The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not established (the link doesnt work, nothing found with google).-- Op. Deo 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Liface 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- nlarocca3 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Apparently a vanity, or self-promotion page. Not popular enough to deserve a wikipedia Page. Nothing comes up on Google or Dogpile. Not credible.[reply]
Delete per above. --M@thwiz2020 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an amateur cricket competition contested by two amateur cricket teams from the North Coast of NSW. Neither verifiable or notable. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. *drew 02:38, 3 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 Consensus to remove material; no consensus as to pure delete or redirect, will redirect. Babajobu 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page: there is nothing special about a Prelude in G Major (as opposed to other keys), and it isn't referring to a particular work. It doesn't add anything that the Prelude_(music) page doesn't already contain.
Keep if able to be made into a real dis-ambiguation page with links pointing to them. Otherwise, re-direct to G major, adding to that article a list of preludes written in that key. Georgia guy 01:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not currently disambiguating anything; completely idiosyncratic non-topic as written. Don't redirect to G major; that article is not about preludes in G major. What belongs here, if anything, is a musicological analysis of the Bach piece. Ikkyu2 07:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn in to a simple list of preludes in G Major by composer, by analogy with say Symphony_No._7. I doubt many of the preludes themselves are really notable enough for an analysis. A redirect to G major would be more misleading than useful, better to redirect to Prelude_(music). The real question to ask if someone searched for 'Prelude In G Major' (or any other key) what information could we usefully give them. -- Solipsist 09:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the name "prelude in G major" is entirely generic, I don't see anyone searching for it. And if they did, surely they'd be looking in iTunes not here? If you don't know the composer, how are you going to know when you've found the right one without hearing it? - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A listener who has heard the piece and remembers its name but not its composer might indeed turn to wikipedia and search for Prelude in C-sharp minor in a bid to track down the Rachmaninoff encore. --Defrosted 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's more or less the point. Its generic, but then so are the Symphony_No._x articles. Unfinished symphony is similarly generic, but nevertheless an interesting article as most people think that there is only one unfinished symphony and imagine it was Schubert's, half finished, last symphony. Nevertheless these generic articles are more or less useful guides. The Prelude In G Major article isn't particularly good at the moment, but there is no reason why it couldn't point towards the most popular G-Major Preludes that are played on their own. Bach must have written half a dozen, but only two or three seem popular. There is another G-Major by Rachmaninoff which may be as popular as his C-sharp minor prelude. And no doubt there are others.
If someone wanted to create similar Prelude in xx articles for each of the 24 keys, I don't have much of a problem with that. Nor if that were extended to other musical forms; fugue, concerto, etc - Wikipedia is not paper. If you ever listen to a classical station on the radio, you will find that they often discuss pieces using shorthand titles like 'The concerto in G', on the assumption that you would know they were meaning the Ravel they had played earlier.
On the other hand, we can take the point of view that non of these list-type articles are really much help in tracking down any individual work. In which case, perhaps they should be using Google or freedb to search for them, and it would be better to just delete this article. But then should you also delete the Symphony_No._x articles? -- Solipsist 09:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing could be covered here that could not be covered just as well in Prelude (music). I don't see the need for a Redirect. Logophile 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about a generic prelude in G-major. It's not even well-known name like the (Bach) B-minor Mass. I can only see it valuable as a "List of preludes in G Major" if there were several. And I don't think the redirect to G-Major helps anyone. If I'm looking for some Prelude in G-Major but I can't remember who wrote it, I'm better off with search results. –Shoaler (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into an article on the Bach piece. A redirect to G major is pointless; a redirect to Prelude (music) would be better, if necessary. Powers 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any idea how many pieces JS Bach wrote in his life? And if we do all Bach's, do we do Telemann's as well? I don't mind, but you are talking about a very large number of articles, even if the vast majority of the music is massively better (IMO) than the average song article on Wikipedia. I can see some utility in the List of compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach, especially if it were expanded to include dates, some data on forces required and length, and I'd dearly love to see the same for the BuxWV catalogue, since I'm a huge fan of Buxtehude (as indeed was Bach), but one article on one prelude by one composer is a "single petal" when the field of flowers would be so much better, as the mergists have it. - Just zis Guy, you know?
Um, sorry? Powers 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prelude (music) after generalizing to be relevant to all keys.--ragesoss 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wahoofive. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Prelude in G major is a generic title for any piece of music which is a prelude and in the key of G major." No kidding! Delete per Wahoofive. --kingboyk 02:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, adding nothing which is not inherently obvious from the title. If this stays I want an article on "red bicycle". Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Solipsist Jcuk 23:24, 6 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. JIP | Talk 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown "politician", grand total of 2 googles, 1 non-wiki. Needs a serious amount of context and evidence - otherwise delete. Only the word "politician" and existence of a stub saves this from a speedy tag... ++Deiz 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Playing with the spelling yields 60 unique googles. Sticking with the original line ++Deiz 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable. mikka(t) 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 --M@thwiz2020 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article does not establish notability unless resident is an important position in Indian politics. I am placing a notice on the Indian Wikipedians noticeboard to attract their views. Would be good if we didn't speedy it before we had comments from Indians.
Keep and well done to ERCheck for his research. Being President of a notable political party in a province is notable enough for mine. They are generally part of the national executive for example. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the [[resident]] is specifically directed to resident (title) which may indicate that the person is a politician of some reasonable note. Agree with Capitalroadster - should get input on title. —ERcheck @ 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now. English is an important language in India, so we have to be careful about systemic bias. I'd rather hear about notability from some Indian editors before deciding. --kingboyk 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. A Google search on <Hill State People's Democratic Party India Lyngdoh> produced 622 results. It is possible that the term "resident" was a typo and was supposed to be "president". I've added references and external links to the article that shows that the subject of the article is the president of one of three registered political state parties in the Indian state of Meghalaya. This verifies notability. —ERcheck @ 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ERcheck Jcuk 23:26, 6 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. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this is a character on Beyblades. Not sure if that qualifies as encyclopedic. Ashibakatock 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It very well could be, but it should be merged or deleted. Royboycrashfan 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable and borderline nonsense. "Brooklyn is a mysterious blader who is even rumoured to come from another dimenson. He wants (it appears) nothing in life. He leds a life which involves no hard work and knows exactly how to treat animals, thus is often seen with birds, animals or insects around him. His appearence is therefore of a gentle boy, able to do no harm and having a calm life." --Lockley 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsalvageable hoax and/or cruft of some sort. Even if the topic is notable this is likely beyond cleanup. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Beybladecruft. JIP | Talk 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSDs A1/A7. Ikkyu2 07:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not patent nonsense - while it doesn't have any context, the individual sentences do make sense (kinda) on their own. Also, it's apparently a description of a fictional character, which means that it doesn't fall under A7 nn-bio. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Patent nonsense is G1; A1 is "no context". You're right that it's a fictional character and doesn't meet A7 (I guess; is that verified/verifiable?); I missed that on the first read through. -Ikkyu2 02:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and cruft. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Improve Apparently a Beyblades Character, according to a Google search. Maybe one can specify that he or she is a Beyblades Character, and add an image as a reference.19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)nlarocca3
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This looks like a lot of nonsense. James084 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense ++Deiz 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Aaron 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You people must learn how to use various buttons in wikipedia and google. It is Bioniclecruft. Still I say redirect. mikka(t) 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense --M@thwiz2020 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should Gadohk also be nominated for AFD? Samw 01:48, 3 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 blatant advertising. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy - vanity, spam, cruft, and advertisement are not candidates for speedy deletion --M@thwiz2020 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertisement, vanity, spam, etc. Royboycrashfan 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sadly not eligible for speedying Hairy Dude 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity advertisement. *drew 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. Cnwb 04:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. 200,000+ Google hits, recent coverage on CBS News, book released in December, now top 20 seller at Amazon, etc, etc, etc. Did anybody here make the slightest effort to cast an intelligent "vote"? A lousy article does not justify deleting a notable subject. Monicasdude 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's like rock scissors paper - "Vanity", "Advert", "NPOV", "Cruft", "Copyvio" and "Spam" all beat "Possibly notable subject matter". Oh, and congratulations on your little tirade there. I'll remember that one... ++Deiz 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious copyright violation -- or didn't you make the slightest effort to check the sales copy masquerading as an article here? --Calton | Talk 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all except Monicasdude. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article begins: "The Sonoma Diet is like no other. It's a diet in which meals are about celebration, not deprivation!" Smerdis of Tlön 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:08, 3 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.
Speedy delete per above ComputerJoe 16:15, 3 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. — FireFox • T • 15:21, 3 February 2006
Looks like a vanity/non-notable article - the two most prominent Hibernian Insurance companies on the internet don't mention this person as anyone in their management team -- Aim Here 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax, I'd expect the company to be [1] and, while that is the Management Team rather than the Board, it's highly implausible that a thirtysomething year-old would chair the board. Also Cathal is a masculine name. Dlyons493Talk 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Aaron 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax and vanity are not CSDs, but non-notable person is. --M@thwiz2020 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this embarassing vanity ++Deiz 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable bio. I have tagged the article 'db-bio' James084 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find a mention of a "Cathal O'Connell" in Dublin in the August 26, 2000 issue of The Guardian (see page 16). Unfortunately for this article, the person is described only as "a late morning drinker at Dowlings' Bar." Crypticfirefly 04:57, 3 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. Babajobu 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge with Wahine Volleyball; not notable enough to warrant separate article.
Keep 1. He's not with the Wahine Volleyball program,
he joined a different team.
2. He caused a HUGE uproar with the gay communittee,
the NCAA and which got him mentioned in every other newspaper in the country. 3. Well known in volleyball across the nation.
--Masssiveego 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add any relevant info to Wahine Volleyball. The notable comment Masssiveego mentions is only in relation to the Wahine logo, therefore it belongs in that article. Other than that one comment, and while I'm sure he's a great, well-known, coach, he's not notable enough to have his own entry in the encyclopedia. Powers 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect he caused changes with the entire Universities logo system, which including both the Wahine and UH Warriors logos, from the rainbow to the H logo. I disagree, he should have his own entry due to his story having national coverage. Charlie has been to, and affected more then 3 states.
Hawaii alone he is front of crowds of 10,000, has been
front of a crowd of more then 10,000 in Nebraska. Has been
seen by more then a million people across the state. Is
in many major newspapers, as newsworthy.
--Masssiveego 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Charlie Wade wasn't the reason why the logo was changed. It was due partially to the negative connotation of the word "rainbow" held by people unfamiliar with the term's history in Hawaii, and partially due to trademark enforcement issues with the old logo. While his comments were somewhat controversial, he did not cause the entire UH system to change its logo. 青い(Aoi) 06:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 00:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with cleanup tag, a number of references [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Astrokey's search shows media coverage. Kappa 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Astrokeys's refs but Major cleanup needed Jcuk 23:40, 6 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. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:13, 8 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. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another fan-made Digimon, not a real Digimon. Shining Celebi 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pernom Circeus 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 02:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan-made or not, individual Digimon are not notable. (Contrast with Pokémon, which has a much larger fan base.) Stifle 01:19, 5 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. --Pablo D. Flores(Talk) 01:14, 8 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. – Sceptre(Talk) 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the page is full of irrelevancies Cairoguy 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote. I'm confused. You're the original contributor and, as far as I can tell, except for the tags, it's the same as what you originally created. Why is it now irrelevant? -- JLaTondre 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it smells like a copyvio (although I couldn't find anything). Peyna 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd agree the page is full of irrelevancies, but that is a better argument for cleanup than for deletion. I've taked a first crack (and by no means the last that needs to be done) at editing by fixing punctuation and trying to cut the article down a bit. I think it would benefit immensely from someone with better knowlege of the subject matter than I taking all his rolls, theatre companies, and stage productions and puting them in a table. As it stands though they guy seems notable enough in theatre circles to justify the article. It just needs to be cleaned up.--Isotope23 18:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, frivolous nomination. Monicasdude 19:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism per nom. Google Scholar tells me that there is an older alternative usage in library science that gets used from time to time, which argues against a redirect. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, about 50 unique google hits [4] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles Stewart. Kusma(討論) 16:13, 3 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. – ABCDe✉ 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made this into a proper stub; no reason why the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. — orioneight(talk) 01:45, 3 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 Dangerous and Moving. I am making this decision because there isn't really too much in this article to merge with Dangerous and Moving, considering the content that's already in it. OTOH, redirecting still leaves the content in history, if someone finds something of value to merge in the future. Deathphoenix 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no confirmation of this being the 3rd single anywhere else on the internet, not to mention the page is a mess. - RHeodt 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether or not WP is not a crystal ball... it is a charted song in parts of europe as well as Japan. It has earned its right to a stub. ALKIVAR™ 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, why haven't you edited the article? The article says it's a possible maybe future release. --kingboyk 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and now that I think about it... "the page is a mess" means you put a {{Cleanup}} tag on it ... not VFD it. ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not released until April 2006 according to article. A search of Top 40 charts which has charts from throughout the world came up empty. I would suggest merging with Dangerous and Moving, the relevant album except we don't have an article on it yet. In these circumstances, agreed policy is to merge with Dangerous and Moving, the relevant article. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't exist yet, it doesn't get an article unless it is something like an upcoming election or olympics that is sure to happen. Peyna 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence provided that it has charted anywhere, according to Capitalistroadster. We lose nothing by deleting this stub of an article. No doubt it will be recreated if and when this song is released as a single in the English speaking world. Personally, I'm more interested in their videos :) --kingboyk 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 01:19, 5 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, then redirect to da Costa. Deathphoenix 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect then delete. If the original information is already here, no need for an info split yet, if ever.--み使いMitsukai 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect then delete per Mitsukai. Royboycrashfan 05:26, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this debate at the same time as Johnleemk, with the same result. I've undone my actions, but am making a note here to show that the merge is done. --Deathphoenix 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? First, as it is, it's a WP:NPOV violation, as it largely serves as one-stop-shopping for those wanting to know whose products to boycott as a result of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Second, it violates WP:V. Third, it's poorly written and already has a cleanup tag on it. Fourth, it's listcruft; there are only seven companies on the entire list. At the least, I believe it's a prime candidate for merging into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. (This has already been proposed, but the talk page is moving so fast that the merge discussion has already been moved to an archive page and thus will probably never reach a consensus.) At best, it should probably be deleted entirely. Aaron 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus is reached, the redirect page Denmark boycott should be dealt with accordingly. --Aaron 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky one, IMO this is a possibly a candidate for Speedy Delete under A6 - Attack Page as it arguably encourages people to boycott certain named entirely innocent companies. Removal of the company names would turn it back into a reasonable article with some POV issues that would be regulated by the community. On balance this is a delete unless the company names are removed. ++Deiz 03:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be that this article is too specific and needs to be merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons; however, I do not believe that contributors to this article were necessarily pushing an agenda, even if the existence or contents of the article are judged to violate WP:NPOV. Personally, I understand "listcruft" to be a reason for deletion only when the article is a list, while this article merely includes one, along with a timeline, pictures, and an introduction/overview. It also appears to me that most of this article is verifiable, if not yet verified. Deletion or merging may still be the best options, though. Participants in the boycott and the "Buy Danish" (makes me hungry) counter-boycott campaign will probably consult List of Danish companies, so this article is unnecessary and inferior from the point of view of somebody pushing an agenda regarding Denmark. In response to Deiz: I don't think it is an attack page, it does not appear to encourage the boycott, and removing relevant factual information from an article is not a good idea. --Joel7687 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it isn't purely an attack so not an A6 but not fair on the named companies either, as you say people can check out the full list of Danish companies. IMO the list should be replaced with that link sooner rather than later. ++Deiz 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with extra danish cheese - What's wrong with this? I saw this as part of the story of the national news tonight. We can have a NPOV while reporting on a movement with a POV.--God of War 06:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I am concerned about listing the companies affected, as that seems to support the boycott. If some Danish companies are not on the list, then it tends to favor them. Logophile 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. The event is certainly notable, and one can quite easily write a well-referenced article that will meet WP articlespace policy. However, the correct page is Jyllands-Posten muhamad cartoons. Sjakkalle's suggestion is the natural one; I'm asking for a merge & delete because I think this page is not a good redirect. I disagree with Logophile and Joel that listing the companies lends "support" to the boycott: the encyclopedia neither supports nor opposes. It reports, and is neutral. ENCEPHALON 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete. I am already on the record as supporting such; much but not all of the content is contained in the larger article. Verifiability is an issue of obtaining appropriate sources (which, I agree, this article lacks). The list of companies itself can probably go. However, I entirely disagree with the assertion that a list of Danish companies and the declaration of a fact of a boycott is POV. --Stlemur 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about the cartoon controversy if it's not already covered there. There is a huge difference between calling for a boycott and a boycott that is successful in attaining some goal. It is not likely that this will seriously impact these Danish companies in such a way that causes some change. If that happens, the boycott itself is more worth an article. Peyna 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If someone reads this list and decides to boycott these companies, then we are supporting the boycott--albeit inadvertantly. And if someone boycotts these companies after reading about them here, but doesn't boycott other Danish companies, then we are inadvertantly favoring some and protecting others. Logophile 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just realized something that may prove this page to be unchangably listcruftian and inaccurate in its current form: The seven companies listed in the article were apparently picked at random by one or more editors, based solely on whether or not the companies' products were mentioned as examples in the news articles listed as references on the article page. But the boycott is not against these seven companies; it's against all Danish products. It's as if someone started a boycott against all products made in Japan, and then a WP article was created listing Sony and Toyota as the sole targets of the boycott because those were the only two companies the article's creator could think of at the time. That's simply dead wrong information. I won't vote again since I nominated the article, but this point should be taken into consideration. --Aaron 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferable than Merging it into the cartoon's article which has a size of 60 kilobytes already. Much longer than suggested. --Vizcarra 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that making it a separate entry is a POV-like promotion of Islamic fundamentalists. --rydel 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. --Stlemur 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizcarra. The list of companies has been removed from the page, which should satisfy some of the delete reasons above. Turnstep 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the size of the cartoon article. Perhaps should be renamed as Mohammad cartoons boycott to make the context clearer. The article now has references and illustrations so is in reasonable shape. Has real potential to be an ongoing issue in foreign and trade relations ie World Trade Organisation. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The illustrations are probable copyvios and awaiting deletion, for what it's worth. The article now consists of a single paragraph somewhat duplicative of its sort-of-parent article, along with a timeline of events which seems to be of limited value. If it's going to be kept, it ought to be greatly expanded into something about the economic and social ramifications of the boycott itself. --Aaron 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor part of the subject/badly motivated. Golfcam 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A useful article documenting why this boycott happened, how well it fared, and what the long lasting effects of it were could be written someday. This is not yet the time and it's just listcruft. I think I'm going to go play with my LEGO now. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "listcruft"? The list had been removed well before you cast your vote. Turnstep 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, although somehow I don't think the kind of people who boycott Denmark spend much time looking at Wikipedia... --Agamemnon2 12:46, 6 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. JIP | Talk 13:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts that two CDs have been recorded, but does not state whether they have been released or not. No vote. - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a squizz at their website, but doesn't say there either if the cd's have been released. Given that they seem to be at least semi-pro I'm going Weak KeepJcuk 21:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per CSD A7 Ruby 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even though there's some information about the second CD on google and their site, including a release date, it still seems rather nn Hirudo 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CDs have been released and sold, see above. From the Dutch press reviews, choir seems to be relatively local, but well-appreciated for its quality. Obscurity is not necessarily criterion for deletion user:rutten156.109.10.17 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Why is having "released CDs" so important? I interpret WP:MUSIC as a guideline. The notability is admittedly rather local, but appears to be genuine (based on the reviews and other information on the Internet). The group is not a one-day wonder but has been in operation for twenty years. Lambiam 05:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Almost no google hits. Isn't even listed on the dutch wiki. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Turnstep 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the most notable, but plenty notable enough.