG 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should merge any relevant info and redirect this article to the already alleged english version instead of deleting. --CyclePat 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need to redirect from non-english titles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has now been moved to the userspace. Speedy Delete the redirect and leave be. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:57, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gardner[edit]

The three pages on the two people named Roy Gardner had got very confused. The text on Roy Gardner was quite extensive and referred to the 1930s mail train robber; the text on Roy Gardner (bank robber) was very short (a single paragraph) with a 'merge' tag dating from June 2005; there is also Roy Gardner (football chairman). I suggest one of two actions; EITHER, delete Roy Gardner, and put an 'about' tag on Roy Gardner (football chairman) OR Move the text on Roy Gardner (bank robber) to Roy Gardner and change Roy Gardner (bank robber) to a redirect. I've insufficient experience to know which of these would be best. JGF Wilks 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put the info in Roy Gardner into Roy Gardner (bank robber) and make Roy Gardner a disambiguation page. However, I'm not sure why you've just deleted all the info in the Roy Gardner page and replaced it with a disambig page. We don't want to lose this info. -- Necrothesp 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the only thing that happened was that you responded while I was still in the midst of putting things in the intended place. JGF Wilks 14:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY STRONG KEEP ALL: comment: Silly rabit, content disputes are not for afd! You may want to creat a dissambiguation page. --CyclePat 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current disambig works just fine.--Isotope23 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There is no reason why this should be here at all.--み使い Mitsukai 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Hopefully, the nominator can withdraw his nomination so that it can be speedy kept and the problems, if they still exist, be sorted out by other means. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than happy to withdraw nomination since I was essentially asking if a two item disambiguation page was needed. JGF Wilks 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as the nominator wasn't actually looking for deletion. Use WP:RFC or some other venue for content disputes. Stifle 16:37, 28 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 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shade Paine[edit]

Non-notable, self-marketing "erotica" model w/no other credits. {prod} tag removed by anon with no other edits. Delete. Monicasdude 14:39, 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. Both keep votes are from users whose only contributions are to the article and this AfD discussion. JIP | Talk 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THSGEMB[edit]

a non-notable high school marching band. I don't think the school itself even has an article. My speedy tag was removed by the article's creator, but I'm not mad. Maxamegalon2000 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Maxamegalon2000 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nn. --Terence Ong 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a high school marching band. Speedy if possible. --Kinu t/c 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though it's a high school marching band, they perform well and are quite competitive in the Musical Arts Conference circuit --Ay 3:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They are known nationally... i think that is considerd notable. commonly talked about in the marching band world as far away as virginia and have proven to be great competiton as far awayas orlando, new orleans and los angeles. The color guard finished 17th in WGI national finals last year, and percussion is projected to be in the top 3 in WGI this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porchestorm4428 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect somewhere. Where? That sort of discussion can be carried out beyond an AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 22:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Jemima[edit]

Not all SNL skits are notable. Google hits indicate that this one is not: "Uncle Jemima" currently gets 524 hits, many of which are not even about the sketch character but about a band of that name or interestingly enough, antique salt and pepper shakers dubbed "Aunt and Uncle Jemima". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Aunt Jemima. BD2412 T 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even so, Uncle Jemima still merits his own article. Links to other SNL skits are included, as well as other information about his life. The article is detailed and accurate, and thus should not be deleted. I'm glad to see that people are using Google to determine Uncle Jemima's popularity. I think a better way would be taking a poll of members, rather than basing your false assumption on the number of websites devoted to Uncle Jemima. Mrg024 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Mrg024 (talk · contribs) has thirty-eight edits and is the article's author.[reply]
If I may interject some (hopefully) constructive criticism, the article as you had originally written it did not make any mention that this was an SNL character and seemed to try to pass the character off as a real person, making it appear to be a blatant hoax. An encyclopedia is supposed to give readers verifiable and accurate information and not to try to pull anyone's legs. Please try to keep this in mind. Jtmichcock 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above much changes my vote - the SNL character only exists in the context of Aunt Jemima; merge somewhere, at any rate. BD2412 T 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added an entry for this on Saturday Night Live TV show sketches. Jtmichcock 02:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been added to Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be only sensible to insert a redirect Saturday Night Live TV show sketches since this also has links to the characters' page. I think it's likely that 99 out of 100 people typing in Uncle Jemima are going to be looking for info the SNL skit, not the salt and pepper shakers from the '30s. Jtmichcock 16:22, 28 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.

Steven Levitt[edit]

Article does not contain encycloepedic information and this guy is not notable. --Tbackstr 10:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. utcursch 11:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a newbie test page. Nonsense. jni 13:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Easter[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was nn-bio... on second thoughts, notability IS asserted. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:21, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 22:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko Hadzihasanovic[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Abandoned, almost copy of [45]. Very unencyclopedic format. If the artist is notable enough someone else will create better article. Current text is unsalvageable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as messy gallery-type copyvioish nn-bio. Stifle 16:43, 28 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. JIP | Talk 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elspeth Rennie Morrison[edit]

Morrison is a minor character in the Flashman novels. At present, the article says nothing more than that. It seems unlikely that it could (or should) ever be significantly expanded. Whatever can be said about morrison would better be said on the Flashman page itself. Dominus 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The one-sentence article is already mentioned on the Flashman page, under Flashman's Ladies. Unless this article can be significantly expanded, I see no reason to keep it.  (aeropagitica)  16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a certain amount of expansion is possible as she appears in most/all of the books. But I don't see a need for a breakout from Flashman Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flashman or delete. Stifle 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was originally going to suggest "merge", but there's nothing there to merge! -- Dominus 04:03, 1 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 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Waldo J. Cartridge Annual Award for Outstanding Achievement in Enerttainment[edit]

Vanity. A set of awards that have zero hits on Google.[46] Article was created by User:Waldo J. Cartridge, and references that user's userpage as a source. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 talk 15:37, 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 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bennett[edit]

I am also nominating the redirect page: Jason bennett for deletion.

    • This is unnecessary. When article is deleted, its links are removed as well. mikka (t) 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be an advertisement for an otherwise non-notable acting school. The author has been inserting links to this acting school in all the method-acting related websites, apperently to increase his Google hits [47]. What is claimed as "published works" are articles about acting posted on his own website or as paid advertisments in other websites. Google searches only bring up WP mirrors, or commercial listings to his acting schoool but no third-party sources that speak to his notability. He does have an occasional column in a popular casting website, but I don't think this counts as notable enough. See article's talk page for discussion about this. Marcuse 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons you listed here. Mr. Bennett is not an important acting teacher in the New York acting scene. His school has existed just a little over a year. He is well know on acting message boards and websites for his aggressive, and sometimes disruptive, Internet marketing style but for little else. Perhaps he will someday be a notable in the New York acting scene but he has not earned that distinction yet. Tree Trimer 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As I've stated elsewhere, Tree Trimer joined Wikipedia to try and stop Jason Bennett's work from being included in any page about acting. He is currently removing any reference to Jason Bennett, over and over again, calling it "advertising," even though comments about Jason Bennett and/or his school are often found among lists of many schools on Wikipedia pages, or among lists of many teachers whose work is being discussed in those pages. Tree Trimer is also urging other Wikipedia users to "vote for deletion," for example, Tree Trimer wrote on someone's user page: "Hello, I am a New York actor...Jason Bennett does not belong in the lists with famous actors and acting teachers.... Would you please go to his page (Jason Bennett) and vote for deletion? Thank you. Tree Trimer 07:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)" Tree Trimer is not interested in Wikipedia. He is interested only in trying to stop a colleague or former teacher of his: Jason Bennett. Think the book 1984. Remove the content you don't like, and hope the person goes away. If you doubt that Jason Bennett is well known in the professional acting community, all you have to is look at the testimonials on his web site of Broadway actors and Tony-nominated directors. Even Tree Trimer admits he knows who Jason Bennett is, that's the whole reason he came on Wikipedia. His whole campaign is an acknowledgement of the importance of Jason Bennett, he just doesn't like him. Sgactorny 13:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is not appropriate for you to put Jason Bennett's name among acting greats, and I am removing your ads. Both are true yet they are not evidence that you should be on Wikipedia. Even if the website testimonials that Jason Bennett is a great guy are true, that does not put Bennett up in the ranks of Konstantin Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Uta Hagen, Stella Adler, Eric Morris, Michael Chekhov, and Sanford Meisner. People seeking information about acting should not be deceived. I left a message for Whatcape because he commented on the inapproprateness of your insertions before I did. Check Whatcape's talk page. Tree Trimer 14:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment He isn't deleting "ads." He's deleting objective statements about Bennett's work. Calling them "ads" is just double-speak. Anything that mentions Bennett is an "ad" to him. The accusation that I'm Jason Bennett shows everyone just how personal this person's campaign is. Also, Whatcape inserted "Laura Esterman" and "Susan Batson" into pages. Are you on a campaign against them? How about Eric Morris? How about the Atlantic Theater School? Any others? Or is your campaign only limited to Jason Bennett? My point is rhetorical, there are many schools, books, articles and teachers listed on all the pages you keep singularly deleting Bennett from. It's like Orwell's "1984." Sgactorny 14:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The bottom line is that it is inappropriate for Jason Bennett's ads to appear in great acting teacher's bios. Tree Trimer 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reasons listed here are incorrect or personal attacks by Tree Trimer communicated to Marcuse in talk pages. Tree Trimer does not want Bennett's views about acting seen by Wikipedia readers. Tree Trimer signed up on Wikipedia just to try and get rid of Jason Bennett's page, look at his history. He is perhaps a former student or a competing acting teacher. Bennett's school has existed for many years, not one, and Bennett himself has been teaching for over 12 years. Tree Trimer himself created the controversy on that other web site, then came on here and pretended a controversy existed that actually doesn't. If you click the above link, put there by Marcuse to reference that conflict originally created by Tree Trimer, you will see that Backstage (the nation's largest acting industry weekly), which supports Bennett's work and has profiled his school, has removed the libelous posts from their web site. I am the person who made the page for Bennett, because I am a working actor in New York. Most everyone I work with and know knows and respects his work in the professional acting community in New York. If you look on his testimonials page, you will see endorsements from Tony-nominated directors, psychologists from around the world, and all kinds of professional actrs. Just reading his biography is a powerful testament of the work he does. The Cincinnati Conservatory of Music, one of the schools he went, is the best musical theater school in the country. Eric Morris is a Master Acting Teacher who trained Jason Bennett. Bennett's extends his legacy with his work, as well as the legacies of the other Master teachers whose pages he was linked to in the "see also" and "External links" section. That's why I put his work there, to educate the readers because it's perfectly appropriate and correct. Nothing I wrote ever said Jason Bennett was the best around, or anything like that. I wrote facts about him. Readers deserve to read the facts about Bennett. Bennett has had articles on Playbill.com, a major web site for performers across the country; in "The Soul of the American Actor," a national newspaper devoted to actors; on NYCastings.com, a web site that distrubutes his articles to 15,000 actors and performers every two weeks. Backstage.com has profiled his school and faculty numerous times. Bennett's faculty is composed of five famous teachers, one of which is a professor at New York University, one of which is on the board of one of the most famous dance companies in the world, one of whom has been teaching actors in Los Angeles for over 30 years, one of whom has been trained by many well-known New York acting teachers, and the other is a well-respected Master Voice teacher. Bennett's web site is listed on web sites of prominent acting schools all over the country. A school devoted to former Master teachers Lee Strasberg and Michael Chekhov both point to Bennett's work and his school. It is a personal mission of Tree Trimer to censor Bennett's page. That's all he came on here to do, and that's what he's doing. We shouldn't go along with it. Sgactorny 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is by the original author of the Bennett article. As far as I can tell he is the only one who attests to Bennett's notability but has not been able to provide external references. I cannot judge his claims since I am not an actor, however I have not found any third-part material about Bennett, that was not written by Bennett himself. I have also not found any material by Bennett that is not a paid advertisment except for the column in the castings website. Marcuse 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it looks like advertising to me. I can't see any difference between his acting school and any others that we might, but should not, advertise here. Furthermore there is a huge copyright violation with the entire "Professional experience" section being cut and pasted from [48], which states at the bottom of the page that "all content is C. of the Jason Bennett Actor's Workshop". I have removed the offending section. Rossrs 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The copyrighted material has been pasted back in by the main author. Marcuse 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, several times, in fact. Makes the whole "assume good faith" principle somewhat difficult. Rossrs 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like advertisment, violates WP:BIO, most links are to page of the person himself. Links to pages maintained by the person in question does not qualify as achievement, unless there is substantial linking to those pages. --KimvdLinde 15:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Non-notable. I'm particularly frustrated by his annoying habit to spam Bennett wikilinks to other Stanislavsky-related articles. --Ghirla | talk 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — pretty clearly vanity and/or advertising. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now, because perhaps this is an article whose time has just not yet come. The test of time will establish verifiability of the claims that Bennett and his faculty are revolutionizing actor training. For now, unless the author of the article or interested others are able and willing to cite specific references within the article, other than Mr. Bennett's website or advertising, to back up the statements in the article, it has to be considered a vanity piece. --Lini 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity, combined with aggressive editing to add puffery to other articles, like "[Adler's] legacy continues with the work of modern teachers like Jason Bennett". The bio avoids clearly specifying whether Bennett actually studied with Adler or only studied her techniques from someone else. -Will Beback 22:00, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Emerson[edit]

This seems to be an original work of fiction. Delete. Bo Lindbergh 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google search [49] brings back two hits, both false positives.  (aeropagitica)  16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Assertion of discovery of a tomb that was never actually completed. Also being a supposed relative of somebody famous doesn't necessarily make that individual notable.. — RJH 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 16:43, 28 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 Transferred to WP:RFD. Stifle 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler argument[edit]

Redirect to hyperspace. Was {{empty}}-ed but tag deleted. I'm thinking WP:SNOW but procedure says to do AfD after contested speedy. Weregerbil 16:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this should be listed on redirects for deletion, not AfD.--Isotope23 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't know there was such a thing, learn something new every day, thanks! Will list there instead. How do I cancel this AfD? Or if someone knows please Just Do It(tm). Weregerbil 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem... just learned about it myself about a week ago... As the originator you can just remove the AfD tag, comment that you are relisting on redirects for deletion, add that redirect for deletion tag, and list this over on that page. I'll take your statement above as implicit approval and go ahead and initiate that.--Isotope23 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or not since you already did it. I think this AfD can be closed.--Isotope23 18:42, 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 wasSpeedy deleted at request of author and attempt to communicate. Capitalistroadster 23:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional staff edits of Wikipedia[edit]

Article was prodded because "This is an opinion/essay, not a neutral encyclopedic article, see also WP:NOT". Moved to AfD to allow for consensus on what might be a controversial topic. No vote for now. youngamerican (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Should probably be speedied, maybe as an A1 or A3. --Aaron 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as non-article attempt to start a forum. I could have sworn there was a speedy for articles that are an attempt to communicate with others or solicit information.--Isotope23 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a discussion forum. Weregerbil 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to WP:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Alba 21:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article before I googled and found there was already a page for said subject, why not spedy it. Nmpenguin 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 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 CARNILDO seems to keep everyone happy and there appears to be almost no support to retain this article standalone. The transwiki to Wiktionary can be done at leisure and is not do-able in the usual transwiki way since working out which edits would need to be listed in the history is more or less impossible, and whether it would even be a transwiki is unclear. Thus:

  1. The acronym usage is already in EEP.
  2. See above.
  3. So merged. Fight it out over at System 7.
  4. I'll go with the redirect given the rest of the debate. I hope that Eep² will not revert back but if this becomes a problem, request protection at WP:RFP then rather than pre-emptively now.
  5. See above.

-Splashtalk 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eep[edit]

Delete — this perennial favorite goes back all the way to Wikipedia:The original Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense prior to 2002-03-08! Some history has been restored by Splash for your edification, and the previous 6 deletions of similar material are detailed on the talk page. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, and nonsense; recreation of deleted content with more window dressing (copy and paste move from EEP). The useful abbreviation expansion information should be maintained at EEP (the standard location) and this page should redirect {R from abbreviation} there (the standard practice). William Allen Simpson 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep information. Mergre to "EEP" and redirect. At the same time you might as well redirect "eep" and "eEP", "eeP", "eEp", and any other possible permutation to "EEP (disambiguation)". Which inherently if it ain't already would need to become a dissambiguation page. This article doesn't appears to violate any WP:DP. Keep and go argue your merger elsewhere. --CyclePat 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could detail which information is (a) verifiable, (b) significant and (c) not already in EEP. I couldn't find any. Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreation of deleted content / non-notable / WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. Note that most of the acronyms aren't notable or common at all; apparently, they have been added to inflate the notability of the utterly non-notably sound eep and its presumed place in pop-culture. The many personal remarks (calling others wiki nazis, for example) do not help the case of Eep² (talk · contribs), who acts as the owner of the article. — mark ✎ 18:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and protect the redirect. What's the problem here? Septentrionalis 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this article, specifically the very few things in this article which are not already in EEP, has already been deleted by consensus multiple times, for example on the grounds that one word contained in (but not the subject of) a song which features in one Jetsons episode does not make for encyclopaedic content - it was BJAODNed years ago. This article amounts to a POV fork of EEP.
  • Merge Delete and protect, following further backtracking of history and contents of this article. What is not already in EEP varies between highly suspect and complete bollocks. I have, for example, removed a link to a "funny web page" which apparently "mentions the word eep" from both, along with verious other bits of nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to remove quite some of the irrelevant content before, but was swiftly reverted by Eep². I recommend protecting indeed. — mark ✎ 17:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, don't merge/redirect: All information is relevant, notable, and encyclopedic. Who says what is and why can't you people realize this information is? Learn to think relatively. You acknowledge EEP but only a few acronyms. Why? ALL acronyms are valid; if one company/organization is listed, all should be--whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. The "Wild Eep!" Apple Macintosh system sound is public domain (I don't see Apple taking down this site which provides many classic Mac OS sounds and which many Mac software websites link to). The "funny web page" link relates to the sound's history which IS silly but still applies to the history of the "Eep", as it refers to the sound. WikiMac also acknolwedges this and other links I added to THIS Wiki's page... The "weird song" link is about the sound too and demonstrates the quirkiness of the sound and what some people think of it--enough to compose music to it! The link to the Road Runner is valid, too, since both sounds are similar, are expressions/interjections, and I think makes for an interesting comparison/relation. While I'll budge on the Albanian "shqip" pronunciation, drinking game sound, and even the Google "eep" search link (I was simply being concise), I DO believe the Star Control II Yehat Veep-Neep clan is valid. Why does it include "eep"? Is it because it sounds like a bird (which is what the Yehat race is)? The reference IS encyclopedic even if you people can't (or won't attempt to) understand why.
So many pages on this Wiki are simply compilations of info and other articles it's not even funny. Why come down on THIS article? I call it article lynchmobbing... Eep² 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? A wiki which explicitly specifies that it contains only information which can be verified from reliable sources and it's full of compilations of info and other articles? Say it ain't so! Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it what you want, Eep², but please refer to WP:OWN on ownership of articles, as well as WP:NOT on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not meant to be your personal compendium of information you find interesting or encyclopedic. And I hear you saying it's not mine either. You know what? You're right. That's why I did not delete it six times before, the community did. — mark ✎ 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! "Community" my ass--more like LYNCHMOB. The "community" that voted to delete the page was short-sighted, narrow-minded, and ineptly lacking in relativistic critical thinking. The Wikipedia IS a compendium of information found interesting or encylopedic and, guess what? EACH AND EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA PAGE WAS CREATED BY A SINGLE PERSON WHO FOUND THE INFORMATION INTERESTING AND ENCYCLOPEDIC. What is interesting and encylopedic to one person may not be to another person. The Wikipedia is big enough that it can have a LOT of information not all will agree on being interesting/encylopedic. It's called information diversity. When would you like to start thinking relatively, Mark et al? Why don't you get over your little crusade here and go back to your TLA page (which is ALSO a page YOU find interesting and encylopedic--oops). Drive through! Eep² 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how it's the community which is on a crusade and the person who relentlessly re-creates deleted content who is not. Strangley I had always read that the other way round. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, split, disambiguate, delete, transwiki, and probably several other actions:
    • The acronym usage should be merged into EEP.
    • The expression should be transwikied to Wiktionary. It's a dictionary definition.
    • The information on the Macintosh sound should be merged into an appropriate article on the Mac sound system. If we don't have one, it and Sosumi can be combined to make it.
    • The "popular culture" section is extreme trivia, and should simply be deleted.
    • The article title itself should be redirected to EEP or changed into a disambiguation page.
    • The external links should go to Wiktionary, if they accept that sort of thing.
    • --Carnildo 02:30, 2 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Pie[edit]