--ragesoss 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ragesoss --kingboyk 03:04, 4 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. Jacoplane 06:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del. Not suitable for encycopedia. An overblown article title for DNA research of some american bones and 2-3 Finns, which can lead to nothing conclusive yet. mikka(t) 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted as well. This is hardly a substantiated claim at this time, and contains serious hyperbole. Sukiari 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like an article from a newspaper rather than an encyclopaedia, and is original research. Hairy Dude 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, this is more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. Also it looks like Original Research. JIP | Talk 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I remember pretty well that substantially the same text was deleted the other day under a slightly different title (something with First Finns in America or so.) Obviously for POV reasons. Lukas(T.|@) 09:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for this thing, if it means we Finns can claim ownership of America. ...what? Hey, it worked for Scrooge McDuck. --Agamemnon2 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive rewrite. Delete. A good subject for a WP article on this material would be "Haplogroup X (mtDNA)", along the lines of some of the other DNA lineage articles that can be found linked off the Haplogroup article. The mitochondrial DNA group X is quite interesting for the early population history of the United States. It has been suggested it may be linked to the Solutrean culture, excavated in SW France, which may have been associated with extensive maritime activity along the fringes of the Atlantic ice-age ice sheets, similar in technology to modern-day Inuit culture. In particular, it is suggested that the Solutreans may have brought the original stone-working technology underlying the ubiquitous later Clovis point to the Americas, which seems to have spread out from the east of the modern-day United States, in contrast to most of the paleoamerican population which is thought to have originated ultimately from Asia, and spread in from the west. I would therefore suggest that there is useful material which should be strip-mined from this article first, before deletion. -- Jheald 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Curiously, haplogroup X isn't particularly associated with the Finns; it's more common around the Mediterranean, the Near East and the Caucasus. If as it seems this report dates back to the mid 1990s, then much more is now known, and I think there is now not much after all that remains to be usefully extracted from this old sensation piece. The article Haplogroup X (mtDNA) is now up and in place, if there is anything anyone else thinks should be saved and added. -- Jheald 22:16, 8 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. – Sceptre(Talk) 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Deathphoenix 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "oranges and orangs" title, and no content at all. mikka(t) 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically unreadable. SYSS Mouse 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 09:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. --The1exile 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mess, but more importantly I'm not in anyway convinced there is the potential for any useful article on this topic. If someone can make a good case for this topic being the starting point for an article with purpose, I'd reconsider.--Isotope23 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per SYSS Mouse. Joe 05:28, 4 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 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT since it is a list. Moreover, it is, in my opinion, gamecruft. --M@thwiz2020 02:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing in WP:NOT says "delete all lists", last time I looked. Probably best to split into separate articles for each mod. Kappa 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while NOT doesn't say to delete them, it still says the shouldn't exist. And if they shouldn't exist, you either have to delete, merge, or redirect. --M@thwiz2020 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOT does not say that lists should not exist, it says that certain types of lists should not exist. This is not one of those types. Dsmdgold 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in WP:NOT explicitly rejects lists, or even says that they shouldn't exist, it seems to me. The closest thing is the recommendation against internet directories, but I think this serves a legitimate purpose. WoodenTaco 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Counter Strike was a mod that changed the entire gaming culture, mods like this have significant cultural change, thus I believe WP should keep this list to show the entire world the changing of society and such, just like WP has an article on Ak 47. Shahathens 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only to have a place to put the text from the mods that don't deserve their own articles. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This thing was linked from the front page of STEAM for chrissakes. This is a highly useful and notable resource. Cyde Weys 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very useful and helpful resource. Good for disambiguation among mods and a good reflection of the changing game culture. Half-Life 2 has so great an impact on gaming culture that it would be ridiculous to delete this article.--Xzilenifo 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Half-Life 2 is very notable, not least because it can be modified. However, I doubt any of these is the next Counter-Strike, so very few, if any, should have their own article, so let's not go there. I do, however, think that unreleased mods should not be listed. Once they're out they can be added. —Wrathchild(talk) 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this may be a topic for the talk page rather than here, but some of the mods are eminently notable. Black Mesa: Source, for instance, has been ranked the #1 unreleased mod of 2005 for any game on any system. Now I will agree with you that they don't deserve their own articles until they are released. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable, and quite useful. I was going to vote merge until I saw how extensive it is. -- Plutor 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain My personal opinion is that this level of detail belongs on a fan site but not here. However, I know concensus when I see it so I'll keep my mouth shut :) --kingboyk 03:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there is an article titled "List of Half-Life Mods," and that article has been kept. Would it not make since to keep the "List of Half-Life 2 mods?"---Queasy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.122.166 (talk • contribs) 22:29, February 3, 2006
Keep This is a useful article of information and should be kept for user reference. -Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.2.94 (talk • contribs) 08:57, February 6, 2006
Keep For the moment there aren't that many mods and I don't think it should be deleted. Perhaps the descriptions need to be removed when the number of mods begin to grow (and then the mods that deserve their own articles should get one). And I think that unreleased mods shouldn't be there (neither should they have own articles before release). -- ReCover 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is one of the most thorough and comprehensive of all HL2 mods, and its brevity makes it more useful when compared to the lists and catalogues offered by fansites. Were it not for this list, I would not know of half of them. ViceroyInterus 20:20, 7 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 Boldly redirected by User:Night Gyr. Peyna 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more general subject than this article makes it out to be - there are other spigot mortars than the one invented by Lt.-Col. Blacker. There is also a better treatment of spigot mortars in general at Mortar (weapon), and the Blacker Bombard itself is described at PIAT. In all, a separate page seems redundant. Hairy Dude 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Mortar (weapon). Agree that this article treats the issue better. --Nsevs 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as well; This article hits only one example of the class of spigot mortar type weapons, and we talk about both the class and specific examples in much more detail in Mortar (weapon)... Georgewilliamherbert 03:16, 3 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 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person who wrote this article should have used {{inuse}} instead of saying "Coming Soon" under every section. IMHO, people should understand the MoS and commonly used templates before attempting to start an article.Royboycrashfan 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: nn and vanity, but it's unreasonable to expect every editor to familiarize themselves with the style guide before beginning an article. One of the nifty things about Wikipedia is how articles can start out a lowly (but promising) mess and be redeemed by community effort. I wouldn't be too hard on an editor for not knowing every intricacy of style here :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
Wikipedians should at least be familiar with the formal tone before making such major edits, otherwise their edits may not be accepted well. Plus, there's Articles for Creation. Royboycrashfan 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that formal tone and writing skills are important. Newer users might not know about AfC, though :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{inuse}} would be quite inappropriate. That means "please don't edit, I'm working on this page right now and I don't want an edit conflict". I use it if I'm doing a major rehaul or a merge. --kingboyk 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't know about {{tl}} and had been using <nowiki>, so thanks for the heads up! :)[reply]
Delete per above.--み使いMitsukai 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheRingess 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure vanity. --Kinu 04:39, 4 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 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --M@thwiz2020 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
boldy rewrote article to remove instruction material, and kept general information. --Nsevs 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be cleaned up. It's on the edge of being vanity. Mathwiz2020's original complaint is clearly no longer valid, however. WoodenTaco 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up a little, but it still needs work.--Nsevs 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WoodenTaco.--み使いMitsukai 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. 563 Google hits in English including verifiable sources - suspect a search in Korean would come up with more. I fail to see how this is vanity unless Grand Master Jhoon Rhee wrote the article. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, good work Nsevs. Proto||type 15:37, 3 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 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. A search on Google yields only 3 results. --*drew 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with *drew, pretty much textbook non-notable. WoodenTaco 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ruby 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When I clicked on the link given by *drew, I came up with 4 results, 3 of which are from Wikipedia and it's mirrors. Royboycrashfan 03:56, 3 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 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to merge into some other article about "The Gorge" (the movie this character is from) but the movie isn't even listed on The Gorge, as disambig page! Plus, fails WP:FICT. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nsevs 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. *drew 05:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 05:36, 3 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 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Katro is not a concept in Shintoism; this is a spoof. There's no literature on it. As a matter of fact, I know the person who made this page personally. He specifically created it in order to prove that false information could be put on Wikipedia... WoodenTaco 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless references are provided. --Nsevs 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and I take WoodenTaco at his word. Compare article contents to User:FaveoKatro, the author of Katro: same description. Google book search comes back with zero results for 'Katro' in Shinto. Looks bogus. --Lockley 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Completely bogus information (the pronunciation gives it away, for starters). Also, I agree with Lockley and take WoodenTaco at his word on that.--み使いMitsukai 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 13:06, 6 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 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Could be classed as fancruft. Stifle 01:20, 5 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to synonym chart of nuclides. Other editors cannot build upon unsourced data, adding references would amount to a complete rewrite from scratch. Also, the usefulness as a big list seems questionable since there is already a split request. Adding more of decay data would easily result in a growth beyond several Megabytes. Femto 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, why would adding references amount to a complete rewrite from scratch? I could add T2 and JAERI to the bottom in a minute if I weren't otherwise occupied... Georgewilliamherbert 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just dab on some links there without knowing they were the source of the data. Going back to verify against a specific reference, one just as well could create the page anew regardless of the existing content. Femto 15:55, 4 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 11:47, 9 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 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that it is Canada's premier gateway to meeting university students is an assertion of notability. This assertion is not backed by any hard evidence. Capitalistroadster 20:01, 3 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 del: db-bio. mikka(t) 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page describes the nickname of a non-notable avionics technician in the RAF. Lockley 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nominated as such by me. Being an avionics technician in the RAF is not an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 3 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 13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemingly non-notable rock band from Cork, Ireland. Does not qualify for notability under any points of WP:MUSIC. Band members are listed by first names only, and ex-drummer "Darren" seems to have maintained most of the article. 177 Google hits, many of them Wikipedia mirrors, and the band's own website/blog. Have apparently recorded a demo and an album, but the album is not named. --Canley 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not ex-drummer Darren who maintain the article, totally different person. I've added album and demo names (which they have recorded) and band members second names. They aren't hugely known in Ireland, but around cork, they have a pretty good following. I understand if the consensus is delete. Ablaze 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, no real hope for improvement. Night Gyr 03:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatant advertisement, not well written. Royboycrashfan 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, major developer, but Wikipedia is not free advertising. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertisement. *drew 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisment. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, when I saw this I honestly shat my pants, there used to be a troll on usenet's building groups that was the president of phoenix homes, but not the canadian company. Mike(TC) 18:28, 3 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 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
site is blatant advertising about "potential" manga and anime projects. Only two sites come up on a google search: this Wiki article (and mirrors) and the blog of one of the "company owners". An official website points to a fanfic site. No indicator that this is a real company or anything other than a few guys with wishful thinking, but wishes do not Wikiworth make.み使いMitsukai 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, advertisement. *drew 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, advertisment. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps move - it seems like there should be a Wikicites for this kind of thing. It looks like vanity to me. AsukaSeagull EDIT: Should be noted that, according to the RJ@GJ blog listed, they support the deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a dictionary definition of a slang term. Kjkolb 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. Added tag to page. --Nsevs 03:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary. Also, it should be rewritten to look better. Royboycrashfan 04:15, 3 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 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parent "company" is Roaming Janitors International, an article also up for deletion. Convention has no website to speak (there is a cornstock website, but it seems long defunct). Only indicator that this convention will occur is based on a one-sentence statement on a personal blog. Other convention "merging" into Cornstock has no google hits at all save for the Cornstock Wiki article. This is merely advertising, nothing more. み使いMitsukai 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. --Nsevs 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising Maustrauser 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Project is definately defunct - I was on it and they stopped talking - has no value at all. AsukaSeagull
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mailing list Dr Debug (Talk) 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it should be revised to encompass the broader definition of Nukkad as stated in the first sentence of the article.--Nsevs 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Another poorly written article. Royboycrashfan 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only non-spam sentence in this article is a dictionary definition. —Cleared as filed. 04:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising for mailing list. —ERcheck @ 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. *drew 06:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Cleared as filed" Ruby 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless revised as suggested by Nsevs. utcursch | talk 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has the potential to be a good disambiguation page - refering to (a) the generic definition; (b) a popular television serial by the same name in the late 1980' on India's only national TV channel at that time (Doordarshan) and (c) the mailing list referred to in the article (provided its notability is established). However, I am not entirely sure if it makes sense to create a disambiguation page without having articles for any of the proposed entries. Would like to hear from other editors. Or another possibility is to convert the article to a text about the TV serial (only problem is that due to FUTON bias, probly very little would be available on the net about the seial (due to the fact that it is late 1980's) and hence may be deemed non-notabe). --Gurubrahma 15:40, 7 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 xarding delete. DS 04:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism and Xarding informal tone. Royboycrashfan 04:20, 3 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 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Delete this one for the same reasons found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with plot twists: hopelessly POV, unwieldy list that can easily be categorized, the plot twist can be better noted in each article, has about as much utility as a list of video games with male protagonists, etc. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can merge it with "List of Deleted articles about 'List of (x) with plot twists'".--み使いMitsukai 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't this be every video game ever created? FCYTravis 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think Pac-Man or Pong have any plot twists, but I could be mistaken. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those barrels, in the SECRET HIDDEN BARREL LEVEL, actually start helping you. Or maybe that was when I played Donkey Kong on LSD. FCYTravis 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that's what the "How High Can You Get?" meant... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with plot twist --Alan Au 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this describes pretty much every game. Cyde Weys 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonsense. This is getting ridiculous. -ZeroTalk 07:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this state, this list is useless as it doesn't explain what counts as a plot twist. I could add PONG in there, with as much explanation of its plot twists as any of the other games have. JIP | Talk 07:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list can never be maintained. A bad one indeed. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fear that a bizarre plot twist will somehow save it from its fate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySethimothy (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article... and the plot twist is that I actually mean Delete listcruft, mwa ha ha!--Isotope23 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO, nice one. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, what a great idea - let's pick a topic for a list so we can list every. Single. Game. Since. 1990. And start building it from some new-school whatever-duhs. Well, the thing is, great lists aren't made like this! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per wwwwolf. It's as redundant as List of 24 episodes with Jack Bauer. --Kinu 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and unmanagable. Ben W Bell 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and irreconcilably POV. It could also be considered to be a list that is unmaintainable or of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 01:21, 5 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. DS 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link at the bottom just goes to a bunch of pictures with the word "art" under them. Apparently that's what this article is about, although that's also unclear. Unencyclopedic in any case. Delete. Karmafist 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads sort of like an advertisement. Royboycrashfan 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by User:Pickelbarrel, who previously created the garbage article panty_waste; the near-identical names are not a coincidence. Pickelbarrel, I'm blocking you for a month. DS 04:39, 3 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 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a {{nn-bio}}, but since it has a picture and some links I put it up here. It is a bio of an 18th century farmer whose children are slightly more notable. Delete. Kusma(討論) 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge with the articles on her kids, but there's not really anything notable to say that isn't already on those articles. —Cleared as filed. 05:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A newbie seems to be using WP for his family geneology. I speedied a shorter article on another family member. -R. fiend 05:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above, although for a short genealogical piece it is unusually nicely done (may be worth noting that the tide of opinion seems to be swinging towards keeping articles on the Australian members of the family (e.g., here).Staffelde 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind an article about the family - however, the contents of this article seem to be purely genealogy-style, and thus not worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical, and I don't think it should become one (I think there exists a wiki that does genealogy, but I forgot the name). Kusma(討論) 15:57, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Page looks genuine, but neither Google nor Allmusic has heard of either the band nor its members. I'd delete it myself, but I'm not confident enough of its being a fabrication. Thoughts? DS 04:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because "Only touring around Europe the band never made widly successful into mainstream Black Metal" Ruby 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. No Ghits. —ERcheck @ 06:10, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand to make more comprehensible. Royboycrashfan 05:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Nothing there really looks like it comes from a kaiju article, but ya never know.--み使いMitsukai 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article as it is makes no sense/no context. —ERcheck @ 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was created by User:Gojistomp. I have summoned him here to explain. He is, or claimes to be, eight years old BTW. Herostratus 09:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but any verifiable information could be put in a more general article on Godzilla movies. Silly Dan 19:52, 3 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 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty crystal ball article. The infobox says it is about a game to be released on November 1, 2011. Delete. Kusma(討論) 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why is no auto-speedy criteria for this shit...? -ZeroTalk 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because sometimes a crystal ball article is a keeper, like the one about Star Wars part 3 was before this summer, when they had already made parts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Ruby 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -LtNOWIS 16:38, 4 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 11:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although the previous comment isn't necessarily applicable, the article is still redundant. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being. I wouldn't have any problem if an article was created closer to the release of the album. However, as a quick Google couldn't come up with anything confirming the info let alone containing a track listing. When there is verifiable information available, it would be worthwhile rewriting the article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information could easily added to the Rihanna atrilce without hurting that page. --Walter Görlitz 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit I have heard that song mentioned before though. -- Greaser 12:43, 4 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. —Cryptic(talk) 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, seems to also be vanity. Google gives only 127 results. PoptartKing 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete per nom. *drew 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's also gained over 1,000,000 views from the DH Site and has become pretty popular for a mini-web series. MyInnerFred
please, do not delete this page. tis a funny series and it would be a shame if it was deleted.-Neosporin
Delete advert for a non-notable website/videos that would appear to be heavily infringing on some copyrights.--Isotope23 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a parody! Its not infringing any copyrights. If anything, the subtitled cutscenes of what really is going on in the scene is more copyright infringing than Dramatic Hearts.
Wow, it's nice to see so many comments on here from people who are obviously lawyers specializing in copyright and trademark law. Hey here's an idea, why don't you send the URL for DH to Disney and Squaresoft's legal departments and see what what they think? --Isotope23 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just wanted to clarify myself, since I did not use copyright as a basis for my vote to delete (I modified my original comment a bit, since the opening wasn't particularly well-ewritten), and to provide some information. I am not a lawyer, but copyright with respect to machinima is a developing issue. I'm not sure what Disney and Squaresoft's stance on this is, but many game companies seem to be allowing, at least implicitly, non-profit machinima to thrive (see [6] - "Machinima.com has informal agreements with quite a few games companies on distribution"). I fully understand the need to protect Wikipedia from copyvios, but, given that machinima seems to have been accepted by Bungie/Microsoft and Electronic Arts (who have both commissioned machinima videos from Rooster Teeth Productions, the company that produces Red vs Blue), among possibly a few other companies, there is a certain legitimacy to machinima nowadays. On the other hand, to my knowledge, neither Disney nor Squaresoft has ever taken a stance one way or the other, and so I could see a strong argument for assuming that there would be a copyvio problem with Kingdom Hearts machinima, parodies-as-fair-use notwithstanding. However, with the lack of evidence that Disney/Squaresoft disapprove, and based on the claim that DH is a parody anyway, I formed a rationale based solely on notability. Not saying that copyvio isn't a possible reason to delete a machinima article, but the situation in general with respect to copyrights and machinima is usually not clear-cut. -- TKD 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio was not the reason for my delete vote either. I'm not aware of any machinima copyright use cases ever being brought to court as most game companies do seem to allow this to happen. I'm just saying that in the absence of any settled case law pertaining to this, it may or may not fall under under fair use as parody. I voted delete on lack of notabilty. Copyright was just a passing comment.--Isotope23 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an incredibly funny work of comedy genuis with a large number of fans. Deleting it would be a pity.
Dramatic Hearts is a work of art and comedy, to remove this page would be a shame, I'm sure if any of you actually watched Dramatic Hearts you wouldn't delete it. Long Live DH! - Tom Seiniger
All of you bigots who believe Dramatic Hearts is dumb are the same people who hate the world and/or are easily offended. It uses the same sense of humor as other popular machinimas such as Red Vs. Blue... why not delete their article? You people make no sense... long live DH! - Deathspank
It's a work of comedy, and parody. An extremely well done one with a lot of effort put into it at that. If things like Red vs. Blue, 8-bit Theater, and PvP can all have Wiki pages, including that goofy Elemenstor saga or whatever it called, could justifably fall into the same catagory, and should be deleted as well.
Have any of you people even seen DH? If you have you'd know that there is no copyright infringment whatsoever.He's not selling it to anyone. It's a well done comedy series that deserves a page on Wikipedia. VIVA DH!- Joten9115
Dude oh my god, i love dramatic hearts. ya'll can't delete it if you watched it you would so how funny it was and how it has made me laugh time and time again. please don't take these memories and laughs away. This mini-series deserves a page on Wikipedia!!! Do not delete it would make me and many other wikipedia viewers very upset. please do not delete DH it makes the many laugh-needy people of this world not go hungry!!! Long Live DH!!! - James
Keep and cleanup. Has potential. Ardenn 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Has potential and is not infringing on any copyrights. Deathspank 11:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhat reluctantly. Copyright is often not an issue with the game companies nowadays, with respect to non-commercial machinima; most machinima productions are parodies anyway and may fall under fair use. However, the big difference between this and, say, Red vs Blue, is that the latter has been well-covered in the media (see the References section of the Red vs Blue article) and has won multiple awards within the machinima community. As another example, 8-Bit Theater (a webcomic, not machinima) gets about 145,000 Google hits. One user, Drat, created, at Talk:List of machinima series, an informal list of criteria for inclusion of machinima on Wikipedia; see also WP:WEB. The issue is not with machinima itself, but that the machinima has to be notable in some way. Personally, I would like to see an example of Kingdom Hearts machinima on Wikipedia, but there has to be some standard kept. This series has received very little mention outside of a few websites. So, unless someone can show verifiable information that this series is in fact notable in some way, I'm advocating deletion. Whether the series is actually funny or not (a subjective and POV matter, anyway) is irrelevant. -- TKD 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well language wise I've already cleaned it up a bit, to my knowledge (aside from a few words which are in character names) there are no offensive words on the page, only semi-suggestive. I would like to know why I have to "clean" up the pages when nothing is overally offensive and when Wikipedia states that it is not censored. As for popularity, what determines what makes it popular? I would consider a few thosand hits a day to make something pretty popular, to my knowledge RVB had a Wikipage far before it became as well known as it is now, before all the awards and becoming a huge hit. It's proven to be atleast semi-popular, I mean if you think it deserves deletion, well, can't stop you. I wouldn't expect a 2-3 month old series to compete with other series that have been around a good 3-5 years. MyInnerFred
Comment. Language was never the real issue for me. In fact, when people mention "clean up", it usually refers to article structure, tone, style, etc. As for Red vs Blue, the Red vs Blue article was created on 23 July2004, after the series had won three machinima awards and had been covered in BBC News Online, Village Voice, and The Wall Street Journal. But it's not about RvB versus other machinima series as much as it is about asserting a series' own notability. Drat had mentioned popularity as a possible guideline, and this is fine as long as the popularity is verifiable (i.e., mentioned and preferably quantified in a reputable news source or online site or such). It's not the only criterion, however, and I would vote to keep if there were more third-party mention of this series — at least a few hundred Google hits, at any rate. It looks like the series has been around for some time (enough for 22 episodes), but I would have expected a series of that length to have garnered enough attention for other people to have written about it. -- TKD 00:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, well atleast we are going somewhere with this. I understand. I personally think it's pretty popular (and do note that while it has 22 episodes many were created before the actual series was produced, it's only been around for a little more then a month actually) considering the huge amount of hits on the main site. We've never really advertised but we've gotten some advertisement on other sites and hits from all over. I've never really advertised and the main reason I made this was I pretty much considered DH to have become popular enough to warrent a simple Wikipedia page. I wasn't really aware there was a need to be popular (of any kind) just figured it had to be atleast something out there, I figured 100,000 hits+ was a good start, heh-heh. The main problem with most people writting about the game is obviously that it's not out in America and many well known KH2 fan site staff members are very pro non-spoiler items. MyInnerFred
Reply. I appreciate the rationale. Popularity isn't a requirement of notability, but it generally would be sufficient if that popularity translated into other writers and sites reviewing the series, etc. I do think that the article content itself has some potential, but there simply isn't enough notability here, in my estimation. 100,000 hits (if those are total site hits in a month) isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things; sites can get a million hits and still be non-notable. -- TKD 08:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until finished at least RatherConfused 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can get some reviews from well known sites then I could keep the page up? MyInnerFred
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:19, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Content wasn't salvagable, just went ahead and turned it into a redirect, as someone could plausibly search for this term. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NASA is (obviously) drafting something like this but it ain't called the "Mars Lander program" and this articles doesn't seem to be based on reality or sources. Cyde Weys 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as Adrian's redirect. Powers 15:35, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article title, lead and contents have nothing to with each other. The lead references a nonexistent comic and the article contents are cut-and-pasted from List of characters from Family Guy.--Muchness 05:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although the premise is good (listing fictional high schools), this can turn into a looooong pointless list. And I agree, this is weird. I mean, a list of characters in school? That's a little stupid. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If you don't mind, I striked out part of your comment as Luann is indeed a real comic strip, the original editor just misspelled it. Royboycrashfan 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand your reasoning, but I'm restoring my original comment. I was aware that Luann's a comic, but it, too, bears no relationship with the contents of the article (the character names listed are not from the Luann comic), so I saw no reason to make the connection. --Muchness 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then create a redirect. No need to keep that irrelevant stuff in the history. Turnstep 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ardenn 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Turnstep. What was this person smoking?! Grandmasterka 07:53, 5 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. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a random collection of things - and a list from a nn website would seem to apply. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nevermind. Page seems to have been deleted. Royboycrashfan 05:44, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jewell was an important contributor to the development of the personal computer and videogame industry in the early 1980's, which has been documented in books and by the Smithsonian Museum. People doing research on this subject will want to see the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkullTronX (talk • contribs) .
As you are the originator of the article (and your username is the same a related article also up for deletion), I'm not sure whether or not to trust that comment. Royboycrashfan 06:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whee-ew. Let's first recall that, although the number of articles sent to AfD is growing every day, and that we often feel pressured for time, we also should be a bit nice. WP:BITE and all. When we're this cryptic, it can give the wrong impression to newcomers. "Vanity" actually refers to WP:VANITY, that's a good place to start. And while on the face of it this does appear to be advertising and perhaps written by it's subject, if all the claims are verified by reputable sources this might pass the biography inclusion guidelines. So, I'm moving delete now, but am happy to have a message dropped on my talk page notifying me if this is cleaned up and given citations. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sirius Software. The aforementioned company is notable and has an article on Wikipedia. (Note there is a new company called Sirius Software, unrelated to the now-defunct game company). Jewell doesn't seem to have any independent notability. The SkullTronX page is vanity bordering on spam. --EngineerScotty 06:15, 3 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 RexNL (CSD A6, attack page) —Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 12:45Z
Speedy' for reasons above. --EngineerScotty 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. A6 and A7. Tagged. ENCEPHALON 11:22, 3 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 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be advertising, does not provide evidence of notability. Delete unless evidence provided from Wikipedia:Reliable sources so that we may verify the contents. brenneman(t)(c) 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a "be nice" note on the other afd. We can handle this with a bit more gentleness, but with the same amount of clarity. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brenneman is, as usual, correct. ENCEPHALON 11:19, 3 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 as per RayGates; this is an editorial decision due to lack of consensus. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK on WP:DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable program that simulates what is sometimes seen on computer screens in the background of SG1 scenes. Ugh. And it's not even being worked on anymore. Cyde Weys 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, doesn't the act of buying a domain automagically make someone or something notable? No? You're sure? OK, Delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Adrian Lamo is voting on my AfD nomination! I feel special. --Cyde Weys 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but would you be as jazzed if I'd voted to keep? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Keep. It is a fairly recent artical, and until just now, most of the people who use SGCSim were unaware of the page here. I feel we should give the artical a chance to be made better. tpg1989 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That many Google hits isn't really impressive, and there isn't anything notable about this. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn software product, and per Google hits. Kusma(討論) 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has an ok number of Google hits, but popularity doesn't mean notability. I mean, what SG-related thing *isn't* going to be a bit popular online? And I say that as a reasonably persistent watcher of SG-[*] myself. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there seems to be no support to keep this as an independent article, I suggest Merge into Triva section of Stargate SG-1RayGates 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the nn artical, it says something about having over 5,000 users. I have evidence of numbers over the last 12 months. SGCSim.com has 1,003 downloads. Original release on SG1files.com has 4,304 downloads, and the latest release on SG1files.com has 11,501 downloads. Thats a total of 16,808 downloads. And that is only over the last 12 months maximum. Every time the SGCSim.com website gets erased (has happened from various hosts), the number count is reset there. Last time that happened was June 2005. The counts from SG1files.com are starting from April 2005. I would safely estimate at least twice of what we have evidence for. And this doesn't include versions before v5.0.2, as there were no recorded counts for them. (v1, v2, v3, and v4.1). We should at least Merge the two articals. tpg1989 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5000 downloads doesn't equate to 5000 users, especially if there have been so many releases. —Quarl(talk)2006-02-04 03:40Z
The number I gave you was for the current version, 5.0.2, and its not even for all the downloads of that version. On SG1files.com, it was released there as 5.0.2, and then re-released with a tiny change. Users were advised that if they had already downloaded it that there was no need to download the other one. It is 16,808 recorded downloads for version 5.0.2. Numbers were not recorded before 2005, and previous versions of the sim have been around from at least 2002. tpg1989 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Ted-m 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I shudder to think how pathetic a person would have to be to make something like this. --Agamemnon2 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Agamemnon, I shudder to think of how it feels to not be a fan of anything. I can also say, with mild certaintity that there will be a Beta of the new version sometime soon. ~Avalon304 23:16, 06 Febuary 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. W.marsh 05:21, 9 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. -Docask? 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly POV, and the article was deleted before The text is different this time around, or I would have put this up for a speedy; but the justification for the first delete--the website is non-notable--still exist. The current text is highly POV. EngineerScotty 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a somewhat relevant discussion on the talk page between me and Malber (who has created the page anew). The solution to the previous AfD was apparently a redirect, which I still think is the correct choice. Hbackman 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because recreation of deleted material. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:19, 3 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. W.marsh 05:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about some "Transformer Fest 2004" by some Finnish Nazi sympathiser who hates the British. No one in their right mind cares about this. Delete. JIP | Talk 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been going on for 12 years, there are also articles for science fiction conventions like OryCon with equivalent notability. Ruby 07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. --Nsevs 08:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162,000 Google hits means keep, obviously. Actually I suggest we speedy keep because this does appear to be a bad-faith nomination. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:GeorgeStepanek. Not that Wikipedia wouldn't be improved if "No one in their right mind cares about this" were a criterion for deletion, butut it wouldn't apply to this article.Monicasdude 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. JIP, could you please don't use vulgarities as you are being uncivil, especially you're an administrator. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless if anyone in their "right mind" cares about it, it's been around long enough and has enough its that it's notable.--み使いMitsukai 13:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Wow, JIP, what crawled into your shoes today? BotCon's very well known, and pretty notable as well. RasputinAXP talkcontribs 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if he does hate us Brits, poor misguided fellow. --kingboyk 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some suspiciously similar comments to the nominator's statement here (a little more than halfway down the page.) They <may> be the source of this. Grandmasterka 08:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's AfDs like this one that make me feel editing ought to be a priviledge, not a right.--Agamemnon2 13:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without a doubt. Marcus-e 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Botcon is an established mainstay and expansion of TF fandom Dr. R.K.Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is about what bored students do in class when they are not thinking up hoax articles for WP. Ruby 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete, it's all non-notable until someone loses an eye.Keep per Mitsukai. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Running-With-Scissors bit. Ruby 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 08:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 09:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep We did this 20 years ago when I was in school. Definately not a new concept. Might be reasonable to keep. Randomgenius 09:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has been around for at least 25 years (and probably much longer), and known to millions of children (and ex-children). Expand, not delete. Turnstep 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real subject. Golfcam 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real game with consistent rules that's been around for at least 20 years. ×Meegs 06:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand further (as per Turnstep) -- Unsigned comment by Karnesky.
Delete as per nomination. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Stifle 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used to play this game -- between 10 and 15 years ago. This is played by schoolchildren everywhere and is certainly not a hoax. I'm actually going to say keep. Grandmasterka 08:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real game, necessary to encyclopedic coverage of what bored students do in class. Kappa 02:45, 6 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. W.marsh 05:24, 9 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. W.marsh 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written as an advertisement and the company has no claim to notability in the article. Kjkolb 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam - all this stuff has the same look and feel, did you ever notice? Ruby 07:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that they always seem to use the exact same picture, too - that multicultural bunch of smart, youthful executives who all just happen to look like fashion models, too. Delete.--み使いMitsukai 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Copyright violation, although not actionable under A8. Further, appears to have been written by company founder (although this is not in and of itself reason to delete). ENCEPHALON 11:14, 3 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. W.marsh 05:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable podcast. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:38, 3 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. W.marsh 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt at saturating wikipedia with nonsense. Don't allow the neat text and organization to make a bafoon of you. Speedy Delete Garbage. ZeroTalk 07:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you'd like to Speedy it, you may want to try {{delete}} or {{db-reason}}. Royboycrashfan 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for that tidbit of information. I'll remember that in the future. -ZeroTalk 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no grounds for a delete--let alone a speedy delete of this article--are you objecting to it because you don't like gamecruft? Or is there another objection which we should know about? There is much worse gamecruft on Wiki; this article looks well-written. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, never having played the game--but I see no reason to delete this at this time. --EngineerScotty 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense because such a iteration in the Mega Man series never existed and Capcom has not made confermation of releasing such a game. I respect your vote, but please refrain from making such when you know nothing of the source material. It is extemely irritating and misleading to other voters. -ZeroTalk 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since its nonsense. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such game exists. StarryEyes 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax like all the other articles created by ProtomanX. (This one was the least obvious hoax, and looked most like a legitimate article). Kusma(討論) 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is a hoax; however, I seem to be finding a lot of stuff on Google that would suggest otherwise. Can anyone give us some more info on why this a hoax? Peyna 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now. Re-state my vote as I am more sure now that this a hoax since while Mega Man VI does exist (see Mega Man 6, it was never released on Game Boy. Peyna 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, the Game Boy Color didn't come out until 1998. All the game sites I looked had never heard of it. It's possible that it's supposed to be Mega Man 6, but that's for the NES. It does match the supposed release date, though. —Wrathchild(talk) 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Took a little research, but delete as hoax. Mega Man 6 was only released for NES. Night Gyr 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have simply made an inquiry on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather do the googling for myself than wait for a response. Night Gyr 00:47, 5 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. W.marsh 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've Googled all of the red-link bands, labels, and venues, and none of them come up with anything. Photos supposedly taken in a club called RetroFit look like that were taken in a residence. The article has no categories, and no other articles link here. My opinion is that this is an elaborate joke, but even I assume the artist is real, he doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSIC standards. --djrobgordon, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable vanity. Probaly hoax. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. Maybe a hoax. On a weird note - the many links to Anastasia (supposedly a performer) all link to Anastasia (1997 film) - which is odd (and a joke?) as they were all deliberately linked that way. Rossrs 12:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.. I was going to suggest the photographer might have done themself a favor by using a flash, but on closer examination, they somehow managed to redeye a subject in a way dark photo. What are the odds? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:59, 3 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. W.marsh 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above Rossrs 12:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find much of anything other than blog links and spam links to their "newspaper." Peyna 15:54, 3 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. W.marsh 05:31, 9 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. W.marsh 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable game company. Btw, please sign your comments with four tides like this, ~~~~. Thanks. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to Alexa rank of 10,900. Merge Bubble Shooter (and any other web games by this company) to this article. —Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 12:05Z
Keep, notable in their field. Will tidy the article up now. Proto||type 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm in it. -- Marvin147 07:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Turnstep 17:46, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this article should be deleted has nothing to do with this being an article about fiction and has nothing to do with notability. It is composed almost entirely of original research by a single indivdual who has, as stated in the talk page, decided to take references to various things and events in the universe of the series and provide them with his own scientific explanations that are found nowhere in the books, the authors words elsewhere, or any published material. One user proposed that the article be merged, but as virutally every word is original research, that is not a feasible approach. It should be deleted. Indrian 08:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I only started to work on the topic two hours ago and you are already considering in for deleteion? I'm going to write a serious article here and will appreciate if you give me a day or two to complete it. I promise not to make any unchecked claims (the ones present in first revision are only juicy place fillers). I think every GRRM fan will benefit from such an article. Oakad
Keep working on it, then. AfD takes five days minimum. If you can bring it up to snuff in the meantime the article will be saved. —Wrathchild(talk) 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per no original research. Non-notable. Message to creator, you may like to create a userpage for yourself and create a sandbox for future references. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I finished the rewrite. The article is fully supported by the facts (from the only authoritative source). I invite everybody to comment on a new version. (Vote Stricken because double vote by page's author.Arbor 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete "can be inferred"; "suggests that" and the like are the marks of original research. This is an interesting essay, but wikipedia is not the place for it. The author should publish it on a proper fan or SF comentary site. If it gets notice and comment, it might even be appropriate to mention it or link to it from Westeros. DES(talk) 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of use to Westeros and redirect. Much of this is OR, and as for the rest, we already have a lot of material on ASOIAF. Let's try to keep it under one roof. —rodii 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, third attempt. And I also want to re-iterate the claim I've made on discussion page: Westeros is a continent on the larger planet in the yet larger fictional universe. This is not true of Middle-Earth, as the only account we have on it is some hobbit's diary and a book of myths published after the creator's death.oakad 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And one more. Arda and Middle-Earth are two different articles (not in risk of merging) and quite full of speculations themselves. In fact, at present revision, I don't see any problem with my article (can we have the AfD tag removed?).138.217.34.39 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid the AfD tag can't be removed. The AfD process still has to be carried out. In any case, the article is still full of POV judgments and minor speculations. I'll see if I can clean it those up (as well as some grammatical problems). As for Arda and Middle-Earth, if those articles (which cover distinct topics) contain speculation, the solution is to remove it, not use it as precedent to keep other speculation. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regard to Westeros and Middle-Earth, though. Could you be clearer? Thanks. Brendan 17:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished reworking the article, and given its present state I still think a merge with Westeros is the best option. Brendan 17:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Middle-Earth was used as a model in the early stage of the discussion. It is a long accepted article, and an Arda article is long accepted too (Middle-Earth is a continent in Arda). ASoIaF is however, much better developed world with lot of additional info - it's probably 4 to 6 time bigger than LoTR together with Silmarillion. Westeros itself has enormous amount of historical and political data.
I've looked at your edits:
You deleted my account on astronomical seasons - GRRM explicitly clarified that planet has both astronomical years and climatic seasons (multi-year spanning).
You removed references to his past works - I think its important to leave them (given the habit of GRRM to reuse his ideas).
What's wrong with valyrian lords? Everybody, from free cities to Lannisport distinguishes Dragonlords and plain valyrian descendants. They are also a specific sub-species of humans, having considerable magical abilities and distinguishing look.
Every story insider who ever speaks of Ghis considers it to be older than Valyria. Valyria influence is large in Westeros - through trade, rulers or artifacts. Valyria craft is more advanced than any other we see in the book (these are facts you removed).
Info that is not yet in the article. GRRM provided specific references to climate, nature and recent geological past (Dorn was connected to eastern continent by the land bridge, there is no land at the far north, climate data is available for most of the free cities). I need time to merge this in.
Future info. FoC has a lot of info that was not available in the first three books. However, the next book is expected to have even more and there is also a chance that GRRM will go on and explain his line of reasoning in writing of the book (like he did with Windhaven). This does not precludes us to cover already available data.
Alternatives:
Why not merge with Westeros: Westeros is already heading to be a huge article (even without the rest of the world).
Why not merge with some book description: its beneficial to have page that describes settings, but has no spoilers.
Why not change the title: Precedent: Arda is considered to be both universe (artice uses term "solar system") and planet (long accepted claim on Arda page). Encapsulation: We have (or will have) some info on cosmology, more info on the planet and even more info on couple of specific places. Consider definition 1b of M-W for "universe": "the world of human experience" (in our case - story humans).