Advert for online comic with no claim made for its notability. Was brought to my attention by uploader of another article which was deleted, who cited extraordinary similarities between the notability of that article and the notability of this one. RobertG ♬ talk 17:13, 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. - Bobet 22:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0x29A[edit]

WP:SOFTWARE:(na) Not significant in terms of language development; no implementation (AFAIK); and its source is a single obscure web page that describes it informally. Quamaretto 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Programming languages do not fall under WP:SOFTWARE. No implementation is available. [50] "0x29a" "programming language" -wikipedia -encyclopedia returns 17 unqiue hits. —Ruud 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or blank and redirect to 666 (disambiguation) for a good time. --Kinu t/c 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE--Isotope23 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-natable esoteric programming language. —Ruud 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but provide option to link site and have basic summary in another page since it seems to exist. — Dzonatas 22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The niche dysfunctional programming is already well covered by all currently used languages :) Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a vanity page, and probably never could be more than a stub. bmills 03:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unimplemented. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See reason above Nigelthefish 13:31, 1 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arcade Game Locations[edit]

This sounds a bit too ambitios for Wikipedia. There must be tens of thousands of Arcade Game Locations in the world. Thue | talk 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft of the cruftiest variety, with a >99.999% probability that it will never be complete. --Kinu t/c 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable. Punkmorten 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per punkmorten Dlyons493 Talk 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before this person gets creative and starts doing it by country.--み使い Mitsukai 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Punkmorten. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:58, 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. It's unclear to which Wiki it should go, but that's not for this Wiki to decide, so I guess I'll just mention both 'source and 'books in the transwiki log. Note that LiteratePrograms does not use the GFDL and so we can't transwiki there. -Splashtalk 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion sort implementations and Selection sort implementations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a code repository, nor is it a programming tutorial. This content may or may not be useful, but it's certainly not encyclopedic. I propose to delete or transwiki to WikiBooks, where original content belongs. bmills 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this nomination are:

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations, which resulted in a transwiki and delete. --bmills 18:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikisource or wikibooks. We should come up with an explicit policy for where to send useful source code which has reference value. --Karnesky 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikiSource has an explicit "no original writings" policy, which makes it inappropriate for most of the source code proposed for deletion from Wikipedia. So I think WikiBooks is the only appropriate place for it to go. See Wikisource:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? for relevant discussion, including whether material should to go WikiSource or WikiBooks. --bmills 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other alternative is to direct such content to LiteratePrograms which, while not a WikiMedia project, is a wiki specifically designed for this type of information. Leland McInnes 20:32, 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 DELETE. Clearly the numbers here do not 'permit' deletion. However, the calls for verification and de-original-researchifying have been roundly ignored by those opting to keep. WP:V and WP:NOR are not negotiable, or ignorable, not even when we are dealing with such hallowed ground as a 4chan meme. Now, I could merge it to 4chan. But I see that all the memes have been removed and appear to have stayed removed from that article (they've gone to Wikiworld, apparently) so I don't think the case is there for a merge of this, either. -Splashtalk 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedobear[edit]

Original research. No references. Most likely not notable. --Pjacobi 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Forumcruft: "It was adopted on the 4chan boards"... from the text, this looks like it's trying to be a poor man's Domo-Kun. --Kinu t/c 18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs with 4chan memes, not worthy a separate page. --80.51.254.240 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not all that notable as a meme. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 4chan and redirect pedobear to 4chan. It is a some what well known meme, but doesn't deserve its own page.--Jersey Devil 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Jersey Devil.--み使い Mitsukai 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put in correct article. --Jay(Reply) 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep well known 4chan meme. Kappa 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 4chan and redirect pedobear to 4chan. PratzStrike 13:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 4chan, notable meme there, but it doesn't really deserve it's own article Nightmare X 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to find any reliable source that can serve as a basis to write an encyclopedia article on this. I am not sure how merging will be helpful. It's a bit discouraging that Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOT are perhaps not adhered to as much as one would hope, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can someone point me to the research or reporting done on "pedobear" that entitles it to an article on Wikipedia? Very kind regards —Encephalon 12:23, 5 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 TRANSWIKI, with some retention as either a redirect or a stub. Hmmm. Well, I personally prefer the redirect since the tone of the first 3 sentences at the moment is faintly embarassing, but that's an entirely editorial decision. -Splashtalk 19:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early literacy[edit]

  • How-to giude--Weak bad 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone had made it a redirect to Children's literature, which was inappropriate while this discussion was going on, but is possibly not a bad idea until a less how-to style article is written. JPD (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. It's quite good, just not an encyclopaedia article. Stifle 13:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with transwiki Alba 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki' but keep a stub. (first 3 sentences and the references) Kappa 13:45, 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 Keep. - Bobet 22:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Amy[edit]

Non-notable Prostitute at various Nevada brothels, and very occasional spokeshooker on tabloid TV shows. What are really (self) promotional gigs don't make her notable, and article is almost entirely unverifiable. Delete. Monicasdude 18:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep: Been on Stern show six times, an HBO series and Insomniac with Dave Attell - all of which are national (or maybe international?) broadcasts. I could find 50 less-notable people here without breaking a sweat (just by looking through nom.'s past Keep votes). Don't confuse morality with notability - this person may have been on the televisions of millions of people as many as a dozen times. Idea that self-promotional national gigs don't make her notable is silly - every guest on every late-night talk show is doing self-promo. And I've verified several things about the article with little trouble. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as notable hussy. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wknight94. Kappa 13:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wknight94. Jeff Silvers 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Agree with all that wknight94 had to say, especially not confusing morality with notability..I mean truly we'd be hard pressed to have any names on Wiki if that were the case. This profession will someday be legal all over the planet, trailblazers..albeit Amy is not the first by a long shot..should indeed be noted. It's quite possible "The Moonlite Bunny Ranch," et al, is something historians will look back on if conducting a search for legal American Brothels, so why not feature some of its more colorful ladies. --Maryblackchurch 21:34, 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 KEEP all for now with some editorial work needed. I get the impression that separate nominations may have produced a better result. -Splashtalk 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strickland vs. Sony[edit]

excessively detailed subarticle regarding subject with no independent notability; any useful content already in main article. Wikipedia is not a blogspace, and one crank lawyer doesn't merit more space than the last umpteen Supreme Court justices combined. Monicasdude 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. {Prod} on all removed by frequent contributor to articles.

  • Keep Since when was notability a requirement for Wikipedia entries, or number of articles? Here's notability for you, he's been a powerful influence in the US due to his fight against what he calls "harmful influences". It's rather difficult to condense his past actions into a single article, because he's done so many varied things, from threatening newspapers, to suing companies, law firms, politicians, and court officials, to getting kicked off court cases, banned from websites, and various other things. The sub-articles are an attempt to shorten the main page, while still providing insight into his many different activities. If you want to help shorten and condense them, fine, but I object to you deciding that any articles connected to him are "not notable" and worthy of deletion. Jabrwock 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who removed the origial {Prod}'s, and that's because you're reasoning for deletion was nonencyclopedic account of stupid behavior by the legal world's equivalent of Paris Hilton. A weird sort of fancruft. which is a sad reason to delete a page rather than edit it. You might as well have listed j00 suxOrs, stupid fanboys as your argument. Jabrwock 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the articles need a re-write, and we're in the process of doing that. But I get annoyed when in the middle of a content review, we have now been twice spammed with "delete this fan-crap", and an admin User:Brookie who likes to blank the pages without reasoning, and without discussing this. Monicasdude, I asked for your help in cleaning this up on your talk page, and you have so far ignored me. Jabrwock 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the excess thompsoncruft. Most of this seems to have all the coverage it needs in the main Thompson article, no? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. How do you know how Strickland vs. Sony related to his investigation by the Florida Bar if you have no idea what happened in the case? Or his video game proposal, how do you make it NPOV without showing the proposal, and his reaction to those who tried to satisfy it? The problem we're facing is that Thompson has done so many diverse things, and yet it's very hard to summarize all of it while being NPOV. You almost have to let his actions speak for themselves. The other problem is that we were trying to make the main page shorter and easier to read, while still allowing detail about specific actions. So we could either have a TOC that was longer than most articles, due to the amount of sub-headers, or we could try to break up the article into sub-articles. How do you put in titles that don't show up in the TOC? AFAIK, you can't, so the only way to clean it up is to either remove the titles, and make it harder to read, or put the top header in the article, and the sub-info in a seperate article. Jabrwock 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed merging the Robida articles, and it was decided it related more directly to Thompson than Robida. So we tried to merge it with Thompson, but it's rather long, so we're in the process of figuring out how to summarize it. Jabrwock 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jack Thompson as per above. These articles are essentially news stories. Wikipedia is not a news report. However, the information included is relevant to the notability of Jack Thompson, and so should be moved to his article.  Cdcon  19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above about the problems we're facing, namely article length. This is the reason the sub-articles were created in the first place... Jabrwock 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to include a lot of the information, because several sections deal with relatively minor cases involving Thompson. You can, instead, include only the most important cases Thompson has been involved in, and also include external links to other sites that contain more detailed information about the minor cases he has been involved in. That's one reason why many articles include an External Links section.  Cdcon  20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is that all the information is spread across many different websites. The current set of info spans over 170 links. So how do we condense it all into a few sites so that we can shorten the wiki entry without loosing all the gathered info? Isn't that what the wiki entry is for? You see what our problem is. We almost need a sub-website to gather all this info together, so we can summarize the important stuff. Jabrwock 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we could make a "research collection" page so that we can keep track of everything (major and minor), and then summarize the important bits on the main page. Because it's really hard to keep track of everything he's done, it's so spread out all over the place. Jabrwock 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right about needing some sort of research collection page. I see that you are passionate about this subject. You can make a personal webpage about it, and link the WP article up to your site. The articles in question go into too much detail (imagine if every U.S. Supreme Court case article had an entire transcript included in it) and should be posted elsewhere on the internet.  Cdcon  22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we use something like the talk page instead of a seperate website? Just so that everyone can keep contributing as events happen, but only after they are deemed "important events" will they be added to the entry itself. Essentially like the talk page, only organized. Jabrwock 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically like a sandbox/whiteboard for the information gathered, so we can flesh it out before posting it on the main entry. Jabrwock 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I had in mind. I have to end my discussion here, but best of luck in your reserach :)  Cdcon  23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that before the article was way too long, now its nice and clear, and you have further articles to go to for more indepth info IanC 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the articles for now. We can't merge all the articles at the moment; the original one was too long when it was one article. I agree a lot of it may be excessive detail, but not if we're splitting it into separate articles like we did. I brought this up before (that the article went into a lot of detail). But many other articles go into a lot of detail too. If we end up merging, we'll have to summarize what we have (which would be more ideal). But at the moment, we still have a lot of information to sort through and deleting these articles would get rid of needed sources and would destroy a lot of work. Mred64 01:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete redundant information from primary article.--Vercalos 01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is all valid, important information. Archon Divinus 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with one of the earlier comments. Since when was notability a requirement? If it were, then perhaps we should also delete the Sideshow Bob article? At least Jack Thompson is a real person, who does real things. A chronicle of his actions is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic article about him. Nortelrye 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD isn't cleanup. Okay, some of these articles are clearly going wayyyy too detailed and long, but I think the articles should be kept nevertheless; Crufty articles can be trimmed down, then merged and redirected to Jack Thompson, and if the articles are still big enough after fixing, they can stand. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a event in history. Should all events in history that relate to bush go in his artical? No, they deserve their own. Same with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.234.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- It's not a matter whether a lawyer deserves more space than a supreme court judge. These are the facts about this man. Encyclopedias are about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.229.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Move Strickland vs. Sony to Strickland v. Sony (the proper title of the case) and make it into redirect. No vote regarding the other bundled nominations. ergot 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Strickland vs. Sony per Ergot and Keep the rest. --Maxamegalon2000 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" I think that the Flowers for Jack article, especially, needs to be kept. There is no such thing as too much information, and regardless of how well known or esoteric the content is, it has a right to be posted. I for one know that Wikipedia was the source that got me far more interested in the video gamin questions being posed right now, and I see no reason why any of these articles should be deleted. In fact, I question the reasoning behind the nomination for deletion. Just because you haven't heard of the pre-martial sex rituals of a South Pacific group of natives, does that mean that there doesn't deserve to be an article on it?
  • Delete Although I'm not much of a Jack Thompson fan myself, this is starting to become overkill. XX55XX 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I've never seen anyone's actions described in such detail. It's like a biography. This level of detail is not appropriate for a newspaper or magazine, let alone an encyclopedia. The Jack Thompson article should give an overview of all this stuff and that's it. If you must keep more than the main article can hold, at least combine it all into just one extra article. -- Kjkolb 10:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Strickland v. Sony. Nomination seems to have been motivated by hatred of Jack Thompson rather than notability of article, given reason stated in intial {{prod}}. Pagrashtak 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately - Some of the articles there are unencyclopedic Jack Thompson fetishisation, like the one detailing his livejournal exploits, but there's some decent stuff there. And the non-event of the Computer games Jack Robida article? The press said that they weren't going to cover this angle because it didn't exist, Wikipedia shouldn't either. The nomination was not motivated by a hatred of Jack Thompson, it is more likely that the creation of these articles were. - Hahnchen 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Robida sub-article wasn't actually focusing on the game angle, which turned out to be a non-event. It focuses on Jack's behavior after the police & news refused to acknowledge the non-existent game angle. He was trying to get the DA arrested for "impersonating a police officer", and was threatening the newspaper with legal action... I do believe it could be trimmed down, but I think it's still an event worth noting, simply because of the lengths he went to try to make the game angle the centre of attention. Jabrwock 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: They were originally split off of the main article because it was getting big. Merge them back or something. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need to keep the flowers for Jack entry as this is not just about Jack Thompson this is a turning point in the battle over video game censorship. Flowers for Jack has been a catalyst that's brought gamers and anti censorship activists together to fight influences like Jack Thompson. I think that if you remove this article it's akin to removing an article on Woodstock. Or the boston tea party. This was an important event and it needs to be here for others to discover and find out how this movement really got going. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.253.129.134 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep or Merge. These articles are clean cut. Either lessen the load on the main jack thompson page and make this the only area with his account of video game activism or merge it in such a fashion that this information is displayed as nicely within the jack thompson page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.39.185 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep...but what about making all the proposed articles into one to supplement the primary article, such as 'noteworthy Jack Thompson cases' or something more encyclopedic?Melander 07:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jack Thompson as per above --Larsinio 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If Wikipedia is going to have every single thing that ICP has ever done, then keeping a couple of seperate incidents on Jack Thompson is not going to kill anyone. Flowers for jack is mostly independent of all the other entries and could be cleaned up a little, I'll admit. But that's no reason to delete suchpahsons 17:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep -- Jack Thompson has made a LONG crusade against free speach in the entertainment technology industry, and we should keep this stuff up even if it's for the soul purpose of chronicling a man's quest for censership. Although the Flowers for Jack article could be cleaned up.
  • Merge - Notable figure, interesting factual information. All the short sub-articles off Jack Thompson should be merged into, say, two longer sub-articles off Jack Thompson: one for his legal cases, one for his activism outside of his role as a lawyer. That leaves the main article for his bio and non-videogame-related work. Sockatume 10:21, 3 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-threading libraries[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. This article is a summarized list of external links, so we should delete it. bmills 18:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of these libraries are non-notable. If they don't deserve an article, they don't deserve an entry in a list. —Ruud 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually useful list it would reguire much more work than the current link repository. Threading is very, very complicated and this page doesn't help one in anything. Btw, the libraries usinng lock-free techniques are missing. Category would be OK. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a category for multi-threading topics would probably be a good thing -- and much easier to maintain properly. --bmills 02:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, unencyclopedic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 05:43Z
  • Weak delete. The list doesn't contain much of an explanation in regard to why someone would choose one library over another, or what different tasks can be solved by each threading library. In fact, some of the libraries do much more than threading, such as the Windows API or the Adaptive Communication Environment. There may be some use for a listing like this, but probably in a much different format from this table.--Elkman 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Ruud's comments --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:42, 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 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothcomix[edit]

Not very encyclopedic, Alexa ranking is 1,228,122. Punkmorten 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It also should be noted that in the page history the person who writes the article is called "Mothcomix". Vanity.--Jersey Devil 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  20:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 16:43, 28 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. JIP | Talk 16:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stonebrooke[edit]

This article was WP:PRODed for a while, but I decided to bring it here to be sure. Jazz musician and published author. Google search for "Pamela Stonebrooke" turns up 437 hits. Wouldn't be the first individual to be notable simply for her eccentricity. No vote from me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to fall short of WP:MUSIC based on 1 out of print album (The Intergalactic Diva), though I'd be willing to reconsider if anyone can make a strong case for notability as a jazz musician because WP:MUSIC is somewhat slanted towards more popular music genres. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO as an author either. I can't find any info about the book being in print from a major publisher.--Isotope23 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who's had "sexual experiences" with extraterrestrials is notable per se. Unfortunately, in this case the article fails the verification test, so delete. Monicasdude 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you, if the claim were WP:V that would indeed be notable...--Isotope23 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: pre above, terrestrial not notable --Mane 14:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftcover[edit]

It's a insurance company. This article was prodded, but the creator moved the tag. The original prodder replaced the tag in violation of prod guidelines (but I'm sure with no ill intent). Moving here as contested. NickelShoe 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I just jumped on somebody for this a day or two ago, but please remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote. You need to give a reason for your opinion, and "per nom" isn't one in this case, because all I said was that it was an insurance company that had been prodded. Are you implying that being an insurance company means it has to be deleted, or that being prodded means it should be deleted? Because either way, your argument so far is pretty unpersuasive. NickelShoe 11:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle 16:43, 28 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 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProcessWorx[edit]

Advertisment/Vanity page for small LLC. It reads like a marketing brochure. Sulfur 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If they are the best they don't need additional promotion here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. In particular, "obsessively correct capitalisation (sometimes weblinked at every single instance) is often a hallmark of complete bollocks in articles about websites." Stifle 16:44, 28 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 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan's[edit]

Advertising non-notable company.  (aeropagitica)  20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 23:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's no telling how much I've been gellin' at Magellan's. Per nom. Croat Canuck 04:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 19:37, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom programming[edit]

Non-notable neologism, no sources. Cyde Weys 20:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete: no response to notability request after several weeks. JonHarder 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. definitely nn neologism. Fan1967 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bmills 02:53, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned[edit]