Comment. I'm neutral-to-merge on this (see above)--I think the topic is OK, but the title is terrible, and it should try a little harder to fit with existing ASOIAF material--but I have to say, Oakad, you are getting a little excited here. Most of that stuff above belongs on the talk page. Here we're just talking about whether this encyclopedia should have an article on this subject (and if so, secondary questions like where). But it seems like you really, really want to defend your approach to this material, and given that this is a wiki, that can't be guaranteed. You don't own this article, remember; if someone comes along and edits it—for instance, to take out the original research component, per Wikipedia policy—is that going to be OK? —rodii 01:54, 6 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. W.marsh 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipediholic (which also sounds like a stupid article I'm afraid, but if we have that then this title should redirect there). Donama 06:18, 6 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. W.marsh 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is useful in this article for discussion of IP other than the cardinality? Also, this list fails to mention Microsoft, whose issues with licensing Fraunhofer IIS's patent for MP3 are more interesting than the contents of the list. —Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 13:20Z
Delete per Quarl. This kind of information is available in other places on the web, where it is also probably maintained and updated better. Kusma(討論) 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Proto||type 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while a well-defined list and tehrefore not indiscriminate, it's value is limited. Peyna 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a random list. Not listcruft, but not encyclopaedic either. Stifle 01:23, 5 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. W.marsh 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be part of an edit war over the Jung Sin Yuk-Do entry, and one side put this up to slap the other side, which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are too many 'he did this' and 'he didn't do that but should have' lines; also, it links several times to the same martial arts entry, so I wonder about this entry's importance. ddlamb 09:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there's a substantial article left over following removal of the POV stuff Ruby 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! W.marsh 05:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Google test with 43 hits [7], of which 2 are links to the Wikipedia entry. --Alan Au 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. --Nlu (talk) 10:58, 9 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. W.marsh 05:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to the Music standards, poorly written, nothing links here. I am always reluctant to nominate for speedy delete, but this could go there. ddlamb 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NMG. The last sentence about their song getting played on radio station is a small claim, so no speedy. PJM 12:37, 3 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. W.marsh 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently created by one of the two members of the band (see image creation comments), does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, album appears to only be available as free download from their website. Delete -- The Anome 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:40, 3 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. W.marsh 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert signifigance, quasi-attack, uncited. Always happy to reconsider if new information provided. brenneman(t)(c) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, POV. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. An aweful little entry. PJM 12:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above. ENCEPHALON 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a speedy for attack, lack of content --Jarandawat's sup 22:52, 3 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. W.marsh 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is completely redundant with Category:Archaeological sites by country. All entries on the list are in that category under their respective country or a subcategory (Like Category:Roman sites in Italy. The list is un-dynamic, unweildy, large, incomplete and impossible to keep updated. No annotations or other supplemental information are included in the list, very few red links are listed. Many items on the list are not archaeological sites at all, but instead are archaeological cultures, cites with no record of archaeology, entire regions of a country or significant archaeological artifacts. The category is more useful and requires much less maintenace to keep current. Currently both the category and the list are listed in Category:Archaeological sites making navigation to the category as easy as navigation to the list, and the list does not have a record of frequent edits. Pschemp | Talk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as lists and categories serve different functions. Also I'm interested in ancient China and there are three or so red links on this list I can work on. (That said I think Bampo is likely red because it's meant to be Banpo)--T. Anthony 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be kept since it does offer a page where you can at least find a few archaeological sites in a country - at the moment I am carrying out research relating to france and have found it v useful. [3rd Feb 2006] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.1.53 (talk • contribs)
Keep. I'm not a listmonger, but this one seems worthy enough and useful. PJM 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant list duplicates category. MLA 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to contemplate keeping this list would be for the red links. But those could be readily merged into the individual national category pages under Category:Archaeological sites by country. So my preference would be to delete after preserving the red links. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the red links have been listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy in the archaeology section. Now there is no need to keep it for future articles. Some of them I stubbed before I realized they should go to the requests page, but they are all there. Pschemp | Talk 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate is always bad. The fact that it shows red links is IMHO not sufficient reason to keep it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to category, and too big, and probably POV, and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Stifle 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much more convenient that a whole bunch of categories with 2 items apiece. Kappa 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to beleive the list is more convenient when it doesn't even include half of the countries in the category. I don't think its correct to sacrifice accuracy of information for ease in an enclyclopedia. Would you like to volunteer to keep this list up to date then? Because in its current, error filled state, its neither useful or convienient. Pschemp | Talk 05:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I much prefer lists anyhow, even though I admit categories have their place alongside them. Jcuk 00:02, 7 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 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sweetie Petie 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO. PJM 12:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Idol contestant. MLA 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge/redirect to Pop Idol (unredirect when expanded). If an article is complete, precident is to keep articles of finalists on the various nation's Idol series. Repeat appearance on a major national show is good justification for inclusion. When there's minimal content, beyond the person's appearance, the standard is to put info about the person in the main article, and leave a redirect in place. There's no reason for not giving somebody a relevant result when searching for this person. --Rob 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Finalists are never non-notable for any Idol show. Could use expansion though. CrazyC83 06:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - all the finalists are arguably notable. Runcorn 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough: millions of people know who she is. WP:PAPER. Turnstep 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Turnstep. Kappa 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. With the current information on the page, I can expand it somewhat to include career info. ZlatkoT 04:04, 10 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. W.marsh 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable combat reenactments club. No Google hits for Leathernecks Ledrhals (except Wikipedia). No assertion of notability. Article neglected since it was created by 81.98.161.161 (talk·contribs) on 2005-09-10. Delete—Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 11:56Z
Delete per nom. PJM 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 13:52, 3 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. W.marsh 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete grandfather vanity. Melaen 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor who has published many books [8]. I removed the "grandfather" vanity paragraph. —Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 12:27Z
Keep per Quarl, notable published professor. Proto||type 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder if you actually looked at those books. The most notable one, he just wrote a foreword for. The rest appear to be stuff put out by the university that aren't even books, but just random publishings. Certainly nothing above and beyond the average professor. Peyna 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawing my vote which was based solely on the publishing aspect, as other claims to notability have come forth. Peyna 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Received recognition from the American Anthropological Association. 161 Google scholar results [10]. Capitalistroadster 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand No Guru 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I knew Aram when he was at Michigan. He is a well known and widely loved anthropologist. The bulk of his career came before the web, so it's no surprise he's not well represented on google, but he is notable, in my opinion. This stub needs expansion, not deletion. —rodii 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially per Monicasdude. Turnstep 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete not verifiable, attack page, not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia 2775 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. However, I don't see it as a blatant attack page. PJM 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - storm-in-a-tea-cup. Who cares? Camillus (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is so small potatoes it can't help but be original research. Ruby 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like some made up story. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me like a disgruntled ex-employee who luckily left before he made good on his many threats (I'll stab you in your eye till it bleeds! I'm going to kill all the reference librarians!)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 pages. There was no opposition here to deleting the disambig page, and though the other page to which it disambiguates remains, it's the only page that does, so there is no longer a need to disambiguate. --W.marsh 05:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web forum: 217 registered members. See also SGCSim (Computer Program) (AfD discussion). I am also including the disambig page in this AFD because it only points to the web forum and the non-notable software article. Delete—Quarl(talk)2006-02-03 12:35Z
Delete. per nom. Even the simulator page is on thin ice. Metta Bubble 13:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even merging all these articles wouldn't save them. Kusma(討論) 14:49, 3 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. W.marsh 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer. Was previously tagged for speedy delete at this diff. Speedy tag removed due to claim of notability. Nonsense later added. Singer's bio does not show notability. Non-nonsense section of article is one line plus a link to the musician's homepage. MLA 12:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. vanity page. Also, if we do have an article called Adam Daniel it should link to the polish diplomant, not this yet to be notable muso. Metta Bubble 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense Ruby 13:50, 3 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. – ABCDe✉ 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Nothing in the article states what is significant about this person, nor are any references provided.
Preserve Hi! Im Maritess Garcia, a colleague of Marko Altomonte. I would like to inform you that Marko Altomonte is NOT related to the Altomonte family where it was said that they knew the location of the Romanovs. I have revised the article to really expose what he is. Please read the article now.
Delete I did a Google search but couldn't find any relevant hits. Bombycil 12:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. google can't even find this guy or his family. Metta Bubble 13:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biography. Most likely to be vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:01, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website is not notable and obscure. The entire page was made by webmasters at the website.-Jersey Devil 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to be the personal website of a guy who is a red link Ruby 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity site. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you check this out? This is well-known site, I believe, well thought of by many. Also Dysfunctional Family Circus is pretty much a web legend, I would say. BTW it was not made by webmasters at the site - the original stub was by Schumin (of the Schumin Web) who, far from being a webmaster, has been a target of Galcik's japes, and it was fleshed out by me -- I have no connection with the site, except that I visit the forums on rare occasions. Herostratus 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Elkman 22:35, 8 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 04:49, 9 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 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator StarryEyes 13:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Maustrauser 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is "Scheduled for release in early summer of 2006" Ruby 13:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity ad. Films from non-notable production companies are likely to be a hoax or non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:56, 3 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 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks any context for the subject. After reading the article I still have no idea what it is trying to talk about. Normally I would tag this with CSD A1; however, based on the number of times I get overridden I assume I do not interpret A1 correctly. If anyone agrees that this is a CSD A1 please feel free to tag the article appropriately. James084 13:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no context. Show on what network? What kind of celebrities? Ruby 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Ruby. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking context. Stifle 01:25, 5 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 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
allmusic.com has never heard of this band or either of the albums they are supposed to have released. Google search on "funkhouser" doesn't appear to bring up anything on this band, and a search on "funkhouser uberfunk" returns 0 hits. —Wrathchild(talk) 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Ruby 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is an Austrian group named "Funkhouser," and the Funkhouser entry has now been changed and describes accurately this group and gives a link to their web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.124.173 (talk • contribs) 10:52, February 8, 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 speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an ad for a Network mapping and SNMP monitoring software that is copied directly from netwhistler.spb.ru (though that page is under copyright, I figured the source is not a commercial provider, so I didn't want to speedy it for that). I don't know how notable this tool is, but in view of the circumstances this article is not encyclopedic. - squibix(talk) 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Recreation of deleted content. [11] Adding the speedy tag now. Powers 15:03, 3 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 for the obvious reasons below. Hedley 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perth article. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect - WP:APT. Proto||type 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — pure promotional advertising. I'm surprised it isn't longer. — RJH 16:24, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Or merge as per Alexcovington. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP not a how to, but if this is merged it should say something about opening the lid before trying to burn out any remaining gas in the pipe, that is how my boss got the nickname "Flash" Ruby 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle 01:31, 5 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 Donovan File. – ABCDe✉ 22:46, 3 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 KeepMarskell 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little or no context. James084 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's the debut album by bossa nova legend João Gilberto; it's also widely considered as the first bossa nova album, and if that isn't enough, it's also a Grammy Hall of Fame album. I'll go ahead and clean it up.--み使いMitsukai 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page as edited by Mitsukai meets applicable standards. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Mitsukai has added indication of notability and some cleanup. I'm now persuaded this was significant enough to be a strong keep. Barno 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The version that James put on AfD was barely anything more than a track listing, but I don't think there could be any doubt anymore that this meets and greatly exceeds our notability criteria. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. It is a well-known album. Carioca 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm fed up up of instant deletes from people. Gareth E Kegg 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, Gareth, but have you checked the edit history of the article? I did the same thing; I said "My God, how could anyone think a João Gilberto album was non-notable?" only to check and find that the "article" as it had been at the time of nomination didn't even have the artist's name. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Antaeus. If it wasn't for the fact that I own a copy and recognized the songs, I probably would have voted delete based on the condition of the article.--み使いMitsukai 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable album for reasons listed above. Capitalistroadster 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a gold star for Mitsukai for saving it. - Bobet 00:17, 5 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 Neopets; if there's anything worth merging, feel free to be bold. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, neopet object Melaen 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone can demonstrate that this genre of pestilential creations is inherently less notable than the pestilential creations from cult films, comics, anime, etc, etc, whose individual pages currently infest Wikipedia. The underlying principle for proposing deletions like this seems to be that entertaining x million preteens isn't notable, but entertain x/10 million socially inept adolescents is notable. Monicasdude 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge anything worthwile & redir to neopet. and redirect all the other crap like this in wikipedia while you're at it. or resurrect subpages; they're perfect for fancruft. Derex 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:05, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author of two self-published books, includes advertising linkspam. Both books are on Amazon and together have 5 customer reviews, all of which were added within two weeks or so before these page on Wikipedia, all give 5 stars, and most of them include the same advertising links - this reeks of vanity spoofs. The same Wikipedia user has also created Mythopoesis, which is an OR essay advertising the very same two books.
I am also nominating Mythopoesis, for the above reasons. Delete both. Lukas(T.|@) 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. I doubt whether he sold 5,000 books for example. Sounds like self promotion. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete as vanity, unless evidenmce of notability is cited. DES(talk) 16:30, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating Mythopoesis, for the above reasons. Delete both. Lukas(T.|@) 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay, but "Mythopoesis" is a real term that was coined by, I think, CS Lewis. Deleting this guy sounds fine.--T. Anthony 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't mind keeping Mythopoesis as a redirect to Mythopoeic literature, now that you mention it. Perhaps we should separate the discussions for the two entries, after all. A bit unorthodox, but is it okay if I just introduce subsection headings for the two? Sorry for the confusion. Lukas(T.|@) 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comments after the split:
I have removed the advertisign links. Absent these, thsi is a reasoanble topic, although the present article needs considerable improvement. Keep and cleanup, although i wouldn't object to a redirect to Mythopoeic literature, as suggested above. DES(talk) 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this violates the WP:NOR policy. Atrian 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might. My only objection on the previous was dealt with on finding the article Mythopoeic literature. This might be a slightly different topic, but if so the non-original stuff could just be merged or something.--T. Anthony 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify my vote, after this discussion: Redirect to Mythopoeic literature. Not much non-OR stuff here that would be worth merging. Lukas(T.|@) 22:19, 4 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 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally tagged this as {{nn-bio}}, but somebody disagreed. Biography of a colonist in Van Diemen's Land, makes no assertion of importance. DeleteKusma(討論) 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (but a nicely-written genealogical piece nevertheless). Given the quantity of articles re this family, can we talk of the thin end of the Wedge? Staffelde 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a well-written article on a early settler of both Tasmania and Victoria but he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Perhaps the author could set up a Geocities page or similar free pages. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to disagree with the others above. This fellow seems a fairly significant settler in two areas of Australia and the article is a usefull source for someone studying early settlement. That is what pedias are for. --Bduke 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain in which way this settler is significant other than by being an early settler? Kusma(討論) 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Squatters were fairly significant people. This one was one of the earliest settlers near Werribee, an area South-West of Melbourne that made many people very rich in later years. Bduke 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke --kingboyk 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bduke. Cnwb 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the notability of the article is not especially evident right now, but that this will become more apparent as the article goes beyond stub status. Donama 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. - Synapse 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. Stifle 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, squatters & settlers in the early 1800s were fairly significant people. - Synapse 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of the historic record. Kappa 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it pains me deeply to say it, I don't think this qualifies as encyclopedic. If there were sources cited that demonstrated that this settler was not just one of the settlers, I'd reconsider. We should (and do) have articles that talk about the general case, but I don't see what this article brings to the table. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC) This doesn't say explicitly "delete" because it's not a vote and brenneman's opinion is clear. [reply]
Delete Some sqiatters like John Batman were notable but there were many squatters and they do not all deserve a page. This sounds like a page of family folklore--Porturology 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that articles on historic figures should be held to the same motability standard as modern vanity bios. Wikipedia is not paper. --Martyman-(talk) 05:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is still remembered 200 years later as someone whose activities had an impact/taught lessons for those who followed him later, which makes him more notable than, eg an AFL footballer, reality show contestants, local pub musicians, etc. Blnguyen 07:24, 8 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 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 01:32, 5 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 delmikka(t) 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources cited for widespread use of thios as a meme or a phrase symbolic of a life style or culture trend. If reliabele sources are cited tot hsi effect thsi should be kept. but otherwise not. Delete. DES(talk) 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- gtdp[T]/[C] 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism "attributed to a locally renound Surrey disc jockey. " Ruby 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Latinus 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hardly a neologism - the nearest it comes to that is adding hyphens to a looong-used phrase. But that's all it is: A phrase. An idiom. A figure of speech. As such, if belongs in Wiktionary (without the hyphens), but should be deleted from Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Says this Wiktionarian, no thank you. It's not really idiomatic enough to merit an entry in Wikt, either. — Dvortygirl 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Definately a thoroughly precise definition I back it up completely! This deserves a place in wikipedia for ever. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.254.50 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero applicable ghits, no alexa ranking Ruby 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, advertising. MLA 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, possible speedy as per {{db-nocontext}}. Stifle 01:32, 5 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 01:29, 9 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 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although Runescape Community seems to be a major site, it would be a bit of a stretch to include anything more than the current contents of the stub. It also failed to be included in the "External links" section of RuneScape - and none of the sites listed in the external links section of RuneScape have their own articles. It would be more logical to debate the addition of RuneScape Community to RuneScape's external links than simply create an article that will always remain a stub. Someone42 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add link to RuneScape, per nom. Powers 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was decided for only 5 links to be on RuneScape as it got too large, but this was not one of them. So this doesn't deserve a mention on the article, so definitely fails to get its own article. J.J.Sagnella 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created to promote site. Vanity.-Jersey Devil 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. RS Community is simply Zybez's forum.
2. Fansites don't get their own articles. It would be a different story if there was an article called RuneScape Fansites (which won't be created by me because J.J.Sagnella and friends would pounce on me)
3. This article has no content whatsoever. Dtm142 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not really notable, and it's a fansite. — Indi[ talk ] 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article can't even be expanded, let alone that it holds no prevelant information now. --Driken 19:50, 7 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 01:28, 9 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 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN vanity. Machinima production group. Google gives 77 results, mostly unrelated. Article created by a group member. I'm getting sick of this crap. Existence does not equate notability. Drat (Talk) 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a confused mess. Note that the RTE quoted is not the Irish national broadcaster. Stifle 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sorry, but having a listing on machinima.com is insufficient, in and of itself, for notability. -- TKD 22:13, 5 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. I'm closing this early per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings because it's clear that there is a consensus (I count 17 Keep, 4 Delete) to keep. Moreover, it's seems inconceivable to me that the tide could change so drastically that a consensus in the other direction could possibly evolve. On top of all that, the debate has turned into a nasty brawl, which is never a good thing. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is based on a premise not in evidence, namely that there is a unified movement called "anti-vaccinationists." There isn't even a single mention of the term in a Google search. The editor is trying to cram every single objection to vaccinations into this article, thereby burying these objections under a blanket category that isn't even exist. --Leifern 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were called anti-vaccinists in smallpox days. john 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Smallpox days there was only one vaccine. Midgley 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, what was the Google search that was made, please? Midgley 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous pages created by Ombudsman suggest there is indeed a movement, but it has awarded itself more glorious names. If there is organised opposition against vaccination, then these objectors are anti-vaccinationists. A BMJ paper is usually enough to establish independent notability. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is being used as part of a POV war by a group of medical contributors - a partial list found here [[12]]. It is their latest tactic. They are at present hoovering up numerous Wikipedia pages containing information they do not agree with, dumping it here to marginalise it. A recent example which is a safety issue and is not "anti-vaccine" but a concern to protect infants and children worldwide is the demand for the complete removal of the mercury neurotoxin thiomersal/thimerosal from childhood vaccines - see [[13]].
They have invented a broad definition of "anti-vaccinationist" to catch anything that remotely could be considered critical of the medical profession and harm caused by their use of vaccination - see [[14]] and the agenda.
Here are recent page deletion attempts (another new tactic to strangle Wiki pages almost before they have emerged from "stubdom") [[15]]
This critique exemplifies how they use RfC's and suchlike to attack users who contribute to pages they disagree with [[16]]
Here are examples of edit histories showing a small number of the kinds of pages where some of the people identified here [[[[17]]]] are active on these issues:-
This kind of activity is an anathema to Wikipedia and is extremely damaging to its concept as an encyclopedia and the objective of NPOV. It can also be seen from the above and the deletion of the information from the Thimerosal page that the following comment by one of this determined band of individuals is not true:-
Strictly, at least in my concept of the article, which is subject to change in the wiki, it isn't about the objections to vaccinations! It is about the people making them, how they are made, and less about the relationship of the objections to truth than the behaviour of the people and the torpes or memes when it is demonstrated sufficiently clerly for most people that an objection is not grounded in objective reality (usually that is it scopied a few more hundred times and not corrected anywhere) Midgley 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following comment moved for continuity of response - posted regarding paragraph above commencing "Here are recent page deletion attempts "
The following comment will be about other pages and other requests for deletion, and will say the author knows what the comment to be made next will say, and that it won't be true. I have been editing WP for only half a year and am unaccustomed to reversed timelines. Midgley 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that. It is most helpful and enlightening and will be borne in mind on future occasions, should similar circumstances prevail. The Invisible Anon 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this writing my user page is included in the list of users that this anon claims are a group of medical contributors engaging in a POV war. This represents a big presumption of bad faith on the anon's part. I sort of think I should complain to someone about his assertion, but it is such an outlandish claim I cannot think anyone would take it seriously. What should I do? Steve Kd4ttc 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not enter into dialogue with me on my talk page and we can discuss what is troubling you look at the evidence and see how we can resolve it by mature dialogue? The Invisible Anon 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon is advised that references to groups or cabals of Wikipedia editors in a fashion that attributes a bad faith intent is not in keeping with traditions established on Wikipedia. Your behavior can result in sanctions against you. You should take steps to eliminate you accusations. Kd4ttc 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate forum to deal with this in on my talk page. I invite you again to please discuss the matter in the appropriate forum - on my user page. This is an RfD and does not therefore appear to be the appropriate forum. I also came across this comment from Kd4ttc by chance, having been waiting for a message to appear on the talk page. The Invisible Anon 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite have contructed a nice nickname, this user (86.10.231.219) is not registered and the closing admin may want to keep this in mind when tallying. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Votes of anons do count. Need strong evidence of bad faith not to count them. See [Rough Consensus] ".... administrators can disregard opinions and comments if ... strong evidence ... not made in good faith ... "bad faith" opinions include those made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Check my edit history for evidence of good faith and do not presume bad faith. The Invisible Anon 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please also note explanation [[18]], acceptance of explanation [[19]] and further dialogue to take place on David Ruben's talk page. The Invisible Anon 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People who are opposed to vaccination exist; trying to claim they don't is simply absurd. Michael Ralston 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but they are not a unified group, and many of those who are opposed to one vaccination policy are not against another. --Leifern 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you give an example of that? Nobody else has, in the large discussion. Midgley 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here [20] among many many others. --Leifern 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People can be vegetarians for many reasons. Some oppose killing animals for food. Some believe that grazing cattle for food is an inefficient use of natural resources. Some feel that a meatless diet is healthier. Some have discovered that vegetables are less expensive. Still, we have an article on vegetarianism. This doesn't rule out the creation of subarticles to discuss the different aspects of vegetarianism—indeed, as the main article has grown, many articles describing various aspects of vegetarianism have been spun off. A similar process has taken place at conservatism, with appropriate subarticles addressing the many disparate social and economic philosophies that can fall under the 'conservative' banner.
Perhaps move this stuff over to anti-vaccination movement and parcel it up from there, but I think it's quite appropriate to have an article on this topic. That there are different philosophies and degrees of opposition to vaccination should not preclude Wikipedia from discussing the forest as well as the trees. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent example of the idea, es, but I actually wondered if anyone would produce a particular person or group who goes to the trouble of broadcasting that they are against vaccine A but for vaccines B C D E F G H I and J. I'm sure there are plenty of people who hold those views on their own, but is what was asserted demonstrated, that that viewpoint is pressed upon others. Midgley 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss all skepticism to vaccines under one category is misleading - there is an Anti-Vaccination League, but it is not clear or documented how many of those who perhaps oppose thimerosal, or combining multiple vaccines, or innoculating against every childhood disease would sign up with the Anti-Vaccination League. --Leifern 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify or document part of that, please? Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I get 591 google hits[21] inlcudeing this one[22]. Yahoo gives out 578 hits[23].Geni 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I'm not sure if this is the best title for the information, but there's a lot of thorougly referenced stuff that we really shouldn't lose. Parts of this were also transferred from other articles in a noble effort to reduce duplication and edit warring. I could see this particular term being redirected to vaccine controversy at some point in the future, with the content preserved there and in new articles under (perhaps) anti-vaccination movement and thimerosal controversy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it is a fallacy to assume that all skepticism to thimerosal or a particular vaccination schedule, etc., is caused by individuals who are categorically against vaccinations, as the editor and title seems to suggest. Vaccine controversy is framed as a neutral description of the controversy with plenty of space for both sides of the issue. This article commits several rhetorical fallacies. --Leifern 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reason to edit it - not to delete it. Michael Ralston 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the criteria for describing a group of people, and labeling it as such, is that one can carefully define who they are, ideally that they self-identify using a label that is similar to the title used in the article, and distinguishing them from others is meaningful. I am not opposed to presenting the content that is jammed into this article, but it needs to be presented where it makes sense. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TenOfAllTrades, is that a keep, redirect or merge vote? JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes it is. :D It strikes me as reasonably obvious that at this point the page in question isn't going to reach a consensus for deletion, so I'm trying to move on to some sort of sensible discussion of what should happen after this nomination closes. AfD is supposed to be about more than votes; there's good information in the article; as the article stands it needs some serious refactoring and possibly renaming; the closing admin for this AfD isn't going to be able to fix everything magically at the end of the discussion period, so we're going to have to talk about this; you can take those points in any order you like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of evidence, including on Wikipedia, that opponents of vaccination have organised themselves and have a collective viewpoint that can be dealt with in an encyclopedic fashion. A paper in the BMJ and numerous extant organisations most eloquently argue against Leifern's assertions. The main representatives of this movement here on Wikipedia (Ombudsman, Leifern, Whaleto, 86.10.231.219) will have various claims but none stand up to serious scrutiny. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation that I represent an anti-vaccinationist movement is false and unfounded. Please retract. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I retract that you represent the movement, I do not retract that you have consistently come to the defense of said representatives. JFW | T@lk 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also false and unfounded. I have simply tried to make sure that their side is represented accurately. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete: This article's development has been afforded a great deal of latitude, with relatively gentle suggestions to tone down the rhetoric rather than wholesale content deletions, but little has been done to deliver even a modicum of npov. With all due respect to those who have made good faith efforts to establish a viable article, the pov seems to have worsened, the discussion veers away from the anachronistic 'anti-vaccinationists' toward attacks on modern vaccine critics, and even the dispute tag keeps getting removed. Although there is a place for both 'anti-vax' and 'vax critics' articles, this particular article can be described by a singe word: unsalvageable. Ombudsman 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But first: why isn't this AfD listed under Feb 2 Leifern? I can't find it on that page. Second, why have the keeps and comments of DavidRuben and Midgley disappeared? Third, "The Invisible Anon" (86.10.231.219) is pretending to be a registered user (why, for the love of God, why??!!?), and is a sock puppet for all intensive purposes. This article is in desperate need of a very thorough NPOVing (and cleanup); I haven't done anything since it would turn into a three way edit war between NPOV, the anti-vax POV and the anti-anti-vax POV. Since all the articles John (Whaleto) has been creating about anti-vaxers have been essentially one-liners (created for the purpose of smearing the practice of vaccination) and no other bio info can be found, this article needs to incorporate all those bios. Does nobody read about the proper way to create articles and behave anymore?? --CDN99 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened - I followed the directions scrupulously. My suggestion for the Invisible Anon is that we don't count his/her vote, but we should certainly take seriously his/her arguments. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"'The Invisible Anon' .... is a sock puppet", "is pretending to be a registered user",
This is 1) presuming bad faith when none 2) alleging fraudulent behaviour when none and 3) no 'strong evidence of bad faith presented (there is none and plenty of good faith - see edit hist) - and which is required otherwise the vote counts. The Invisible Anon 13:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid.Source. 1) your opinion is being voiced anonymously, 2) your opinion is being voiced anonymously and 3) your opinion is being voiced anonymously. You are an IP, there is no way to tell if that "good faith" was presented by you or someone else. --CDN99 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anon Votes Count. Haven't you noticed, practically everyone on Wikipedia is anonymous? Have you put your real identity on Wikipedia? If not then are you saying your vote does not count too?
There has to be strong evidence of bad faith, not lots of good faith like I have here.
Strictly, "everyone on WP is pseudonymous" is more nearly correct than "everyone... is anonymous". Usernames secured by passwords and logged provide fairly strong evidence of continued identity, whereas an IP address does not. Ross Anderson (Cambridge U) and others have written a lot about that and discussion on the UK-Crypto list has turned to it from time to time. It is relevant to medical records and communications, that's why I'm able to make this small digression. Midgley 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please also note explanation [[24]], acceptance of explanation [[25]] and further dialogue to take place on David Ruben's talk page. The Invisible Anon 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an attempt my Madge to delete by merger all my vaccine critic pages into one dog's dinner he created to push his POV. He has kept out one of my main assertions, for example. A vaccinator creating an anti-vaccine page, says it all. And a big cheek considering this was my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_critics Click on that. john 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my link. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Wikipedia's policy on article ownership—while contributions are welcome from everyone, nobody owns the pages that they work on. As it says under the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please work this out through discussion rather than namecalling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important Point - Summaryjohn's concern is valid in general regarding page hijacking:-
This is an untrue assertion, unbacked by any indication (eg from the page history) that a page existed which I hijacked. It is probably a lie, but could in other people be a misapprehension due to not understanding how to read the history of a page (which Ombudsman has effectively pointed out, I am not perfect at, yet). I started the page. John has made significant additions to it which are definitely of value in teh article that is evolving. Without re-reading the history, my recollection is that Ombudsman's (a bad name offering a false impression of offical status I deprecate) contributions have been restricted to adding tags and barracking on the talk page. I assert bad faith.
a strident pro-vaccine editor Midgley, who with support from an identifiable alliance of editors, has been scurrying around Wikipedia deleting anything in sight to do with what he calls anti-vaccine information and takes over a page originally intended to set out the view of vaccine critics;
This is simply a lie. I created the page de novo. Other pages have existed, one probably was created to set out hte view of a group who the author asserted were not "anti-vaccinationist" but "critics" and was deleted after WP procedure. (After several references to vaccine_critics and Ombudsman's changing the name of the existing page to vaccine_critics, I attempted to resolve this in a helpful fashion to anyone who wanted to read about vaccine critics by making a redirect to the page in question. Redirects are cheap. Anyone who wants to write vaccine_critics as vaccine critics and demonstrate a distinction is perfectly at liberty to actually do so, just undo the redirect.)Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
vaccine critics are predominantly not anti-vaccinationists;
THis is discussed on the talk page, and is an asertion that could be tested by demonstration of the separate populations, which might well make a good addition to this or an article. Ombudsman asserts that he knows about this... but doesn't actually write about it or provide references. I think that it is untrue, but that it is possible to believe that he believes it himself Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he then turns the page into a page about anti-vaccinationists - a movement which appears from what he has put on this page, to have died out in the 1800's;
Untrue see above. Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is no page suitable for setting out the views of the modern day vaccine critics;
write, then Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
he then hijacks material which is not anti-vaccine but about ensuring what is in the vaccines are safe (removal of thimerosal/mercury vaccine additive), and dumps it here together with lots of other information which does not seem to naturally belong here;
That is another page. It is now two other pages. Both of them are IMHO quite good pages, Thimerosal was poor before and is now an unremarkable page giving a good account of a chemical, Thimerosal controversy is pretty good also, and gives an account of the controversy. Leifern, whom I regard as unduly hasty, rude and insufficiently careful in rawing conclusions, as well as clearly having a deep personal feeling about THimerosal, did a good bit of page creation, which I believe he would not have done without my beingbold. Credit me with an assist on that goal, and the paragraph and links the edits distilled into on the article in question is I think quite good. Credit for that to one of the commentators on the Talk:Thimerosal page.
I can only laugh at your characterization of my personality. You deleted an entire section of a relatively stable though highly controversial article, stuffed it into another article with a misleading title. That is far far far from the outcome. As for my feelings and motivations, I can only note that they keep being mischaracterized constantly. What I have made abundantly clear to you is that I believe the public has a right to make an informed judgment on thimerosal by understanding the full controversy. Any responsible physician would agree with me both out of moral conviction and legal necessity. It amazes me that you are indicting my motivation on that basis. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a responsible physician. Your version of an article would be along the lines of "Thimerosal is bad and does harm in teh following ways. BTW, here is somethign abu its chemistry." We now have an article about its chemistry, which is quite good, we also have an article about the arguments over how bad it is and whether it does harm, which is an argument which has been assimilated by a population of people who wish to abolish all vaccination for a disparate overlapping collection of reasons, as well as - I think, and Leifern asserts - being used by people who are in favour of some vaccinations, or even all vaccinations, except if they contain deliberate or perhaps molecule-couting traces of Thiomersal. THe world is complex and fluffy - Lefern displays a tendency to being concrete. And should not assume that any Physician who disagrees with his ordering of data is not a responsible one. Not publicly. Not in WP. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank you, Migdley, not to put words in my mouth. And the controversy about Thimerosal is not about "molecule-counting." If the world is complex and fluffy (notwithstanding your baseless allegation of my "tendencies" - one of several ad hominems against me by you and others, I might add), then we owe it to our readers to present accurately the state of various controversies. Lumping all reservations against all aspects of vaccines under an article about anti-vaccinationists does not accomplish that. --Leifern 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every part of this process is entirely innocent of any improvement by Ombudsman or the possibly distinct 86.10.231.219, as actually is any argument about the relationship between vaccine protests and protestors and complaints about Thimerosal. Restored froamtting. Edit carefully please. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: this page is a fraud and cannot possibly remain on Wikipedia. The anachronism of the alleged "anti-vaccinationist" movements of the 1800s have nothing to do with the concerns and criticism about the harms associated with the explosion in use of vaccines in the past 20 years for infants and under 5's. It is a gross mish-mash and babel.
THere is a challenge and response - one can't say a dialogue - on the talk page headed "historicity". THere is a point in there. THe assertion above is not supportd by fact, and derives from the BMJ paper and other material. It would be possible, and perhaps interesting, to argue that there is a clear discontinuity - that argument has not occurred some people, having learned nothing from history, wish to condemn us to repeat it(mashing some quotations there.). Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As CDN99 said above "I haven't done anything since it would turn into a three way edit war between NPOV, the anti-vax POV and the anti-anti-vax POV." It is difficult to see that was anything other than the intention of Midgley and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia pages to be created and used in that way. It must go. No one should be expected to try to get this page into NPOV shape in such aggressively antagonistic circumstances, seemingly created intentionally.
Alternative conclusion: this response is a tissue of deliberate lies. Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this assumes that vaccine detractors only have concern for a single specific issue, rather than jumping on every possible theory (whether conventional conjecture/hypothesis or new-age alternativism) to dismiss vaccinations, micro-organisms as cause of disease etc. It also assumes that vaccines cause 'harm', something that the overwhelming majority of doctors, researchers, statisticians, epidemiologists, health policy advisors and governments across the world find no evidence for.
- The meaning of 'harm' is here used to imply a generalised nature inherent in the procedure, rather than any specific individual's mild reaction, or very rare more serious reaction - one can reject a blanket view that 'antibiotics are harmful' (I've seen a couple of children nearly die from cellulitis due to parental disbelief of conventional medicine/antibiotics vs homeopathy) as separate from 'some people experience discrete allergic reaction to individual drugs'
- The proposition initial use of the phrase 'a group of medical contributors' might imply some equivalence in the numbers of people on each side of a debate. However anti-vaccinators are numerically a tiny minority view-point. Were it not for how vocal & strident they were, nor the media's fixation with sensationalist reporting, then their views would not be notable to the vast majority and would be denied credence under WP's policy of not accepting trivial minority view-points. However this is clearly not the case and the media-sociological 'controversy' is notable and therefore should be noted within WP.
The vocal detractors do form an anti-vaccine (and anti-medicine) sentiment, even if one accepts that some only have single concerns rather than accepting entirely the general conspiracy belief. However the various web sites duplicate unverifiable, poorly cited non-evidence based references and manage to confuse journalists, and thus the public, neither of whom have a responsibility for critical-reading of pseudoscience's obscurification. Yes people are entitled to good quality information (after all it is reasonable to ask if everyone else is vaccinated what is the utility in the remaining individuals having a vaccine ?) but this is what pier-reviewed journals, governments & medicine generally seeks to do. With UK official estimates of over a hundred children dying as a consequence of poor uptake of Pertusis vaccine with no eventual proof found for the assertion it causes neurological damage, anti-vaccination movement is clearly real and posses a threat to societies wellbeing, however well intentioned individual anti-vaccinationists are. David RubenTalk 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out, but it is a nonsense and instead of levelling accusations you should have sought explanation.
Contrary to your allegation, shooting first and then asking questions, you presume I have intentionally deleted text. If you take another look at the text you will see that there is a stub of text which would not be left by someone intentionally deleting votes:-
"- :::A reason to edit it - not to ..." from a posting by Michael Ralston 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You will also see that I had been editing the page at the time.
I regularly copy and paste the text from the window as I edit to save it and can have several windows open at once. It is quite clear to me that a chunk of text has been deleted from a window with nothing intentional about it. Take a look elsewhere through all my edits and see if I have done anything like it. You will not find it because I have not. If I had deleted text intentionally, I would not have been banging on about my good faith.
Also, no one would deliberately delete for example Midgley's vote, the chief protagonist in the matter. That would be so obviously noticed and there were very few votes in any event and people will have pages on their watch lists.
You might like to look at this text of mine [[26]] deleted in its entirety by Midgley. Are you going to accuse Midgley of deleting it deliberately so that my vote would not be counted? No you will not. So kindly afford me the same courtesy and do not be so quick to accuse. It is done with monotonous regularity in these pages and it is so unnecessary.
I accept your explanation & apology (I think) regarding the deletion, however:
-I can't engage in dialogue if you are an anon user without their own user page/talk-page.
-WP normally posts a warning if I inadvertently engage in an edit conflict, does being anon alter how WP works for you?
-You had edited 4 times after CDN99 had pointed out the deletions without identifying your role in this and correcting.
I'm sure we can both accept we are never likely to agree on the topic of vaccination, but both 'sides' exist and can't in truth dismiss the existence of the other. Other topics are strongly argued over (eg Electroconvulsive therapy, but there is no denying that the detractors highlighted a very badly referenced article, and the debate improves the discussion of both sides, even if no final consensus yet reached). Is not POV/NPOV debate something for a talk page to reach a consensus (or at least agreement on where to disagree, e.g. abortion or contraception pages), rather than outright deletion? I think some of 'detractors' comments in the talk page have been very constructive, even if they clearly dislike having in principle an article that focuses on a (loose) movement. David RubenTalk 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, thank you for the professional and helpful tone of this posting. I will respond to your talk page, hopefully without inadvertently deleting anything else on this page. The Invisible Anon 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is an interesting topic with ramifications, which would not be better dealt with by spreading it out into each and every article that mentions vaccines. Midgley 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- :Comment: It is not based on a premise as given in the delete header. Leifern has not had sufficient time to read teh large collection of material already there, which probably accounts for that false meta-premise. It does assert that there is a commonlaity, a thread in history, and a collection of unifying themes whisch make this a social phenomenom of some note. It is interesting that some vry clearly identified members of the class are resisting attempts to describe the tendency they put signifciant effort into, and asserting that things are unknown or material does not exist, rather than adding or finding any. I'm impressed with Geni's demonstration fo good material in moments, if not with Leifern's apparent Google search - perhaps it was an inadvertent miskeying. Midgley 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is a real movement (albeit perhaps loosely co-ordinated) as witnessed by any health worker who daily comes across the fear & rejection of generally safe & effective vaccinations by parents who are understandably reacting to the cynical nonsence targeted at them. To see the distress of a child then going through 3-months of whooping cough, or suffer perminant hearing loss that could have been prevented by MMR vaccination is an outrage, however some in alternative medicine would dispute that microorganisms cause diseases at all. Then again its only doctors/schools/health departments/researchers/government health-policy that try to be proactive and prevent this, but they are all in a financial conspiracy according to anti-vaccinationists whose concience need not be troubled by having to take responsibility.
Whilst I agree that vaccine controversy links with this, the overall subject is too large for one article. Vaccine controversy should discuss the overall subject matter and the major controversies (pertussis and now currently MMR & thimerosal), whilst this one explores the individuals, movements and specific arguments raised. As will be seen in this article, the point-by-point demolishing of the anti-vaccinationists' pseudoscience requires great detail, that has been carefully collected cited and verified in this article. Unfortunately I suspect that the complexity of the subject matter will probably preclude it from every being a FA.David RubenTalk 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We assert that all of your above points are 100% untrue. Over 100 children every year are killed by vaccines in the USA, which is just the tip of the iceberg. This is pseudo science by the bucketload [[deprecated source?]john 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised by finding out that there is an identifiable and articulated world view underlying what seemed to me to be total incoherent rubbish (note that this is complimentary and indicates an improvement in both understanding through researching and writing this and an increased iota of respect for the people with it). Given this underlying framework which I do not think is laid out anywhere in a form easy to understand even that it exists, it is to be presumed there is a common ancestral viewpoint back at perhaps the time of Pericles to pick a random historical figure who might believe in spontaneous generation of life from rotting meat etc.
In order to understand the present day, and interpret the actions and beliefs of some people of a group which is definable though not crisply enough to saitisfy those here who behave as members of it, it is necessary to consider the past, in order for others later to understand it is useful to lay out a trail for them, and that looks to me like one of the better articles to come out of the one being discussed.