  • Delete the webcomic belongs to the user Notmydesk The webcomic itself is less than a year old and has no external links proving its notablity outside the links to hlcomic.com (which is basically the website to the comic itself), which makes it subject to be called not notable. It was created by the people of the hlcomic site forum (you can see the link to hear them talking about creating it) which makes it subject to be called a vanity article. Jersey Devil 20:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The link to the forum you reference shows the users discussing the existence of the article, not talking about creating it. --Spinn 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you bother to read that forum post you cited? They are talking about seeing the Wikipedia article, not creating it.--Notmydesk 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since you worship Alexa rankings, take a look at Concerned's: 37,286. Zompist 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, when voting to keep this article, be sure to provide links to any wikipedia content you are personally associated with, it will save JerseyDevil valuable time searching for them to propose their deletion as well. - A Concerned Citizen
Good Lord, man. At most this article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. A really simple search on the Net from the comfort of your own computer chair will show Concerned's high Alexa rating, and the print publications in which it's been featured. Not that the Alexa rating is all-telling in itself, but given the number of times I've seen it used as proof of a site's non-notability recently, I think it's worth mentioning. If you want to show notability, first say the article needs it, but don't assume it's non-notable simply because you haven't heard of it personally and the evidence isn't immediately apparent on the single page you're reading.
Can you please stop calling for an article's deletion before you've done basic research on it? Can anyone reading this with more Wikipedia experience than myself tell me if there's any way I can highlight this user's behavior on this front, as a warning to other AfDs in which he is involved?
Comment to future admin: due to the site's popularity, I fear an influx of just the sort of bad "keep" votes one usually gets for a popular website. I assure you this web site has been featured in worthy independent sources, which I (or others) will provide in short order. I just want to put this right up front so it doesn't get lost. --Spinn 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles referenced above are all print and therefore unlinkable (though I have physical copies and scans of all -- I still don't know the protocol for referencing print articles that don't otherwise exist on the internet). PCGamer UK - March '06 issue, 3/4 page article, Computer Gaming World -- January '06 Issue, 3/4 Page Article, PCZone - January '06 Issue, sidebar. Other possible reasons for considering Concerned notable -- it's the first and only, to my knowledge, Garry's Mod-created comic to reach and surpass 100 comics. Though, I imagine it's really a matter of opinion whether that is truly notable.--Notmydesk 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whups, sorry, forgot some details. The article in CGW included two three-panel Concerned comics made exclusively for the magazine, and included the first sixty comics on their coverdisc for the January issue. The coverdisc for the March Issue of PCGamer UK included the first 100 Concerned comics.
  • Keep per Zompist. This is a well-known comic. I am having trouble keeping my WP:AGF face on. · rodii · 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Per Notmydesk's comments. Lore Sjoberg 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notmydesk & zompist. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve Notability or Delete. I'm looking around for some measure of notability. I found one: thewebcomiclist has a viewership ranking, and Concerned ranks 258th. Seems NN to me. Since Concerned is primarily a webcomic, comparing it to something like The Boondocks (which ranks 168th on this list) would be irrelevant as Boondocks is paper-based, and only recently adapted to the web. On the other hand, I think this article would be a great addition to Comixpedia.  Cdcon  23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of 5752 comics, I'd say that 258th is a respectable ranking, especially for a strip less than a year old. I can't find the methodology used to generate that list, though. Zompist 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The measurement used by that site is a measurement of how many people click through to the comic in question via that particular web page. I don't think it has any more significance than those "Top 100 Sites" pages that people nominate themselves to and have a click war. At any rate, it's immaterial. The site clearly qualifies under criterion 1 of WP:WEB. Lore Sjoberg 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right, on the other hand, we would benefit from having something more tangible. All in all, aside from the hlcomics forums, you'd be hard-pressed to find information on this comic. Read my last suggestion from my previous post and tell me why you think it doesn't make sense. Cdcon  00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the significance. Why would whether an article would be good for Comixpedia affect whether a site is notable? Penny Arcade would make a good subject for a Comixpedia article, as well, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia entry. Lore Sjoberg 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't. I made the suggestion so that it would be absolutely clear where I feel this article (which I had previously argued would be unsuitable for wikipedia) should eventually go. I appreciate you helping me try to understand the rationale behind a keep vote, but the question of notability still lingers.  Cdcon  00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site clearly qualifies under criterion 1 of WP:WEB. It has been mentioned non-trivially in more than one significant print publication. Lore Sjoberg 00:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which publication? And does it fall under the Trivial Coverage exception?  Cdcon  00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further up on this page, you can see the cites for at least two 3/4 page articles. 3/4 page is non-trivial Lore Sjoberg 00:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw that prior to writing the response. I'm not convinced that two 3/4 page articles and a sidebar are non-trivial. There is no language in the WP policy that is any more specific than that, so it really becomes a matter of personal interpretation of what triviality is. The argument has thus reached a moot point, and I stand by my vote.  Cdcon  00:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. User:Mark92
  • Keep Notmydesk's magazine citations pretty much nails WP:WEB 1. Open and shut case as far as I'm concerned. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any logical reason why this article shouldn't stay. Rollie the Guar 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referenced in reliable sources, appears to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Zaron 07:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete it? Concerned is hilarious, the author puts a lot of work into it and it's following seems to grow day by day.
  • Keep - It might not be well known in the Webcomic community, but it definitely is well known in the gaming community. Note that being 258th on the webcomiclist does not infer notability as someone suggested up above, all toplists are absolute junk, less reliable than Alexa. - Hahnchen 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well known (for only a year of running) webcomic that is definately the best of all the current crop of Gmod comics. I wouldn't trust the Webcomics list ratings for viewership completely myself as a guide to how popular a comic or website is, considering that 'Weebls-stuff' appears low down in the top 100. - Boyinabox
  • Keep. As mentioned, the web comic has been covered and has been (partially) included in several notable PC gaming publications, furfiling criterion #1 in Wikipedia:Notability. That's sufficient enough. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Why delete a valid article about a good webcomic, regardless of it's ranking?


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

The result of the debate was annoyed. When you say to merge to an article, will you please make sure the article exists?! This is articles for deletion, not "articles I think the closing admin should make but I don't care about nearly enough to make the article myself and then recommend a merge there afterwards". So I'm not going to make the article. Reading the debate and observing the near-total lack of support for outright retention, I'm going to delete 4DL and leave Beatnik and HQ9+ alone. In future, people should make better recommendations in the AfD edits. -Splashtalk 19:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4DL programming language, Beatnik programming language, HQ9+[edit]

Three esoteric programming languages created by Cliff L. Biffle. Could not find any evidence that they are notable. Cliff L. Biffle seems to be a player in the esoteric programming language world, but not as notable as Wouter van Oortmerssen or even David Morgan-Mar.

  • This may be a browser issue, but that link brings up a searh for "HQ9 ". A manual search brings up mostly relevant results. (I'm not sure how to form the link right either.) Quamaretto 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say either delete all or merge all into Cliff L. Biffle. —Ruud 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. —Ruud 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4DL, which seems to be nothing but a Befunge variant; keep the other two. HQ9+ is known to many esoteric programming fans, as a joke language poking fun at the banality of the programs produced in most esoteric languages. I've also heard of Beatnik before, in the context of a practice puzzle for the MIT Mystery Hunt. beatnik "esoteric programming" -wikipedia -encyclopedia -directory gives 346 hits. In a small field like esoteric programming languages, that's huge. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that languages like Intercal, Brainfuck and Befudge get 100 000 to 200 000 hits on Google. —Ruud 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep beatnik and hq9+, merge 4dl, per rspeer --Snargle 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4DL and HQ9+. 4DL doesn't seem notable and is just a stub, HQ9+ is full of external (probably vanity) links. No opinion about Beatnik, as that seems to be at least decently-written article (though its notability is dubious). --bmills 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HQ9+, or merge and redirect to Cliff L. Biffle - I'm surprised about the number of Google results; AFAIK it is a popular piece of programmer humor, but I could be wrong. Delete or merge the other two. Quamaretto 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect these, but do not delete. Notable enough to warrant an article each. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 3 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 NO RESULT. This is such a mashing together of multiple articles that each plainly warrant their own discussions that it is impossible to use this debate to produce a meaningful result on any of them. Most of the comments do not deal with more than one or two of the articles, and few deal with the same as other comments. The only one that is often referred to is Ook!, which appears to be a keeper. I think a better formulated set of AfDs are needed if deletion is really warranted for these. -Splashtalk 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan-Mar, Piet programming language, Ook! programming language, Chef programming language, Whenever[edit]

David Morgan-Mar seems to be a player in the esoteric language world and has done some other thing that might make him notable, so no opinion from me on this. The esoteric languages he has created do not appear notable enough to warrant their own article. —Ruud 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the programming languages, or else merge all in David Morgan-Mar if this guy turns out to be notable enough to have an article, otherwise delete all. —Ruud 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, specifically
    • Ook! programming language has a long edit history, hence presumably many people interested in it. More importantly, it has survived a previous deletion vote (see Talk:Ook! programming language) and appears to have had a small interested community predating the WP article.
    • Chef programming language since it is quit original and its article is too long to be made into a section of David Morgan-Mar.
    • Piet programming language is small now, and hence could be merged, but has potential for growth and therefore of being split off again. Thus it does not seem worth joining.
    • Whenever seems less serious than the previous ones, and unlikely to grow more than its pesent size, hence should be merged.
More generally, there seems to be no advantage in merging (the redirects will still be there) but several clear disadvantages. The Ook! and Chef sections would be too long and make David Morgan-Mar into a very ugly article. It seems sensible (and in accord with usual WP practice) to discuss each work of an author in a separate article, rather than in a section of the author's article. Jorge Stolfi 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chef, an often-cited example of esoteric programming. Redirect Ook! into Brainfuck since it's simply a trivial transformation of it, and is already sufficiently described (with one sentence) there. I abstain on the rest. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Piet and Whenever (non-notable stubs). No opinion on Ook and Chef, which are less stub-like but still not necessarily notable (I don't consider myself well-versed enough in esoteric languages to make that call), and also no opinion on David Morgan-Mar for basically the same reason. --bmills 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we have an Esoteric Programming Languages page with Chef, Ook! and Piet as examples? 88.105.127.171 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC) I just read a few other histories and Talk pages and it seems that a Languages Based on Brainfuck page might be the best way to go... probably. Piet isn't based on BF though... keep the pages that aren't brainfuck related seperate. 88.105.127.171 02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep D.M-M's page. Keep the current structure. These pages will probably be expanded with examples and it would end up fracturing into several sub pages again. (A bit like the page for Tea).MrD 17:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ook, merge the others. bogdan 15:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I don't see why any of these were nominated in the first place. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & stop this AFD, there should be individual AFDs. -Ravedave 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and agreed that these articles should be listed as individual AfD discussions. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ook!, PLEASE!
  • Keep Piet, its deserves an article and is a rare and interesting esoteric language. Why delete them just because they aren't the most used articles. Wikipedia is one of the few references on esoteric languages and I for one wouldn't know much about them had I not come across these pages. Graham Brown 11:56, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep DM-M, Merge languages Percy Snoodle 11:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep David Morgan-Mar, no vote on the rest (most bizarre combined AfD ever; all these keep votes yet they're all for different articles). Nifboy 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ook! even survived a deletion request on the German Wikipedia, and we delete much stuff you keep. -- IGEL 15:33, 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 NO CONSENSUS on another unhelpfully combined AfD. Clearly there is no consensus to delete any of them outright; editorial decisions can be taken elsewhere. -Splashtalk 19:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Heber, COW programming language, Whirl[edit]