I do claim that the Thimerosal controversy article is a good one, as is Thimerosal and that they are each and both better as a result of the fission and fusion of this and the previous version of the Thimerosal article. Midgley 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wow. that's a discussion and a half. no wonder it was orphaned. RasputinAXP talkcontribs 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, POV problems should be dealt with by editing the article, not removing it. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto. As to the background, I think this situation needs admin attention. As JFW says, there is a group of editors (mainly Ombudsman, Whaleto, and 86.10.231.219) who concentrate strongly on adding anti-vaccination and other anti-mainstream medical material to Wikipedia. This is fine; it's a notable topic, historically and currently. What's not fine is the basis of those edits in frequent personal abuse, breach of NPOV, and openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree with them. For instance, check out the lists at User:Whaleto and User:86.10.231.219. Tearlach 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree per JFW, Tearlach, et al. This situation should be dealt with harshly by admins. Deleting people's keep votes on AFD is unconscionable. I agree with Tearlach; this is part of an ongoing campaign to eliminate criticism of pseudoscience throughout Wikipedia. Skinwalker 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this writing in a section above my user page is included in the list of users that an anon (The invisible anon he calls himself) claims are a group of medical contributors engaging in a POV war. This represents a big presumption of bad faith on the anon's part. I sort of think I should complain to someone about his assertion, but it is such an outlandish claim I cannot think anyone would take it seriously. What should I do? Kd4ttc 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have suggested above where you posted the identical remark, "Why not enter into dialogue with me on my talk page and we can discuss what is troubling you look at the evidence and see how we can resolve it by mature dialogue?" The Invisible Anon 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 2002 article in the BMJ[27] discusses "anti-vaccinationists." Andrew73 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - who among those who voted Keep agrees with the following statement: While all "anti-vaccinationists" are critical to vaccines, not all those who are critical to vaccines are anti-vaccinationists? This should really determine the future of this article. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a piece of logic, I would agree with you. The problem is that many (I logically can't claim all) who present as raising just a single critism have as their agenda outright banning of vaccinations, but realise that they are more likely to succeed by advancing in more reasonable-sounding small steps. Or to put it another way, for each point that one might argue against, another and then another point will be raised. Over the decades there has been concerted attacks against (?all) vaccination programmes with each 'supportive' study dismissed as being misinterpreted, biased or part of some corrupt government-medical-pharmaceutical conspiracy, and so the appearance is of a anti-vaccination agenda even if one accepts some individual detractors truely have just a single area of (reasonable) concern David RubenTalk 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proposition above can be improved upon. Try: " While "anti-vaccinationists" are critical to (substantially) all vaccines, not all those who are critical of some vaccines are anti-vaccinationists? " but I'd suggest inverting it - "While some people individually have criticisms of some aspects of some vaccines, vaccination in some circumstances, or aspects of vaccination policy, there have also been since 1798 and still are at the present day some people who work, commonly in concert against all vaccination with all vaccines in all circumstances. A factor frequently found among the latter is that they present their opposition as to some aspect or subset, whereas by their behaviour its scope is as described. Other common factors include the types and quality of argument advanced." I think that one is quite good, actually. Midgley 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful about what you imply here, lest it sound like a conspiracy theory. There is no question there has been an anti-vaccination movement that categorically rejects the benefits of vaccinations. But to imply that all skepticism toward some aspects of vaccination is part and parcel of that movement is a fallacy - it would be like saying that those who were against Thalidomide were against medicine. The article - which looks like it will survive - should limit itself to discussing the movement itself and contain links to articles about the specific controversies. Anything else would be redundant to Vaccine controversy. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean say something like "some people individually have criticisms of some aspects of some vaccines, vaccination in some circumstances, or aspects of vaccination policy," as part of it? I'm sure we should all be careful what we imply. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Written in English, something along those lines - but let's be clear: the article must be about anti-vaccinationists, not about people you might think might be anti-vaccinationists, and not about at length about the various issues. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted a phrase which is already in the proposition you are criticising. It is in there because when I wrote it I worked out what it needed to say. It isn't a simple specification, but neither has the world. That was a poor criticism. Midgley 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be called Vaccine critics like I suggested before you hijacked it, as anti-vaccinists (a better term, and used historically) are a subset of the larger group of vaccine critics, eg Edward Yazbak is not anti-vaccine. And unless you have a page to vaccine critics there is no place for them on an anti-vaccine page. Was that your design, to eliminate 90% of vaccine critics? Also few want to be labelled "anti-vaccine" as it a label similar to "kook", so I can't imagine anyone saying they are anti-vaccine, even if they were. We can see your POV leading to that ie marginalising the radicals--- "The first step in his strategy is to isolate and marginalize the radicals. They're the ones who see the inherent structural problems that need remedying if indeed a particular change is to occur. To isolate them, PR firms will try to create a perception in the public mind that people advocating fundamental solutions are terrorists, extremists, fearmongers, outsiders, communists, or whatever."--John Stauber. In summary your page is another kook page that suppresses the majority of vaccine critics. We can see your true motives exposed in your deletion-by-meger tactics [28], [29], [30], not forgetting your attempt to delete the number one medical anti-vaccinist Dr Mendelsohn [31]. A good move for a vaccinator. john 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
john, are you saying that being "anti-vaccine" is the same as being a "kook"? Andrew73 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles, John, are being attacked not because of their topic, but because they are selective and biased, and show you're making no effort to create the kind of broad-based biographies suitable for an encyclopedia. You merely pick the bits from articles favorable to your beliefs floating around on the anti-vaccination circuit, and make no effort to find other details (even simple stuff like birth and death dates that you can often find via Google) that fill out the biography in areas not related to your idee fixe about vaccination. If you started doing this, you'd be amazed at how rapidly the heat on you would diminish. 213.130.142.10 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John's comment makes little sense:- 1) The page did not exist before I started writing it - I did not and obviously could not have hijacked it. 2) If John believes there should be a page called vaccine critics it is ridiculously easy for him to remove the redirect and start writing it. If he writes about the larger group that criticise vaccination while regarding some vaccination as good, then we can see how the material sorts itself out and who remains in the smaller group who are against all vaccination and describe themselves variably as a tactic in argument. Come on John - there are two people here writing thousands of words many of which are about there being a group identifiable as vaccine critics - why not put a few on the page you say is needed? Midgley 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Problems such as those cited by Leifern can be cleaned up. That is no reason to delete a useful article on a significant movement. Capitalistroadster 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be renamed Opposition to vaccination, then kept. The main criticism seems to be it implies a unified movement when there isn't one. (That said I think there are movements against vaccination, like those Muslim clerics in Nigeria)--T. Anthony 03:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite convinced that the explanation of the Kano activity is actually anti-vaccinationism. It may be, but I suspect it is itself being used as a small ploy in a much wider dispute and conflict over power and influence - possibly along the lines of the West is bad: the vaccine comes from the West: therefore the vaccine is bad. To join that into a seamless whole with the current western anti-vax (if that is an uncontroversial label, of what is it a contraction?) would require exploration of the world-views - being done - and a demonstration that a substantial proportion not only retain an 18th century view of why milk goes sour and grapes become more interesting which is possible, half-asserted by John, but undemonstrated and gives me for one trouble swallowing since Pasteur's work is so easy to duplicate in the kitchen, but crucially have a burning and possibly "religious" desire to spread this to the rest of us. It is an interesting part of a topic, and if the roots of that have to go back to Pericles and his cohorts, then I hope scholars of that era will render assistance. Midgley 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anthing except anti-vaccine, as I said above, it is just a ploy to elinminate 90% of the vaccine critics. Anti-vaccine is a kook term in general usage. If there was a page to vaccine critics or opposition to vaccination then anti-vaccine could be a sub page, but by itself it is being used to marginalise the radicals into a pen labelled kook, which is an old ploy. If that wasn't the game why did they change the name Vaccine critics into this page? That was an obvious name but they couldn't label us with the kook tag [32], and it eliminates 90% of vaccine criticism from Wikipedia. john 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A point for negotiation, perhaps? If you find "anti-vaccine" etc pejorative, people might be more receptive to finding a mutually acceptable term if you stop using the term "allopath" that others find pejorative. It cuts both ways. 213.130.142.10 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The viewpoint of the vast majority (medical, health policy) is of the terms anti(-)vaccination(ist)(s) (over 68,000 hits on Google.co.uk search for permutations) and my preference is for the term, in the same way one describes 'vegitarians' rather than 'opposition to meat eating', or 'pacifists' vs 'opposition to taking up arms'. The semantics are difficult here, for each choice has some POV behind it, and I am not sure are necessarily precisely the same things (eg concerns for excess red-meat eating as a risk for cancer is quite different from ethical/moral approach taken by vegitarians or vegans).David RubenTalk 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider copyright of one's materials, then the very large degree of replication of essentially identical text across large numbers of websites with no indication of objections suggests the owners of those sites are unified in some respects. (By contrast, national authorities generally restrict copying of their information and prohibit refactoring it - this reduces their visibility vis a vis the highly interlinked subset of the Web whcih we are discussing.)
Keep and perhaps rename. There are plenty of people who oppose vacciantions. Kerowyn 00:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and a really big cleanupRmhermen 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anon seems to have edited my responses. I lack time to dig into exactly when, but it should not have happened. Should it? Midgley 13:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, editing other people's comments is a big no-no. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is detailed, coherent, well-written, and a few minutes on the internet or medline will demonstrate to anyone that this is topic worth an article. The nomination for deletion is an extraordinarily bad faith motion. alteripse 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as a personal attack - there is no basis for such an allegation. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Leifern it was an attack on your action, not your person. This is another example of you not understanding (or misusing) the basic definition of important terms around here. This article did not meet any of the AFD criteria even remotely. It was a detailed, coherent article about an encyclopedic topic that other people have written articles about in the medical literature. It was not original research. It is hard to come to any other conclusion than that you nominated it for deletion because you disagree with some of its interpretations of fact-- precisely a bad faith nomination. alteripse 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a coherent account and so well researched that:-
Midgley cannot provide a references for the source of his definition of "anti-vaccinationist" and
Here's a reference for the term "anti-vaccinationist." It's described in the August 24, 2002 issue of the BMJ[33]. Andrew73 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a term in current coinage. This article contains no definition of the term. It is not exactly an independent or impartial source - written by a vaccinator in the in-house journal of the British Medical Association. This source has already been cited several times suggesting there is a lack of sources to justify the use being given to the term on this page.
Also, interestingly, I have searched multiple dictionaries and that includes a medical dictionary and, whilst struggling hard to find even one definition of "anti-vaccinationist" "vaccinator" does have a dictionary definition [[34]]
The Invisible Anon, I agree with you that "anti-vaccinationist" may be more of a historical term, and perhaps the purposes and the spirit of the article would be better suited with a different name. On the other hand, the British Medical Association represents more mainstream opinion than other potential sources like whale.to, etc. Andrew73 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's a long-standing misconception that words are only valid if they appear in dictionaries (the long omission of c**t is a classic example). If they appear in the general corpus of written English, particular when repeatedly used in mainstream publications, they exist. As to the particular extent of "anti-vaccinationist", see here. In the Times archive up to 1985, I find 31 hits for "anti-vaccinationist" (spread from 1833 to 1964) and 71 for "anti-vaccinationists" (1870 to 1962). Google Books finds more, from George Bernard Shaw to recent books. Tearlach 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it has that air of pure invention about it and it is so suspiciously broad as to catch such wide a range of opinions that Midgley says on the talk page[[35]]:-
"Anyone who has real trouble working out what defines an anti-vaccinationist (and why the Chief Medical Office of the UK is not an anti-vacciantionist because he thinks that we should vaccinate against Rubella, but not, routinely against Chickenpox, in 2005) then I suggest two things:-
* 1. Look at the tables and try to match beliefs to people;
* 2. describe a person here on the Talk: page, and we'll come to a delphic concensus on whether they are, or are not."
And by Midgley's definition of "anti-vaccinationist" The UK's Chief Medical Officer is an anti-vaccinationist because, according to this definition he objects on "principled or other grounds" to some vaccinations.
As for the proposition describe a person here on the Talk: page, and we'll come to a delphic concensus? That is extraordinary. You mean it is not possible to tell from the definition? But I thought these people were identifiable and organised? And where do vaccine critics who are not anti-vaccine fit into all of this? They do not, but Midgley's definition includes them.
Further, it just will not be possible to get all relevant information onto just one page, [Article Size] but is that the idea? To restrict all further information because this is the one page for it all?
And this is not an excuse to create one page where all criticism of vaccines is to be dumped and marginalised? Difficult to agree that one.
As for accusations of "bad faith" not being a personal attack, I will bear that in mind and quote it if ever anyone accuses me of accusing them of "bad faith". However, I do not rate my chances of success too highly with that one.
Self-awareness should include understanding that when people come to conclusions, even wrong ones, there is usually some basis. I could suggest as a possibility that if someone has a hissy fit in public, issues threats and asserts another editor of a page one has a clear and declared personal interest in is a vandal, and then instantly lists for deletion a page of that editor when it is, to quote an also experienced editor above here "obviously not going to reach a consensus for deletion" that there is a risk that any or all of it may be taken as prima facie evidence of bad faith. If Leifern prints that out and hangs it on his monitor he will have a reminder of how a proportion of the human race think, and what conclusions they may draw from some possible acts. Now, as to the actual motives and degree of accuracy of the suggested deletion I think that is best left out of here, becuase it isn't relevant to the advice above. In the course of work I often find myself giving similar advice to people whose lives are less happy than many bystanders think they could be, and it is often rejected. Midgley 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only judge the actions that I observe on Wikipedia. Now, let's take your accusations:
Blanking entire sections of articles is listed as vandalism in WP:Vandalism. There are ongoing debates as to whether it is vandalism only if there is evidence of bad faith, but I find it very hard to ascertain motivation here on this medium and in general. So I issued a warning that such behavior does amount to vandalism, and that it would be reported as such if it was repeated.
There is a policy in Wikipedia also against POV forks and articles with titles that beg the question. In your original version of the article, both these were fulfilled.
"Prima facie" means, quite literally, "on its face." In no way can my conduct be viewed as prima facie evidence. It could, I suppose, and with some imagination and ill will, be construed as "circumstancial evidence," but that is the exact opposite of prima facie.
I think the debate about this article has been useful and probably led to some improvements in the article itself. I don't know how many articles that are put up for deletion get deleted, but the advice of one "experienced editor" is not going to dissuade me from doing what I think is right.
As for what most of the human race thinks, I think our work here is to overcome prejudices and fallacies that we all succumb to every once in a while. A common one among mediocre physicians (as well as a few other exposed professions) is that they have a superior intellect to others, or that medical science has answers to most things. --Leifern 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is entirely consistent with what I have said all along. I have a son who I believe was poisoned - I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I think parents have a right to make an informed decision based on full knowledge of the controversy. This is an entirely rational point of view. I made it clear why I thought your deletions were vandalism, and I warned you that they were. Because both you and Geni have a problem with orthography and remarkably congruent views and similar ways of expressing yourselves, I thought it best to ask. Geni has already had a (fully disclosed) sockpuppet before. Other than that, addressing me as "boy" is pretty disgusting, isn't it? --Leifern 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the messiness of the article screams, "cleanup!" - Dozenisttalk 03:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I make that 15:3 and rising for keeping it. While I suspect that some participants would like to spend as much time on this rather than writing the article as possible, do we actually need more? Can we call this to a conclusion, and get on with refactoring it, now, please? Midgley 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a certain amount of time has to pass. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had the impression, but I can't find it in WP policy..., that once the result was clear nobody was obliged to wait longer. The converse doesn't seem so sensible. Midgley 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except under the most unusual circumstances, we let AfD discussions run for a full five days—you're looking for Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Just continue work with and on the article–since it seems very unlikely to be deleted–while leaving the AfD notice in place; the notice will be removed in due time. At this point I would encourage anyone who would like to discuss the content, name, scope, etc. of the article to move their discussion over to Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is a surefire Non-consensus if there ever was one. Way to go on the sockpuppets' part. --Agamemnon2 13:40, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On its face, it seems to meet WP:SCHOOL in that A. It's a school, and B. There's verifiable information about it -- they hold a .edu, as well. But, I'm troubled by this[36] link, which seems only to exist to convince people that A. Yes, it's a school, and B. It's really real, trust us. Pay no attention to the fact that it shares an identical favicon and layout to egs.edu itself. S k e t c h y. AdrianLamo · 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the philosophy behind the school, as evinced by its faculty, is wholly poststructuralist/postmodernist, I think references to "is it a scam" should be seen as a demonstration of deep-rooted scepticism towards institutions and categories, or merely ludic. Cognos 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unaccredited school not even recognized within its home country[37]. AdrianLamo · 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the link you provide, the EGS is "A non-U.S. entity that has the legal authority to issue degrees usable as credentials in the nation that authorizes issuance of the degrees, but which has not demonstrated that its degrees meet Oregon standards." and NOT unaccredited. Cognos 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This school *is* accredited by a Swiss Canton, which is the political unit responsible for accreditation within the federation. It is not sketchy, it's edgy - it is low profile by choice. Do you really think that the faculty who teach its seminars would teach at a scam institution? BTW, the institution was set up by Jean-Francois Lyotard. Anyway, more to the point, the U.S. gov't has also given some recognition to the EGS, and is not as sceptical as Oregon about its accreditation status: "According to Wallis (the Canton)university law, the EGS is regionally accredited by the Ministry of Education and grants recognized M.A. and Ph.D. (Doktor der Philosophie) degrees on the basis of the State Council decision by Kanton Wallis (Switzerland), from April 14, 1998. With the decision from December 12, 2000, the United States Department of Education has determined that the European Graduate School satisfies the definition of an eligible institution under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and will be listed in the next edition of the Directory of Postsecondary Institutions published by the U.S. Department of Education. The EGS School Code OPE ID Number is 03518300." [38]Cognos 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The European Graduate School is an accredited institution. Oregon's arbitrary standards do not define what a legitimate institution is. The website itself also states, "PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE. UNTIL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, PLEASE DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON THIS RESOURCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN INSTITUTION IS PROPERLY ACCREDITED." [39] And therefore cannot be used as a legitimate source of verifiable information. Even if it were verifiably accurate, Oregon's jurisdiction on its standards of accreditation do not apply anywhere else on earth, including the rest of the United States. The EGS is subject to high standards, its faculty and students illustrate this.-- jmark13
Strong Keep I attend this school. I got a federal stafford loan to attend this school, because it is accredited and listed as an institution that the US gov't gives grants in order to attend. Yes, its low key and yes its out of the ordinary, but it definitely does exist and is a great school. I've also spoken to numerous people who have attended schools in Europe with a similar teching style: here are your reading assignments, see me at the end of the quarter. That's basically what this school is like, with the added benefit of having an online forum for students to converse. My class has students from San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Tel-Aviv, Vienna, Miami and lots of other places. I also know numerous professors at UCSD who have friends who teach at EGS. I also added some more links so that it has more content and is not just an ad. -- lotu5 At resist d0t ca / http://deleteTheBorder.org/lotu5
Nice work! Maybe you could also add some of the info from Wolfgang Shirmacher (sp?) page as well, that would round out the article nicely... Cognos 16:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The school has a rather interesting concept, the professors who actually teach there (watch the videos) are beyond doubt, Switzerland has a strong reputation for providing a high quality education (not to mention the breathtaking mountains, chocolate and Swiss cheese), the school is operating successfully for several years, it is private however (which is not obvious in Europe) - and therefore it is quite clear that such a concept can be a thorn in the eye of some people. personally i doubt however, that other schools, wikipedia editors, or users will find a similar (high profile) faculty or such an innovative concept somewhere else. the article should be expanded instead - following the templates/models provided by other universities. As for the Baudrillard entry it must be said that the Baudrillard archive there is the most complete archive of Baudrillard texts i have ever seen (the other one would be the Baudrillard on the Web at www.uta.edu) deleting the link to the egs faculty page would actually violate the spirit of Wikipedia and is (at least in my eyes) a clear NPOV case. Philophob 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I also attend this school, actually i came from south america to follow the seminars with this great pool of teachers (if you happen to know anything about cinema or philosophy you will get blown with the names of people that EGS gathers) I live in Switzerland since i came to the school. I was very surprised by this topic but as someone said this is a very avantgarde model institution, inheriteing a lot from open source models of peer knowledge production so no wonder why few might get confused. Today its around 200 students. EGS is a one of a kind place and has a lot to show and develop from its potential, wikipedia is part of this peer2peer model of education and as far as i see it there shall be even more work on this pages, i will post on the student mailing list inviting them to come in and help improve the contents even with their student pages and their notes from classes as it should be keeping record from what many of what this great minds have said in our seminars and that might never get to be published anywhere else. I think there are already many other good reasons explained above so i will stop here, KEEP, :) Alejo 14:32, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 9 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 cleanup and merge; I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for deletion since it has a thesis and a theme (misconceptions about the shi'a). Essentially, it is a POV. I don't agree or disagree with it, I just don't see any reason for it to be it's own article. Hence I belive it should be merged into the shi'a article.
Any article beginning with "misconceptions about" is inherently POV. Delete. Stifle 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is valid, there are aboundant Misconceptions about the Shi'a, factualy verifiable.
For example, Shi'a do NOT belive Ali should have been the last prophet, BUT many people have the Misconception that Shi'a belive such a thing. It is perfecly NPOV to claim that people have a missconception in such a case. Another example is about people haveing the Misconception of Shi'a belivingtheir Imams as equals to the prophet. They do not belive that, hence it is NPOV to claim that being a Misconception.