Sean Heber is the co-creator of bebits.org are well-known website in the BeOS world. I don't know if that makes him notable enough for an article though. His esoteric languages seems to be non-notable. —Ruud 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keep COW". - M. Williams - This programming language is part of an important collection of esoteric programming languages. I am a teacher and use COW (amongst other things) to demonstrate the principles of programming to my students - beyond just how to program but to explain to them that they truly need to understand the concepts of programming. COW is even better than BF for this as the instructions in COW bear no relation to the tasks they perform. Students ahve to decide what they want to do and then go away and figure out how to do it and then work out how to express that in COW. I don't care about the Sean Heber article, but the COW article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.10.197.188 (talk • contribs) 15:56, March 2, 2006.
  • Delete all. —Ruud 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and merge if cleaned up, I think this made digg or slashdot (but google isn't being nice to me with the link, but then, its 2 years old) Tawker 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was there before the Sean Heber article. I don't care about Heber but Whirl definitely represents one of the most interesting esoteric language concepts, a turning tarpit (sic). --ZeroOne 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sean Heber and Whirl as non-notable. Redirect COW to Brainfuck, where it is already adequately described in one sentence. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for Sean Heber, weak keep for Whirl (but mark it a stub) -- it's at least an interesting idea and it has an implementation in flash; merge COW to Brainfuck or delete it. Iffy on the notability. If "Sean Heber" were more than just a stub I'd be a "weak keep" on that too, but it's not. --bmills 04:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep Heber and Whirl. Kappa 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sean Heber and Whirl togther, if you must. Merge COW programming language with brainfuck. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just way too fun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.2.72.98 (talk • contribs) 09:51, February 26, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the COW programming language. We are using it for a class in my college. IUPUI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.68.77.70 (talk • contribs) 21:29, March 1, 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep COW and Whirl; interesting conceptually, and I think COW in particular has a lot of currency in the right circles, even if it's less noteable out of them. I've heard of it multiple times from different sources, and it was also mentioned at a uni. Articles have enough content to stand on their own for now, but could use expansion, a la the article for Ook!. Weak delete or merge for Sean Heber; there's hardly enough there for the article to even qualify as a stub, but it might be okay if there were more data. Possibly mark any kept as stubs? Tanaku 21:46, 1 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 KEEP. JIP | Talk 16:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeaBios[edit]

Do not meet WP:CORP. Not notable. Sleepyhead 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: normally do not meet WP:CORP, it's a web site, so it should meet WP:WEB.
According to that:
  1. cartography and astronomy meet first criteria
    • about reliability: all the content (maps, satellite images, aerial photos, positions of the stars, planets, eclipses, tide tables, weather, ...) are calculated, tested and/or compared with other sources or retrieved from reliable sources (sources are listed).
    • the data are reproduced daily by independent newspaper (astronomy and geolocated news) and independent radio stations free of charge (in Slovenia)
    • Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia quote service on publications ([51]), European Commision ([52])
    • Go to Bora Bora or Tahiti, click on coordinates, and find the location on the maps of different external sources (that's just a simple test of reliability, you don't need to zoom in). I can find my car on my backyard on Slovenian maps, too.
    • External source for maps for different independent web services, like: [53] - mineralogy and mines (worldwide), [54] - doctors, hospitals, ... in Slovenia, ...
    • Find Your Research and Development Partner in Slovenia in the year 2001 (10.000 CD + Internet application - maps online) for Ministry of education, science and sport and "Slovenian Business and Research Association" (Brussels) - parallel search over online sources - online spyder + RIA (patents,locations,products,development issues) running still (free of charge).
  2. website won first price as The best domestic product in the year 1999 (independent newspaper Monitor)
    • why: interactive 2d/3d over Internet in the year 1999 (like Google Earth, but only for Slovenia) - it was removed in the year 2001 because of support of MS IE only (criticism of NS users)
  3. website is independent (participants are coming mostly from Slovenia, but New Zealand, US, GB, Germany, Switzerland, Croatia, also)
And the most important is that the web site meets The Technical Excellency and Educational Purpose, specially because all the applications (RIA) and data are inter related.
Google hits between 30.000 and 65.000 (time dependent), Yahoo hits more than 80.000, Alexa is not relevant for RIA (one and only one page, and people don't like spyware)
I can't vote, but I wrote reasons for. MaNeMeBasat 08:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made changes, so I think there is no advertising tone (but I'm not a native speaker:-) --MaNeMeBasat 14:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Could use some reworking to avoid the advertising-y tone that's there now, but I don't know how well Slovenia is represented in English Google, etc. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless someone wants to refute the content, I think the article makes a case for notability in terms of uniqueness and early use of technology which is certainly popular today (world mapping). The EC case study certainly meets point #1 of WP:WEB. -Jcbarr 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. It needs reworking by other editors to further remove the marketing angle though. Sulfur 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Revised to omit marketing angle. Francl 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: old manuals still exist on the net [55] --MaNeMeBasat 09:33, 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. - Bobet 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to internet[edit]

Prodded for the second time, so moving here. It's an essay or something about the internet. Original research, if nothing else. NickelShoe 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy' -- Tawker 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. This article is at best original research, but closer to simple opinion. If someone wanted to write an article on potential alternatives to the internet, and include a section citing why certain people feel there should be one that would be great, but this is not that article. Not my leg 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I went ahead and moved the above comment from the discussion page. At AfD the project page is itself a discussion, so the discussion page is usually not used. NickelShoe 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for correcting that, I'll remember it in the future. Not my leg 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with delete WP:NOR. The de-prod was made by the original author. With four concurrences, I move we close and send to the speedies. Alba 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editing from "Speedy" to "Delete": NOR is not a speedy candidate. Alba 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Fair at all I guess Wikipedia rules are best understood by those who drafted them. When I decided to post my article, I had a reference article on hand which was similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmix But I guess this article did not qualify for deletion even though it came out as an advert. I wonder why? Maybe they paid to put it there...So I guess atleast you should remove the word "Free" from Free Encyclopedia...so there is no pretence.
  • Delete Fair or not it is not encyclopedic text. Pavel Vozenilek 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid reason for delete What does constitute as encyclopedic. Does the advertisement above on Kosmix (which is in alpha stage) constitute as encyclopedic? I can give many more such examples
    • Nobody said that every other article in here is okay. That's like saying one criminal shouldn't get locked up simply because another went free. If you would like to propose the other article for deletion, you have that ability. It's silly to accuse them of paying to put it here--anyone can edit articles, and there's plenty of bad ones that just haven't been deleted yet. Alternative to internet is being discussed for deletion because it is not encyclopedic, it draws on your own conclusions and stuff. If you're not disagreeing with that, then you're not opposing the deletion based on pre-existing standards, but instead just your feelings. Do also remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. NickelShoe 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it makes you feel better, I just put an {{advert}} tag on Kosmix. ergot 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the most recent prodder. I aver this is not encyclopedic material. Toby Douglass 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. Sulfur 03:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unfixable POV soapboxing & original research. unencyclopedic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 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. As there were no additional votes after the relisting, I'm going to stick with my original opinion and delete this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M7 (business school)[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Author deleted all citation-needed tags, so I reinserted them. Article tries to define acronym but reference sources are a school parody and chat room banter. No reliable sources provided that actually use the term 'm7'. Slippery slope: accepting this wiki "informal" definition opens door to endless stream of rumor-mill vanity definitions such as "E6 (economics schools)", "Magnificent 11 (business school)", "F9 (fashion schools)", etc. PaloAlto 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, disambiguate and categorize M7 appears to be a legitimate shorthand term for the 7 largest business schools, used in ranking and recruiting, as in "Did you graduate from one of the M7?" Compare to Big Four auditors. At this point there is nothing useful or extra in the article except the names of the schools. Recommend creating a category "M7 business schools" and linking to each of the schools, and adding M7 business schools to the M7 disambiguation page (giving a brief definition and linking to the seven individual schools). Then delete this page. Thatcher131 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend against Thatcher131's new suggestion above to create a "7 largest business schools" category and add new school links, and against the related suggestion to add a new link to the M7 disambig page. (See "slippery slope" discussion in nom.) Also disagree with Thatcher131's contention that m7 appears to be a "legitimate" term - those aren't even the 7 largest business schools nor the highest ranked (Dartmouth's business school is ranked higher than several of them). PaloAlto 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the seven largest schools.
  • Delete per nom. No trustworthy references? Then it doesn't stay. Dwysqn 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save The term M7 is used by publications such as the 'Economist' to discuss these schools. There have been in the past M7 career forums. While its not as prevalent a term as say, Ivy League, it is a fairly well known concept for those at these schools, and for those that recruit from them. It rather should be cleaned up along the lines of T14 for law schools.

  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 13:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save & complement wunschha 17:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PaloAlto, feel free to add a mention that it is an "unofficial" group, with no verified membership but with >130'000 results in google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=m7+business+schools) it is clearly something people might want to look up and happy to find in a wiki article.
I concur. Indeed, I concur. Its more something you would hear in 1. Interviews 2. Admission discussion.
PS Until final decision on deletion of this article I re-insert a link from the m7 to fuel discussion. wunschha 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to wunschha's assertion that a Google search gives "130,000 results": That's just totally abusive to this process. A Google search on "m7 business schools" gives less than 80 results, virtually all of which appear to be copycat entries on shaky-looking advertising websites. What the anonymous voter (who voted Save above) refers to as a "fairly well known concept" seems anything but, according to Google search results. PaloAlto 16:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Searching for "m7 business schools" is unneccassarily restrictive as the term "m7" doesn't appear before the term "business schools" all that often. Searching for [m7 "business school" -wikipedia] gives me 12,100 hits, including businessweek.com, answers.com, and ivyedge.com. It's difficult to restrict those to cases where M7 refers to the idea we are discussing here as it's somewhat generic, but it does appear in this usage on a number of sites I looked at. I think the better idea is to keep and expand possible, though I'm not strong in either direction. Treznor 03:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Treznor's assertion that a Google search gives "12,100 hits, including businessweek.com, answers.com, and ivyedge.com." To reiterate, virtually all of those "hits" appear to be copycat entries on shaky-looking advertising websites. As for the Businessweek.com "hit," the mention of the term is not in an actual Business Week article, it's in a chat room post from an anonymous person. The Answers.com "hit" is just a carbon copy of this Wikipedia article. The Ivyedge.com site is an admissions advice site that appears to be legitimate. So maybe we can agree there is one legitimate Google "hit" here .... not 130,000 or even 12,100. PaloAlto 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could the mention be restricted to the disambiguation page?
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
IMO, the two valid keep votes above are based on Google results that are argued against quite successfully, and the four delete votes provide a much better argument. However, I'd prefer to get more feedback before I delete. Deathphoenix 21:31, 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 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wivoli[edit]

WP:Spam. Company only gets 248 hits in google, and 12 when you use the modifier "wireless", something the company is supposed to be famous for. Note the difference in spelling between article and in-line text; I suspect they were counting on notability from people doing typos of Tivoli. み使い Mitsukai 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonnotable, spam, crystal-ballery. ergot 01:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 16:48, 28 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 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead and distressed shopping malls[edit]

  • Keep While I agree it is simply a list, many of the articles I have found have pages for lists such as this one. Also, the two malls I added to this list in the Tampa , Florida Area have signifigance: The first one, Floriland Mall, is now the home of Hillsborough County Traffic Court. The second, East Lake Square, is one of only a handful of malls in the world that is more commercially succesful in its current form (Netp@rk Tampa) than as a shopping center.
  • Delete this article is simply a list. It seems to have no purpose and does not seem to be an article befitting an encyclopedia. Strothra 21:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it's an interesting concept - can we start it with a list of blue links and one by one watch them go red? Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a work in progress, let it have some time to develop. Shopping malls are used by thousands to millions of people and are central to many towns, this is a way of organizing them. dml 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a useful reference. Just because malls are defunct doesn't mean articles won't be written for their historical interest. Sulfur 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What an utterly stupid concept for an article. Bad enough that malls are cookie-cutter places, even worse that dead malls have no relevance at all to the people in a community. (Of course this did not stop me from adding my own former favorite, now dead mall to the list. Still, I would not have wanted an article on it, generic as it was.) Denni ☯ 04:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have Category:Defunct shopping malls. --Metropolitan90 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of these malls are defunct, so the defunct malls category isn't a good fit. Some malls listed are in decline, but still operating nonetheless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A lot of categories have accompanying lists. Sulfur 05:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. —ERcheck @ 05:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful reference. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more useful than Category:Defunct shopping malls because it says where they were and what happened to them. Kappa 13:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dead shopping malls are an important part of American consumer culture. One dead shopping mall really close to me is listed on there. Cyde Weys 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They are hardly an important part of American consumer culture. A abandoned mall is either a nostalgic memory for some or tax-eating real-estate for others. The story behind why a particular mall has been abandoned in a given community is far more important and telling to local history than the mall itself. Thus abandoned malls may be considered important part of local consumer culture but not national or even international culture. Further, the term "dead" should be replaced. Mall are not living beings and therefore cannot die. --Strothra 13:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to include shopping centres outside North America, but excluding malls that aren't notable in any significant way. Andrew 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *audible blink* what an odd article title. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. BryanG 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this treading dangerously close to POV and WP:OR? Seems to me that this has a high potential for abuse and a relatively low potential for verification, since anybody who watchlists it can really only verify the deadness-or-not of malls they personally know. Seems like a delete to me. Bearcat 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not necessarily. The original list was compiled from Deadmalls.com, and pages about those malls have articles, and so there is some documentation about such things, making it less than original research in some cases. Beyond where there is documentation, however, becomes questionable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Hard to verify, we need some hard and fast criteria and perhaps a new title. Kirjtc2 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I would recommend revamping the article - removing distressed, possibly - and sticking with the dead malls. The mall is an important part of American Culture that is currently going by the wayside so this is a genuine article. SportingFlyer 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the mall pages need to be cleaned up more.
  • Keep but would recommend removing distressed. Nigelthefish 15:25, 1 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 Deleted as A8 (copyvio) by Deltabeignet. -- JLaTondre 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Love, Death of a Washington Madame[edit]

Advertising non-notable novels.  (aeropagitica)  21:54, 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 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighttips.com[edit]

delete, article is unencyclopedic/spam  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I meant to add, this was proposed by Hamilton burr, but the AfD process wasn't completed for some reason. The above comment is attributed to him, although signed by me due to the AfD:2 template.  (aeropagitica) 

delete, nn. mikka (t) 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yeah so what you wanna fight about it? Nn Croat Canuck 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Not a badly written article, though. Hope the creator moves on to more encyclopedic subjects. ergot 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it man i like it and I went there and its not a bad site. It's informative and some people im sure would be interested in it.

-btklm


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open classroom[edit]

  • Speedy Delete Non-notable article. an open classroom can be a lot of things. I hardly think that this article sets the definition for the phrase or that the phrase is a popularly used one. Rather, it seems that the phrase is one used only by a small community of individuals. The article seems pointless as the idea of an "open classroom" is open to interpretation. A definition cannot be given to this phrase. Strothra 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a legititmate stub. Open classroom is the name for specific education philosophy that was popular in the 70s. The term was also used for the actual classrooms designed in accordance with that philosophy. There is plenty of potential for this stub to be expanded to cover a description of the philosophy & its history. See: [56], [57], & [58] for more information. -- JLaTondre 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks for the sources. Now we can expand the stub! SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The open classroom was a very specific organizational concept in the '70s. Many schools were built to support the concept of open classrooms, though such schools have since retrofitted walls to close classrooms back up. A good theory, but unworkable in practice. Denni ☯ 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the one who created the stub, and find it to be a very encyclopedic topic for reasons quite eloquently cited by Denni. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Herbert Kohl (education). He's one of the originators of this particular system, yes? Maybe these stubs can develop together until such time as there's enough for 2 articles. Ewlyahoocom 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While he may be one of the originators in the US, it has its roots in England as well. I think it would be misleading to place it under any one individual. -- JLaTondre 20:25, 2 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic computer science topics[edit]

This list is unnecessary, we should use a category instead. A Clown in the Dark 22:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft ComputerJoe 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of 'List of basic ... topics'. —Ruud 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace Only used for keeping track of articles that still need to be written and as an alternate way to browse wikipedia. —Ruud 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace. Lists are almost never encyclopedic, and categories are nice. --bmills 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really interested in this, but these are some truly horrible arguments for deletion. My set of encyclopedias has no categories as far as I know. It does have an entire book that's just an Index.--T. Anthony 09:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and as such uses links instead of list of articles. Think of the category namespace as Wikipedia's "index" volume. --bmills 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, an index with no capacity for alternative names or annotations. Kappa 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have redirects for alternative names, and an encyclopedia index generally doesn't have annotations beyond basic categorization. --bmills 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put redirects in categories, and when I look at Britannica's index [59], it seems pretty nicely annotated to me. Kappa 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're searching by category, redirects are unnecessary (the redirect target should be there anyway); if you're searching by name, redirects are automatic (and categories are more or less unnecessary — all you need are disambig tags). The annotations in the Britannica index are precisely those two forms: redirects to other articles, and disambiguation tags — both of which are already present in Wikipedia without some difficult-to-maintain list. --bmills 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that users know all names/spellings for the target, so they will recognize the one we happened to choose. Also you seem to be suggesting that we should add disambig tags to every article, whether they need them or not, which is a radical change in policy. Futhermore lists allow different annoation depending on the context, while disambiguated article titles are invariable. Kappa 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is getting way too involved for an AfD. Let's resume on my talk page. --bmills 18:14, 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 due to copyvio here. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomaterials[edit]

This appears to be an advert for a company that specializes in production of environmentally friendly material, rather than an article on them. Not my leg 22:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: EcoSur is not a company, it is an NGO, non profit organization. Paulcoyote 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see, still an advert though, not an encylopedic article.
  • Ok, I've removed all the mentions of EcoSur (except the firs one),and modified all the "We... ". I will post some articles (without any propaganda) about MicroConcrete tiles, adobe (earth) construction, puzollanic cement...Paulcoyote
  • Delete Still basically an ad, nn neologism, and also copyvio. It's basically a cut and paste from their website [60] Fan1967 22:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I may be wrong on the nn neologism. I get 22,000 Ghits, so it may be a notable neologism, and a valid basis for an article, but not this article. This is still basically a copy of someone else's website. Fan1967 22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested to someone to write a Encyclopedia Article about it. Paulcoyote 23:01, 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 to Wikisource. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of 1868[edit]

Delete Textdump of treaty text. Non-encyclopædic and of little use to researchers. The title is poorly-chosen too, being too vague.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely we can speedy text-dumps like this, can't we? All who object say "nay". -R. fiend 22:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be really speediable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A useful article could be written about this topic but this isn't it. Such an article should have a different name too. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this be worth/legally possible sending to Wikisource, if they don't have it already, before deleting? -- Saberwyn 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to Wikisource (if it qualifies) obviously. -- RHaworth 09:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikisource it --Irishpunktom\talk 11:46, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighttips.com[edit]

delete, article is unencyclopedic/spam  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I meant to add, this was proposed by Hamilton burr, but the AfD process wasn't completed for some reason. The above comment is attributed to him, although signed by me due to the AfD:2 template.  (aeropagitica) 

delete, nn. mikka (t) 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yeah so what you wanna fight about it? Nn Croat Canuck 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Not a badly written article, though. Hope the creator moves on to more encyclopedic subjects. ergot 02:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it man i like it and I went there and its not a bad site. It's informative and some people im sure would be interested in it.