However, if that is not the case for some reason i can not think of, the vote should be "rename", not "delete". I stress the importance of this information being represented in Wikipedia --Striver 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced the informtation should be kept, but why as a seperate article? Sethie 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that virtualy every single section in the Shi'a article has its own seperate artciel. --Striver 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not privy to that information, so your response has accomplished nothing.... Sethie 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What i meant is that every section in the Shi'a article has a main article, otherwise the Shi'a article would be way too long. Just take a look, all sections there have a main article. In fact, ill do as you proposed, ill create a section in the Shi'a article leading to this article as the main article. --Striver 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Khalid! 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How many times do we have to vote on this? Why dont people respect already cast voting results?--Zereshk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until they are easily accesible, posted on the talk page, etc., probably forever. Btw, 2 months ago, I posted that I thought an AfD was in order on the talk page, no one responded. Sethie 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep.based on facts.. Zaidi 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. why don't we have 2 pages, one for the shi'i POV and another from the sunni POV --202.249.26.84 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The misconceptions presented are a matter of fact for a lot of people who believe the myths about Shi'a. It's a good article and worthy information to have here. The myths about Shi'a are far deeper than even this article presents and quite vicious. I know this from first hand expereince in and outside of the middle east. What is wrong with having an article that addresses this?-- jadecell
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article and serves no real purpose; I've put a link to wikibooks:Piano in the Piano entry. FunnyYetTasty 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or leave the soft redirect to Wikibooks. Stifle 01:36, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete O.R. Who considers it the most religious death metal song, and who says they are atheist? Ruby 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite that enormous chart success. MLA 16:15, 3 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry (Two Stars for Peace solution) is highly surrealistic. Since its creation in November 2004, it has been edited twice, to categorize it. It could remain here as an ironic joke or something - but maybe i don't really feel like laughing right now. What about you? Isn't there an alternate Wikiproject about hoaxes and things? Or should we simply let it there, and categorize in Category:Hoaxes? I also though that the US already had a 51st state, and didn't need anymore. Lapaz 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that if this seems harmless enough, it does takes place in the Category:Middle East peace efforts, which is already - but not enough - quite large. Do we really need to insert hoaxes in it? Lapaz
Delete. It's not a hoax - the book does exist - but it appears to be advertising, and doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. --Aaron 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We already have a 51st state? Where? --Aaron 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on who you ask. For example, Shigeru Mizuki considers Japan to be the US 51st state. I think I read somewhere that the The Guardian says the UK is now the 51st state. If that's so, let them - it'll lower my taxes, hopefully. ^_^--み使いMitsukai 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's weak but I think Wikipedia should be an MPoI that includes off-the-wall ideas such as this. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep actually, it's a published book. a poor seller, but whatever; we've got worse. Derex 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book apparently fails to meet our notability criteria for books. There are no reliable sources showing that anyone is taking this proposal seriously so it fails our verifiability criteria. Capitalistroadster 23:12, 3 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This site doesn't seem very notable. ComputerJoe 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is deleted, Newgrounds, YTMND, and Ebaumsworld should go as well. It is a perfectly fine site, up and running for 4 years, which is probably longer than you have been. 67.80.168.7 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was tempted to enter a revert war over this. The article would be OK as a stub, but there's way too much unencyclopedic content in it that can't be deleted without sparking an immediate revert by the people involved. Fagstein 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page as it stands is pretty much advertising and irrelevant sitecruft, and the site doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB anyway (almost all the hits on Google are from computer-generated web spam pages designed to screw around with Google's page ranking. --Aaron 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 92k hits on Google and in the same category of sites as Newgrounds. Not a poorly written article, either. --AlexWCovington 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What search string did you use? Cause when I search for UGOPlayer it comes up with "89,900 English pages for UGOPlayer" but at the bottom of the search it says In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed. When you remove that option, it shows practically all the results are from flashplayer.com and ugoplayer.com. I've never seen so many results from so few sites before on google. For reference "UGO Player" has 268/28 unique results, without quotes goes up to 357,000/121 unique but a lot of those arn't relevant. Petros471 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the site was recently renamed. A search for "flashplayer.com" would probably be more appropriate. Fagstein 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That comes up with 454 uniques, rather more I agree. I'm still neutral on this one (for now at least). Petros471 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[40] A site that is listed in the top 3,000 traffic sites certainly deserves to get on. Especially when YTMND only ranks in the top 2,500 and has no real deletion intended. Plus, this site is a major flash site, since it only accepts quality submissions. [41] Also, when researched, it has approximately on 330,000 less hits that Newgrounds, which comes out as a 10% difference, even though FP has been around for about 1/2 the time as Newgrounds. 67.80.168.7 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 100% of this IP address's contributions since Jan. 17 have been to this article, its Talk page or its AFD section. Fagstein 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't you get it? The reason for that is because this is the only article I care about. And I probably understand the site a lot better because I actually was there for about a year or so. I know what the inside things are, I know what the outside things are, and I know how to look at things without bias from there. It makes sense that this would be the only one I care about, because I was probably the most nationalistic (In terms of sites) person there, and probably will be the last one. So yes, 100% of my contibutions are there, and with reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Vanity about why editing articles about a site you're involved with is a bad idea. Fagstein 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The insertion of any textual personal biographical information within an article which does not significantly add to the clarity or meaning of the article. (Vanity text edits.)" Is that what you are reffering to? Nothing in there is about me, and everything iscontributable to the article. Like, if a person goes on, and sees a site, what would they want? What's it's purpose, how does it meet that purpose, does it have a second part to it (In this can a forum), and in this case, what has happened to that forum in the past. Maybe even what groups and clubs are on that forum. I will get you a poll on a neutral site on whether certain movies are cult or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs) 15:46, February 4, 2006
Just because it's not about you (I have no way of verifying that, BTW) doesn't mean it's not vanity. The fact that you're writing about something you're involved with is. That said, the problem here isn't mainly vanity, but the fact that the article contains massive amounts of information that is not verifiable and hence should be deleted. See WP:NFTWP:OR and WP:V for Wikipedia policies on verifiability (and while you're at it, you may want to consider creating an account). Fagstein 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have one. It's sbloemeke. I just don't use it much. And for your information, I have not been there since last May. It's not vanity to write about something there. And you know what? What is vain in that article? Anything? Give me a reference. Just because you were involved in something doesn't mean that you cannot write in a neutral unvain point of view. Reference something. Anything. Use your own logic. Oh, and if you want, why don't I just quote the number of views with the ratings of the movies/games. There's your source that they are popular. Numbers don't lie. 67.80.168.7 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have precedent on keeping by virtue of Alexa ranking? ie, are we going to have articles on all sites that ever occupy the top 3K? I agree, the ranking makes it putatively notable, but I'm concerned as to the precedent. AdrianLamo · 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a prescedent to exist, because nobody will make all of them. But any that occupy the top 3K should be allowed to exist once created, granted that it's not mindless babble.67.80.168.7 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, presumptively notable per Alexa ranking. Let's not have 2999 more, though. AdrianLamo · 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per aaon Maustrauser 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What isn't vanity is advertising. per nom Zen611 03:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've rewritten it slightly. Assuming it survives the revert war it makes the article a bit better (but still with way too much unencyclopedic content). Fagstein 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are.You.Freaking.Kidding.Me. I will be reverting this ASAP, for if it is left as it is, it has no value whatsoever. But, I will offer you a compromise, if you wish. You can get rid of that "The Site" section and add a link, if you wish, but all of the original "The Forum" stuff will remain. Otherwise, this will be reverted and reverted back 100 million times. Thank you.67.80.168.7 14:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as seems to fail notability criteria, even for Alexa rank (WP:GOOGLE#Alexa_test suggests top 1000 may be notable). Google listings seems pretty low outside of the official domain names, and the article seems to be full of advertising, without asserting notability.--Petros471 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexa ratings. While Alexa is not pefect, a rank of 2,992 is very significant. Turnstep 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New idea I still advocate for keeping as is, but I will suggest an alternative. The following things would happen:
1. The article is labled as a stub
2. The stub is given a neutrality dispute on the top.
3. The article is left as is, or added on to, until references are added.
4. Once references are added, it is then removed from being a stub, with an agreement to not delete any of the present sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs)
I'm glad you're amenable to a compromise situation. I have no issue with adding neutral, encyclopedic content to the article. But it has to be referenced, and has to be the opinion of someone other than the poster. Fagstein 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reference added for authors, so there is reference for everything now. And it is now the opinion of the people who voted. All are referenced. 67.80.168.7 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep', per Alexa ranking. Kappa 02:54, 6 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; I see nothing worth merging, but anyone who knows better is free to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this article is only about a very-minor significance planet in Futurama, it got blown up in 10 minutes on the fourth episode only to be forgotten the rest of the show. There's no reason for this page to exist on Wikipedia, only a mention in the Futurama article(s) is necessary. Mike 05:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge weak no to redirect though I've seen redirects for less. MLA 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Under the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect to follow up on attribution. Its not a big deal, I voted 'merge & delete' several times before I was made aware. Plus, someone might plausibly wikisearch or google Vergon 6 at some point, and in doing so should be led to the above list. youngamerican (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL requires no such thing. The relevant sections are 4I and 5. Redirecting from the merged page's title is merely the least onerous way to satisfy what it does require, namely the preservation of the history somewhere. That said, I see no compelling reason not to redirect from here. —Cryptic(talk) 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; but second half of article seems to decay into non-notable original research-nonsense someone made in school one day (the Vergon 6 effect, buh). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; As far as the second half of the article ("Vorgon 6 moment"): Sorry, I came up with a far better term many, many years ago that means the same thing. That word is "fax". I won't ruin The Usual Suspects for anyone, but if you have ever seen that movie and remember the ending, you will know exactly why the word "fax" is just as effective for meaning, "explaining something after it is already understood." Notice, however, that I'm not mucking with the entry for fax. FunnyYetTasty 22:33, 3 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joke as a variant of Jocular.--み使いMitsukai 17:04, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism. Melaen 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is NOT a dictionary, even if this happened to be a real word (which it ain't). Powers 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense dicdef. MLA 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Kinu 07:39, 4 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 as per MNewnham. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifications for an engine but no other context. James084 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a storehouse of indiscriminate information Ruby 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as I'm tempted to vote for it to be wikified instead MLA 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to CB500 and Keep. This is a tech spec on the Honda CB500 motorcycle. I have started the process of bringing the page up to scratch MNewnham 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, take anything useful from this and merge with Honda CB500T, cause this is about the twin cylinder, redirect cb500 to Honda CB500 which is about the 4 cylinder model. (Which I have now done). MNewnham
Merge or keep, real Honda engine. Kappa 02:55, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research tag since november. Melaen 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clean-up although no-one has done it, I imagine that an article on the mine closure planning process could exist. MLA 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A referenced (not well-referenced, but referenced) article without conspicuous POV problems that deals with a legitmate subject. Deleting article of substance for being in bad form is unencyclopedic behavior. Monicasdude 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a reference, seems unlikely to be pure original research. Kappa 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. could be better referenced. -- Vansig 22:25, 7 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 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy for CSD A3, with all of the external links, but the article itself seemed to long to speedy under CSD A3. Google search shows a small handful of results. ^demon 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — promotion of a coined promotional marketing term. Non-encyclopedic. — RJH 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unstable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 01:37, 5 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 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete dicdef. Melaen 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + nonsense in any case. MLA 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't Urban Dictionary. --Kinu 07:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. This isn't a dictionary. Mr Frosty 19:13, 7 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 10:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (gets 20 Google hits) and probably self-promotion too. --keepsleepingslackoff! 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty (but a redirect would be OK if needs be) - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written does not meet WP:WEB. No outside evidence of notability is cited in the article at all. Alexa rank is 4,319,708, as per this query. Only 87 unique google hits (and only 511 total google hits), and I saw none that looked to be from "major media". Delete unless reliable sources are cited to establish notablity and are incorporated into the article. DES(talk) 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the PokeRealm entry and I wasn't aware of these specific rules. I've already cleaned up the article and simply placed a link to Pokemon NetBattle, which is relevant while removing the body of the article. Hope this is alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroality (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 February 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 Speedily deleted by RexNL as an attack page. - Bobet 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MLA 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, attack. The article accuses the subject of child abuse. --EngineerScotty 04:48, 4 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 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax or mild attack. No Google hits at all on Talvinderjit Kainth and none relevant on "Tony Kenneth". Odd for a "famous" author. Nothing on the books either. Delete hoaxy non-famousness. Tonywalton | Talk 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. confirmed, no evidence at all for this. Derex 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the earmarks of junk. There seems to be a similar pattern (Sikh name: Talvinderjit Kainth, no links, solo edit by creation account) for the page Prince Amarjit Singh, also up for deletion below. Hu 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-verifiable and dubious. --Lockley 19:22, 8 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 under G4. --BorgQueen 16:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete several articles with the same name have been speedied and the user was blocked for vandalism. I suggest the sock-puppet who created this article by blocked also--Bill 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speed delete as a recreation, and so tagged. DES(talk) 16:39, 3 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 11:21, 9 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. Deathphoenix 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Album for a band that doesn't have an article. Neither album, band, nor the band's other album (also in Afd) have any mentions on either Amazon or Allmusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination seemed to be malformed, so I edited the link to the article. The group has two albums Distance (Album) and Clay Sun Union (album). There is already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Sun Union (album), so I assume this one is for Distance (Album). I suggest voters are explicit in stating which item they wished deleted (presumabley both or none), and if they think the band should, or shouldn't have an article. --Rob 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Woops, my bad. Copy/paste error. Trying to manage deleting too many junky articles at the same time. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've seen this but the other album had more mentions of notability so I thought people might want to keep one and delete the other. Went along with my confusion as to why there were two albums out there for a band that wasn't. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as above. -- JJay 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 3 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. Not many votes, but those who explicitly voted, voted delete. Deathphoenix 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an actual genre of music, it is just a derogatory phrase used to describe Glam metal, which is already mentioned in said Glam metal article - Deathrocker 07:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deathrocker, is this a delete vote or a redirect proposal? If it's the latter, then go ahead and do it. (Please do not submit redirect proposals here in "articles for deletion" and save people time and effort.) Thanks. --Perfecto 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, for the moment. Stifle 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no Butt Rock or Glam Metal category when searching for music at any reputible record store. Deathrocker is expressing distain for the term based on personal bias. Butt Rock is a commonly used phrase in Western Culture. Many word usages are derivitives of slang (ie; Glam Metal) and have a current cultural meaning and value. If we are going to completely delete Butt Rock from Wikipedia then we must follow through with that line of thinking and delete all such references to terms not commonly recognized by the recording/music industry (including Glam Metal). Revisions to such articles where necissary (and to eliminate bias) would be a prudent course. It seams that the spirit and beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to discover truth, not to be revisionist historians. Thanks for your time (operator).
--69.62.131.222 16:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we are going to eliminate terms based on derogatory nature we should review Dirty Sanchez.
Sincerely,
--Radioflyr 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... Wikipedia seems like a great place for both of these definitions to exist. It would seem to me that some one doesn't "like" the term "Butt Rock", even though it is a commonly used term, and would seek to eliminate it. I don't like the term "middle class", but that doesn't stop it from being used and being a Wikipedia definition.
It is already included in the Glam Metal article, its not the fact that it is a derogatory phrase I have no problem at all with that, its the point that it isn't an actual genre of music as it is portrayed to be in the article, as mentioned it is written into the glam metal article (Along with other derogatory terms like "Hair metal" and "poodle rock"). - Deathrocker 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here's what you're not hearing me say (type); Glam Metal is metal music and Butt Rock is not a synonym for Glam Metal. People refer to many bands who are NOT metal music as Butt Rock even though many bands that ARE Butt Rock are also Glam Metal: Glam Metal has to be "metal", Butt Rock does NOT have to be metal. Nelson, Kiss, Led Zepplain and Night Ranger are just a few example s of bands that are NOT metal but ARE Butt Rock (see how creatively they avoid the term "Butt Metal""). I'm okay with merging the definition, but let's merge it with something that makes logical sense! Otherwise adapt your adendum to Glam Metal and let's move on with our lives.
Moderator: I'm confident that both Deathrocker and I appreciate your time, thanks!
--Radioflyr 06:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then show reliable links where bands such as KISS (Who have made Glam metal albums during the 80s and early 90s anyway), Led Zepplin (Who helped bring about metal), etc are considered as "Butt rock", aswell as butt rock being an actual genre.
The bands this article pertains to; Nelson, Poison, Warrant, Winger, Slaughter, BulletBoys, Danger Kitty (Now Metal Skool; a Glam metal parody band) are all considered to be part of "Glam Metal"... metal itself is a subgenre of hard rock anyway. You seem to be taking the extreme metal bands as the blueprint of what "metal" is about, when that isn't the case. - Deathrocker 07:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1st is a random user complied list on Amazon, it isn't an offical list by the site.
2nd looks like another random blog
3rd has nothing to do with any of the bands mentioned in this article.
4th is a personal geocities site.
Where are reliable links from actual music media or related sources claiming this to be an actual genre? - Deathrocker 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metal is a subcategory of Rock, therefor Rock cannot again be a subcategory of Metal (Rock/Metal/Rock?!). KFC's are a type of fast-tfood chain however not all fast food-chains are KFC's. Nelson is NOT Metal and neither is Bachman-Turner Overdrive. I would agree with you, deathrocker, that the links above are all personal opinnion however, Butt Rock is a word defined by its usage much like Glam Metal and Dirty Sanchez. Unoffical sources act to high-lite the fact that the word is commonly used by many people to include more than just Glam Metal. We should use Wikipedia to document how a new term is actually used in the English language, not to confine people to a meaning or definition that does not represent the broad usage of the word. If sources from a recording industry are what validates a term or genre then again we must remove Glam Metal from Wikipedia. I am not arguing that this is a genre, but a term in pop culture much like Glam Metal (no record producer in their right mind would ever use either to term to sell their records).