-btklm


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual road signs[edit]

Pointless article. Has a single entry, made as a fork when it was decided a mere street didn't qualify as a "place" in Place names considered unusual. Wikipedia is not Jay Leno's "Headlines". -R. fiend 22:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - given the lack of concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual and that there is a difference between Toponymy and the etymology of a street name, this article should not be part of the Place names considered unusual article. The article has been started in accordance with the MoS. The reason for the fork remains and there seems no reason to delete, rather to le the article develop. At present potentially interested editors are working on the Place names considered unusual article. I ould not object to a rename. Potentially the article could be merged with street name but no reasons have been advanced as to why it should.--A Y Arktos 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One rather juvenile listing is not the basis for an article on unusual names. Buh-bye. Denni ☯ 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ununual road signs get huge media coverage. We don't need a complete list though, a few examples would suffice. Kappa 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate and subjective. Very much agree with nom & Denni. -- Krash (Talk) 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague, un-encyclopedic. The only use I see is to create honeypot to keep the high school kids away from serious articles. Pavel Vozenilek 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. Could be interesting if expanded. Knowitall 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand as worthwhile and interesting. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know that these things do get some (possibly trivial) media coverage, but it really seems to me that whether or not a name seems unusual is highly POV. For the one example given in this article, it wouldn't seem at all unusual if you didn't know that "beaver" means "vagina." ergot 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back into place names considered unusual. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now this is just plainly unencyclopedic. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 17:42, 27 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 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh![edit]

  • Non-notable esoteric programming language. Belongs on http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page, not on Wikipedia. —Ruud 22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (Thats a vote for delete, right? - Diablo-D3)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is quite good. It's got enough content and an explained code example. May I also remind you that "non-notability" is not a deletion criteria (WP:DEL). --ZeroOne 23:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - example of a possible way of structuring a programming language. Intellectually interesting approach and discussion of turing completeness. Also, it's been implemented. RJFJR 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Funge. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stub of dubious notability; would change to "no opinion" if it explained the language more (rather than just summarizing). --bmills 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments of people saying delete is because its non-notable. Maybe it should just be merged with Funge and given an entry of example Fungoids there? Its a real language, and its a great example of non-turing complete language. Why not delete Brainfuck as well? It's non-notable, and nothing serious has ever been written in it, and it fits all the same criteria that you're applying to Argh! Whitespace is the same way. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about popularity. Diablo-D3 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brainfuck is notable. —Ruud 12:34, 28 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 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BDAMD[edit]

Non-notable esoteric programming languages. Belongs on http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page not on Wikipedia. —Ruud 22:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 22:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Non-notability" is not a reason to delete (WP:DEL). By this reasoning we should delete Millersburg, Michigan and some thousand other User:Rambot contributions. --ZeroOne 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it is almost a trivial task to create an esoteric language for any computer scientist or skilled programmer there are hundreds of them out there and there is no way we can include them all in Wikipedia while upholding our article quality standards and WP:V, therefore we should only include the notable languages such as Intercal, Brainfuck and Befunge. If you look over the AfD page you will notice that notability certainly is a criterium for inclusion for the same reasons as I just gave. Cheers, —Ruud 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ruud -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious notability and just a stub (improvements to either might change my mind, though). --bmills 03:59, 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 Keep. The debate of Keep vs. Merge can be done without an AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was already merged and redirect here. I'm going to have to send a nice message to Kingboyk about closing AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Added just after closure). Err... I wasn't an admin at the time. I simply boldly edited. If I'd closed the AFD then other editors might (rightly) have said I was jumping the gun somewhat. --kingboyk 22:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continues on Kingboyk's talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gibbins[edit]

This is essentially a news story, not a biographical article. Mike Gibbins' historical relevance is sufficiently covered and applicable within the Badfinger article. ZincOrbie 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although lacking in its current form as a stub, the subject does have biographical potential. Sulfur 03:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Badfinger. Kappa
  • Keep Member of a notable band Nigelthefish 14:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Badfinger as has already been done with Pete Ham. Both guys are very notable, but they are notable as members of Badfinger. I'll be bold and merge it now, which of course can be undone if concensus dictates. --kingboyk 00:47, 3 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribute[edit]

appears to be an stealth advert Blue520 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Web Hosting advert Blue520 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely: "This is just my list of hosts taht I have found to be good or bad". Hardly encyclopedic. Fan1967 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT ("Wikipedia articles should not include instruction, advice, suggestions, or contain 'how-to's.") Accurizer 00:20, 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 irrelevant. This nomination was misplaced and has been relisted on WP:MFD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is being used as an article really, and in the main to attack users. User involved has been asked on several occasions to select a username, but is adding to confusion by presenting the apeparance of one. May be a sock puppet in any case. Midgley 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=41162741&oldid=41093728


Keep - this AfD is inappropriate & is not in good faith as is shown below. Please note:-

  • this AfD has come out of thin air - the applicant Midgley has not engaged in discussion to explain his actions in seeking an AfD
  • this User talk page is in proper use as a talk page
  • it does not satisfy any criteria for deletion
  • no evidence of "being used as an article" is presented (this talk page is in proper use as a talk page)
  • no evidence of "being used" ... "in the main to attack users" is presented (this talk page is not being used to attack users)
  • a third party user has already intervened over a prior "thin air" attempt by an anon (sockpuppet?) to list the talk page for deletion [[61]]
  • the third party stated in the edit history:-
"rv: user talk pages are not appropriate candidates for AfD; the nomination seems to serve no other purpose than to condone the vandalism of medical articles that the Invisible Anon has been countering"

And it can be seen this AfD is not in good faith because Midgley says "May be a sock puppet in any case" when Midgley knows very well that this is at static IP which I have been using for quite some time now - check the history.

The Invisible Anon 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC) & 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Midgley should have (and later did) nominated this on MfD instead of AfD. Can we get the AfD closed and sealed and let the MfD handle it? Michael Ralston 05:43, 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 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compufrost[edit]

Pure nonsense. I considered this nearly eligible for WP:SPEEDY but decided against it. uberpenguin 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like nonsense to me, too. Delete. ZincOrbie 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one in the test article file. --Jay(Reply) 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Begging for it. --DV8 2XL 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept it I myself have heard this term a few times now --User:Chuckfly 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello article creator. Please don't create nonsense articles. -- uberpenguin 03:53, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShutterStock[edit]

advertising, insignificant -Mego'brien

  • Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisment Sulfur 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apparently "the largest subscription-based stock photo agency in the world" [62] Kappa 13:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some source for that claim other than the company's own press release turns up. If it were really the largest in the world, they wouldn't need to post an advertisement on Wikipedia themselves. —Cryptic (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Also passes WP:WEB with an Alexa rank of 1,916 [63]. Kappa 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth does an alexa ranking have to do with WP:WEB? —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, OK, looks like the Alexa rank has been removed as a criterion. Anyway it's ranked in the top 2,000 websites by an independent third-party source, and wikipedia has space for more that 2,000 websites. Kappa 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Alexa rank 1916, according to their own web page, they host nearly 600,000 photos. Doesn't seem to compare too badly with IStockPhoto, which was just bought up by Getty Images. Lots of pertinent Google hits, too. Hence keep and expand. Lupo 16:09, 27 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 Deleted by Nunh-huh -- JLaTondre 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testicular Meningitis[edit]

This newly created article is a hoax slavishly styled after Meningitis. Please have it eradicated or possibly consigned to BJAODN. The membranes which are inflamed during meningitis are found in the spinal cord and the brain; maybe this disease afflicts those who think too much with their genitals. The article crowns its own absurdity in the final paragraph when it recalls the famous victims who suffered the disease and the bizarre prosthetic methods of "treatment" some of them refused out of national honor. If humanity is threatened with a malady of such cataclysmic proportions, Google should be flooded with hits from the medical literature, but at the moment, "testicular meningitis" seems only to be an imaginary curse some people wish upon or fear from their enemies [64]. --Defrosted 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article could be improved through revealing the claimed "hoaxes." This article does not deserve to be deleted but further explored Thinker2006 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. It's actually pretty funny in places, but the humor's a little esoteric for anyone with no knowledge of medical terms: "Though medical science has so far failed to identify any meninges existing within the scrotal sack, their existence can be inffered by the symptoms of the disease." Fan1967 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. A Google search for this ailment got a total of 9 Google hits [65]., none of which verifies this. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster Mego'brien
  • Delete as nonsense. Yes, meninges around my WP:BALLS... come on. --Kinu t/c 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely bogus, and knowingly so, and so it is vandalism; I speedied it, and I speedied its recreation. - Nunh-huh 03:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeboGebo[edit]

57 unique Googles. Seems unlikely to be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 68,300 google hits. Kappa 13:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Open source project with 1 developer, scarcely 6 months old. I drilled through the google lists and it came up with only 41 links before hitting the repeat message. I'm not buying the 68.3k count. Sorry. I think it needs more indication of notability than just existence. :) — RJH 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agnte 19:04, 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techwiki[edit]

80-odd unique Googles, some of which look a bit suspect. I call non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems interesting and usefull. --Bduke 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 28,800 google hits [66]. Kappa 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that removes the irrelevant ones, leaving 62 unique Googles, including "get caught masterbating" wose relevance I was somewhat hesitant to investigate further. Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Unique Google hits" aren't a credible measure of a search term, for reasons I've elucidated elsewhere. That said, I'm not convinced of the notability here, but unique google hits shouldn't be the benchmark.
— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_24&oldid=1116878840"