--Radioflyr 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article title violates WP:NPOV. Ikkyu2 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted on the assertion that it isn't a valid genre. It is still a term that is used to describe some bands or types of music. Maybe a statement that it isn't a genre would be in order, but having a Wikipedia article (read accurate) is very important for the term, IMHO. --Donander 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't actually coined today. I was mistaken! I added to it, please check it again! --Smarbin 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or at least I should say, it was also coined before today --Smarbin 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not gained notability yet; we don't even have an article on several of the topics (for instance, the Congressional astroturfing). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I am both new here, and in the minority on this talk page, but I have now posted 5 separate references to "wikigate." With all due respect, a google search for congressional astroturfing brings only one hit, and a google search for wikigate has 159. This seems at least worth of stub status to me. --Smarbin 16:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
will it last? we're not wikinews. it's highly doubtful that in a month anyone outside wikipedia will remember this. also congressional astroturfing is not a mainspace article; it's for internal use. Derex 19:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the RFC by the way, the entire user conduct format was just for kicks, I meant it just to centralise discussion. I did *not* expect it to be slashdotted. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:08, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We dont need this list, non-notable. Abögarp 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, and delete. No indication why there's anything important about the three-ness of any of these. Some are just three examples selected from a larger group. Some aren't really three things, just a phrase with three words. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Barno 18:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neat list, but still list cruft. youngamerican (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's too big to merge into 3 (number). Yet the number three is culturally significant to many societies. Also this is a fairly well done list that just needs tightened up. I didn't entirely approve of deleting the other number related lists, but most in least had the justification that the article on the number did or could deal with what they covered. This only uses "the dork word I shall not name" as a justification.--T. Anthony 03:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about stability of triumvirates during history may by useful but this is just listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the criteria is tightened up somehow. I mean, it lists Dixie Chicks?! So every music group on Wikipedia with three members in it should be on the list? I don't think so. Turnstep 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Dixie Chicks, but I've removed them. Before it was listing things never really thought of as trios. I think at the moment most everything in it does count as a trio/triumvirate.--T. Anthony 06:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. While I'm not sure about the scalability, I've never let that stop me from voting keep before. WP is not paper, and cannot see what harm this page is doing. Does not seem indiscriminate to me. Perhaps too broad, but right now the page is very small. Let's revisit it in three months. :) Turnstep 14:18, 8 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn local club Adam(talk) 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's no Studio 54. --Kinu 07:42, 4 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 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert that it meets criteria of notability on WP:WEBBill 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the Beef? Delete.--み使いMitsukai 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random blog. Not encyclopaedic. Stifle 01:42, 5 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 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not worth BJOADNing Alba 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth a lateral pass to wikiquotes Ruby 22:08, 3 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 11:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, non-notable bio. Jonathunder 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "... best known for flinging White Castle burgers at crowds" ? I'm going to go with non-notable, despite assertions of notability. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard the name, but he doesn't deserve his own article, especially for the reasons mentioned. --Kinu 07:44, 4 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 11:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement not an encyclopedia article Nv8200ptalk 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited down to an acceptable stub, but I doubt such a small public library will have enough encyclopedic content to be expanded. Most of what they listed could be found on their website, or in absolutely any public library in America. Alba 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this being expanded to where it deserves its own article. Unless they have a claim to fame like a Gutenberg Bible, not worthy. --Kinu 07:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost empty. Stifle 01:42, 5 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 with zero prejudice against recreation with sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
new film genre? original research! Melaen 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Petros471 18:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cowboy noir is an emerging genre. Deadwood (television) for example. The article needs serious cleanup though, in both the NPOV, citation, and style sense. I may take a stab at it at some point if we keep it. Colby 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay / original research. "Cowboy noir" gets a few Ghits, though, so if sources can be provided that the term is well-known or used by noted film scholars, I would vote to keep and rewrite. --keepsleepingslackoff! 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Could be recreated in an acceptable form, possibly.--ragesoss 20:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but re-write). There is just enough evidence IMO via the googlehits that the term is genuinely beginning to be widely used, and not just in English-language or film contexts.Staffelde 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.Bjones 18:19, 8 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a month out of date. The only edit since 6th January has been a spelling correction. If the article is to be brought up to date it will have to be rewritten anyway. BigBlueFish 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki wikinews. --Craig Stuntz 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it does need to be kept up-to-date, and I would volunteer to do it if Wikipedia were not my primary source of current events. This is not a reason to delete though imho. Thryduulf 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The arguments have not changed since the previous AfD, therefore I restate my vote and comments from last time. Inactivity for a period is not grounds for deletion, and some of the other regional current events pages have had few edits since last summer/early autumn either. I also fail to understand what you mean by If the article is to be brought up to date it will have to be rewritten anyway - current events articles are not continuously rewritten, they are periodically archived. -- Arwel (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :[reply]
Comment - I hadn't really researched other regional current events articles, but my firm opinion is that these should also be deleted if they have not got anyone updating them. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The purpose of such articles is to put Wikipedia articles in the context of current events; but this is pointless if nobody maintains them. The uniform nature of current events pages means that it's extremely easy to recreate one if there's at least one person prepared to maintain it at intervals smaller than a month. I cannot believe that with its current world focus that Chinese current events has not been updated since September. Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd. The deletion of Current events in Cisjordan also establishes that you cannot justify this article just because others haven't been deleted yet. BigBlueFish 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - your comment that Even British and Irish current events have seen a story that made the first headline in Current events on February 2nd would appear to indicate that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and usage of the current events articles: there's no such thing as a 'headline' event - items are added chronologically, the more recent at the top. Regional current events pages are used for interesting news items which exclusively affect those areas - if they are of wider interest or ramifications they go in the global article. The items should be used to link to associated encyclopaedia articles. As I said, the arguments have not changed since the last AfD nomination, and I would commend a re-reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and Irish current events. -- Arwel (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - forgive me for misunderstanding the ordering of the Current events article. It remains that one of the seven world headlines of that day was predominantly associated with the UK and no doubt has specific local consequences. It's beside the point though... the current article almost implies that Charles Kennedy is still standing for leader of the Lib Dems because of its outdatedness, and is confusing because it refers to days of the week as if it was documenting last week. I have read and re-read the previous AfD and there seem to be only two arguments justifying a keep. The first is that it will be updated; if this is the case then why has this not happened? Don't tell me that the Thames whale or the dissolution of Fathers4Justice don't fall into relevant topics for the article. The second is that the information documents past events in an encyclopedic fashion. Yes they do, but in this case they should not be labelled as current events. We should instead make 2006 in the UK or a similar title, just as the Irish, for example, have done with 2006 in Ireland. Take an outsider's view of the encyclopedia. This article makes it look bad. Why is it that we are so resistive to change? BigBlueFish 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should also point out that the last discussion involved the statement, "It will (we promise) continue to be maintained.". That lasted five months. It's more important to focus on the core of the encylopedia and leave things like this to Wikinews if there isn't enough interest to keep it going. BigBlueFish 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair play, please; that quote is taken out of context, and was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion. Hidingtalk 08:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - apologies. The comment was made by someone arguing for the page's deletion who was assessing the reasons for inclusion. As such it reflects promises made by You, func, and Thryduulf, and conditional keep votes by Joolz and adamsan. BigBlueFish 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: I made no such promise. I offered help in keeping the page up to date. Nobody used the word promise except for Aaron. Hidingtalk 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - your words were "I will help to keep it up to date". That's a positive future assertion, whether or not it is to be interpreted as a commitment. I'm not criticising the fact that you haven't been able to sustain that assertion, which I understand, but that at least some people chose to support keeping the article on the grounds that they thought that you and others would. BigBlueFish 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely seeking to redress the fact that the comments in question do not support the statement you were seeking to base on the strength of them. Your latest statement, that people have voted keep in that debate on the grounds that they thought it would be maintained is somewhat misleading too. One user voted keep as long as it is maintained, but that vote made no mention of who maintains it or how often it should be maintained. The original discussion is there for all to read and draw their own conclusions from; there is no need to keep referring to facets of it. I would also hope it isn't too much to ask for some sort of apology for your interpretation of my words as implying a commitment when you agree no such commitment is inherent within them. I apologise if you feel I am taking this too personally; I merely happen to believe my words should not be presented as meaning more than they did. As I stated, I offered help in keeping the page up to date; your quotation of my exact words, "I will help to keep it up to date", supports that, and so I find myself unclear as to why you felt it necessary to quote my own words at me when I have already elucidated what I said, and when they are already on the record for all to see. Rather than get sidetracked into debating the merits and arguments of the previous discussion, would it not be better to allow this one to develop? My offer still stands: I am willing to help maintain the page. Hidingtalk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But will you? Nobody makes any commitments on Wikipedia for which they can be blamed or incriminated for should they not honour them. That is the free nature of the wiki. The use of the word "promise" may in that sense be interpreted as such a commitment, and I apologise for such an ambiguity, which was made for the sake of quoting a past summary of the last consensus. It remains that "I will" instigates much more optimism than "I am willing". We are now in the position to look back at our decision, see that in spite of good intentions it has not proved practicable, stop trying to maintain that the content of the article is current and refocus our efforts on content that does not expire. BigBlueFish 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a transwiki, WikiNews is for first-hand news accounts, which this page is not. Otherwise we would have to transwiki and delete all current affairs pages. If the page does become inactive, I would suggest users consider simply redirecting the page to Current events if they are concerned. As to the inactivity of the page, I no longer have the time to update this page solely, and although I contacted various people who indicated they would help at the last afd, none was forthcoming. Hidingtalk 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is as far as I can see inaccurate to say that "Wikinews is for first-hand news accounts." Read this page and note the "two main kinds of articles." As far as I can see, most of the articles on the Wikinews main page right now appear to be non-first-hand. --Craig Stuntz 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologise, I was relying on WP:NOT; Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). It's still not necessarily a transwiki though, as per WP:NOTWikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.Hidingtalk 13:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Current events. In light of the discussion here, I think it would be more appropriate in terms of preserving the history to redirect until somebody is able to maintain it. BigBlueFish 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely pointless if not to be kept up to date. Also inappropriate title. The description of the page undermines the title. The Channel Islands are listed in the description of the page, yet they are not part of Britain or Ireland. TomPhil 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Channel Islands are legally British Islands. They are also thought by many to be part of the British Isles. Also, the term British does not always refer to Britain. Your point regarding the name is therefore somewhat redundant. Hidingtalk 21:04, 8 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for deletion to get a sense of the community's thoughts on this. Colby 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school and college athletes are not inherently notable. No assertion of notability within the article other than winning a championship — athletes, ideally, win championships. --keepsleepingslackoff! 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She's slightly verifiable as an athlete, but yeah, I agree with the above. There are many college athletes in the world, few of them are encyclopedic. Friday(talk) 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who are the USC "Torgans"? And if she's in college, how is she in her senior year at a prep school? Anyway, not notable by prep/college (whichever she is) athlete standards. --Kinu 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too. However the bio link appears legit, so I think the article is just sloppy, not a hoax. Friday(talk) 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unheard of. Stifle 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for clarification of this vote by Friday. To clarify, I mean that the article is almost unverifiable and the athlete does not seem to meet the WP:BIO standards. Stifle 17:12, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely minor Harry Potter character (one-sentence mention, no relevance to plot) who certainly doesn't deserve an article. I suggest a redirect to Stephen Poliakoff (British film director).
(nomination by Laur 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Merged and redirected. AdrianLamo · 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Agreeing with AdrianLamo's action. --Kinu 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge plus separate redirect per Colby. MLA 10:19, 4 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 MPF as offensive nonsense/nonnotable brag page. - Bobet 00:13, 5 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, not notable. Thue | talk 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable entry. Vanity article. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:12, 3 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 for being in gross violation of WP:NOT. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting sign-up sheet. No encyclopedic content. Weregerbil 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It doesn't fit neatly into the categories on the speedy deletion page, but this is nevertheless exactly what speedy deletion ought to be for. --Thunk 19:20, 3 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be copyrighted material (who ever pasted in left the Copyright label on the bottom). When I searched Google for this person I could find absolutely no reference to this person outside of the Wikipedia article. James084 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevant GHits. WP:Copyvio status aside, it appears to be a biography of a non-noteworthy individual. --Kinu 07:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be sent to WP:CP. Stifle 01:44, 5 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 an ad. Thue | talk 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems like it is a nn local company Adam(talk) 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two Google hits. Amazingly, neither is Wikipedia. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am marking it for speedy deletion because this was part of a larger spam attack adding several articles.--Adam(talk) 20:21, 3 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 merged and now redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was gonna tag this db-club, but there are actually something like 8000 Google hits for this "Golden Llama Award" they allegedly got. Who knew. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content's already been merged to the main Simtropolis article by some helpful user. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Kappa 03:03, 6 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] 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Complete nonsense. Atrian 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJODN. Creative, if not encyclopedic.--み使いMitsukai 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not BJAODNworthy, so send it Down the Rabbit-Hole. Barno 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even deserve to be WP:BJAODNed. --Kinu 07:51, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant Advertising Bletch 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a nice place to stay...better Delete it so no one else finds out about it. ^_^--み使いMitsukai 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a gallery of images with unknown or nonexistent copyright status. Closing admin please delete the images as well. Stifle 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub. I see no advertising for a specific commercial enterprise in this article. Google gets 36K hits for the term. The images can be dealt with individually. (Please see (Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries) for a discussion about galleries in Wikipedia.) Dsmdgold 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things have changed; previously there was no content other than a collection of images. That appears to have changed, making this article a valid stub. I withdraw my AfD nomination, though its time to kill the images. --Bletch 00:51, 8 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 based on unanimous agreement so far and author's admission that it was a "test" rather than a real article. --Michael Snow 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page was created today, simply saying that he "is a figure in American Republican Party politics." Well, I guess that's an assertion of notability. I did a quick search to determine what kind of a figure he is, and the present article is the result. If it gets deleted, you can get rid of the picture too. --Michael Snow 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason why this page should remain. It seems to have no real benefit to anyone.-- Cbackert 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously some Congressman's aide got bored. Delete.--み使いMitsukai 21:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A not-notable staffer with a bad tie and no indication of encyclopedic relevance. Barno 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Google search shows nothing relevant until the second page. A president of a college student group is generally not notable by WP standards, except for some other achievement; a political blogger doesn't automatically make it either. Google search for his blog title, "Dead Right", shows only unrelated hits on the first two pages. Barno 02:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I wonder if investigation would show many of the recent bad political edits to have originated from the same office as Mr. Lundquist. Barno 02:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further investigation suggests that we can't be sure. It depends on how the US House of Representatives allocates its IP addresses. Physchim62(talk) 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Aaron 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor attempt at notability. EdGl 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created not as a serious reference article, but as a test of how quickly wikipedia's editting community would find and correct a non-noteworthy article being posted. The page was not meant to be referenced (hence no external links were given). It was not created by the subject (Mr. Lundquist), in fact it was done without his express knowledge, and was neither an attempt at notability nor an exercise in vain self-promotion. Now that it has been found and corrected, we consider our test complete and I the author am deleting it. DeleteUser:bfegan 15:55, 6 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 11:44, 9 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 nomination withdrawn. Aaron 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, should be moved to Comixpedia, 800ish google hits, no alexa ranking, not found in this list, started in 2005, there are thousands of webcomics out there, They'll need their own CSD guidelines soon. Obli (Talk) 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify the reason for the deletion request? Burning phoneix 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done Obli (Talk) 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I found it, I suppose =\. Webcomics are websites, and it fails WP:WEB. Obli (Talk) 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't we just leave the up until the website fails? I mean, Haru-Sari is one of the more proffesional works out there. The artist is actually an artist by profession (she pencils and inks a published manga) and is planning to release a published edition of the comic soon. Surely that's enought to keep it on? Burning phoneix 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, have it then, I guess I'd have to be consistent all through the endless swamp of webcomic articles if this one got through, and I don't have the time for that :)
Withdrawn Obli (Talk) 00:14, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirected to Henry_Wager_Halleck as plausible typo vector. AdrianLamo · 21:48, 3 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 11:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. First person references. Esprit15d 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism/original research. --Carnildo 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, probably vanity Ikh (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, possibly move to the user's page. --Hansnesse 21:36, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article with no content other than a link to another organization. Existence of Subject Non verifiable, (probably fictitious) Ragib 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as nom. --Ragib 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This calls for a Professional Delete.--み使いMitsukai 21:37, 3 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] 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is pure vanity to promote an unknown song writer and band. The content of the article was mostly added by an anon. user and another user with few edits [42] has been promoting this band on Wikipedia as well. A google search for "Adam Woeger" brings up 843 including personal websites, internet chat, newsgroups, and yahoo profiles. This is an non-notable person and should be deleted created for vanity. As the article says, Adam is considered to be one of the earliest people to use the Internet as an evangelism tool. Wikipedia isn't a personal promotional tool. His band Prays is now also listed for deletion because the same person who added information to Woeger created and was the only one to add information to the band related article. Also delete the redirect page. Arbustoo 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Merge some of the detail into Prays and delete. Well-researched nomination. AdrianLamo · 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Delete as prayscruft. AdrianLamo · 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prays I also listed for deletion. Created by the same person who created this article and others related to the band. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays) has around 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an autobiography. Self-promotion ka1iban 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Kinu 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, massive vanitycruft. feydey 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's vanity. It's a better written vanity article than most, but it does seem to fail WP:MUSIC for the musical aspects, and reeks of a personal adverisement for this person. --Wingsandsword 09:16, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Stifle 01:45, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability. Unlike Sealand, it has no territory. Unlike Dominion of Melchizedek there seems to be no controversy or fraud allegations. 1030 Google hits. Seems to me to be a big boy's version of something made up in school. Delete as non notable. kingboyk 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of minor micronations. Agreed, its not notable enough for its own article, but keep it anyway. --Billpg 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. Only if concensus is behind this discussion. OtherwiseDelete. --Billpg 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "micronations" are functionally indistinguishable from individual vanity trips. Just zis Guy, you know?, Supreme Lord and Ruler Of All Territories Between the Kitchen Door and the Dining Table, Provided Nobody is Playnig the Piano At The Time.[T]/[C] 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The western US is riddled with mini-militias, tax "protestors", Republic of Texas irredentists, and other self-styled sovereigns who'd be documentable as micronations if the press viewed them, to, as charming eccentrics rather than unstable homicidal guys. Anybody can claim the regalia of state, but almost all of these "nations" are just costume parties written large. Monicasdude 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been very actively seeking to purchase territory to legitimize its status; one purchase attempt led to some rather tragic real-world consequences in a political backlash (several dead, see [43] and paper news sources). It's rather notable as a result. Georgewilliamherbert 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to add that to the article then, since that is a case for real world notability. However, the link you have provided is a little ambiguous (and is from the micronation's own web site). It says "Awdal Roads Company is a completely separate entity from the Principality of Freedonia." and "A recent trip to Awdal by Jim Davidson and Michael VanNotten, of Awdal Roads Co., ended up involving Freedonia in a negative way. Some violence resulted, and many things in Awdal have been called into question." --kingboyk 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also mentioned in Paul Theroux's book Dark Star Safari in his discussion of his travels down Africa's east coast, and numerous other paper references. I was well aware of it prior to being seriously interested in either WP or micronations. I agree that it should be mentioned in the article (and it's on my mental list...). Georgewilliamherbert 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read some of Mr Thereoux's work but alas not that one. Wikipedia articles should tell me these things, I don't know it all. In fact all I know is that I know nothing, a position every responsible person should take if you ask me! :) --kingboyk 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Since 'Freedonia' themselves say the issue was not directly related to them, it might better belong in an article about Awdal or Somaliland? --kingboyk 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that consensus of independent observers is that it wasn't Freedonia's fault, but that they were the triggering event. I think it's probably notable for all those pages at some level. Have to check references. Georgewilliamherbert 02:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I love micronations. What's the accurate population? -- Marvin147
I love my mother but I wouldn't vote to keep an article on her! --kingboyk 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I have a Tom Lehrer song, Oedipus Rex, the chorus is "but he loved his mother :-) - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Micronations are almost never notable. Stifle 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. People died because of this bunch of libertarian nutters. --Gene_poole 12:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists it is therefore notable enough in my books. Piecraft 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable. Brokenfrog 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene Poole. Kappa 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
kEEP per Georgewilliamherbert. Wiwaxia 07:25, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this article, since there's really nothing go on with, outside of Kojima mentioning his plans to make a new MGS game for PSP in an interview. There's no official press release or anything that the game is actually coming for real. Jonny2x4 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it hasn't officially been announced, there is more than enough stuff on the internet about it that confims its existance. Even if it is deleted, a few weeks later I'm sure it will be announced officially. Thunderbrand 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Changing to delete. Reading the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball changed my mind. Thunderbrand 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with thunderbird. Also, next to konami itself who has more authority to speak of upcoming metal gear games than Kojima?
Keep I agree with Thunderbird as well. More information will mostly like be announced shortly after the Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence and Metal Gear Ac!d 2. Godzilla 4 February 2006
Keep I agree with Thunderbird. You can find information about this in interviews. Dieboybun 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --kingboyk 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything merge the sentence or two of information worth saving in The Metal Gear Solid article. Case 17:21, 6 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. No point in continuing this mess.
Original research. --Carnildo 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with such games on Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the article space, not the Wikipedia: space, and there's already at least one Wikipedia: article on this already. --Carnildo 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Move to project space. Self-ref, not suitable for article space. AdrianLamo · 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carnildo's comment, which cropped up between reloads. If it's already covered in project space, it should go. AdrianLamo · 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that I think about it, you should take this over to RfD. Royboycrashfan 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an article when I listed it. --Carnildo 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's really no need to carry on this discussion. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 4 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted so bringing it to AfD instead. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as possible copyvio[44] -- if he wrote the original site, it might be implied release of copyright if he also submitted it to Wikipedia, but we can't really be sure. Which is a shame, because I'd keep on his merits otherwise. AdrianLamo · 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be a speedy because it's existed for several months. I've marked it as a copyvio, let's leave it to WP:CP. Stifle 01:50, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CR Pendleton has been nominated 3 times by the Gospel Music Association for works and collaborations with Gotee/EMI records recording artist. Two of the Nominations were for writing and one for co-production.
see www.gmamusicawards.com
Claims notability as producer, with 4 top 10 songs, but I suspect this is in some christian music chart. Most notable work indicated on producers own site is incidental music for 'Pimp My Ride', has own myspace page MNewnham 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhere around WP:VSCA. Stifle 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mangojuice 17:48, 8 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] 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by one person [45] who only edits articles related to the band and who most likely is in the band. The same editor was the author of the band members and Prays albums wikipedia pages also up for deletion. As stated on the "singer's" page (Adam Woeger-- up for deletion), he is using the internet as a promotional tool. Well, it looks as if Wikipedia is a part of it. A google search of "Adam Woeger" brings up less than 900 hits (including internet newsgroups and chatting). The other band member Paul Guffey (up for deletion) is even less notable. The page forks to promote individual albums In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler (all up for deletion). Every single edit that adds information is the same person on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that person. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays) brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, I tagged this speedy.Arbustoo 02:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Arbustoo. At the least, it doesn't do a very good job of asserting the notability, which is suspect in itself. --Kinu 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't really speedy as there is an assertion of notability, but Christian bands are a diome a dozen and this one has no evidence of notability. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 10:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought having more than two cd's passed WP:MUSICJcuk 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" howcheng {chat} 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the speedy deletion tag. howcheng {chat} 21:25, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete spanish dicdef. Melaen 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obscure Spanish dicdef. Stifle 01:51, 5 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 --TimPope 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball, the article says, "It is hoped this religion will be as popular as the famed Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn, but only time will tell" Ruby 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, basically a made-up club with no assertions of notability. I've tagged this for speedy deletion. It stretches the wording a little, but not much. AdrianLamo · 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per now. According to the article, though, the religion has been extant for nearly twenty-four hours now, which surely must mean it's notable and significant, no? :) Joe 05:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per club. Also reeks of vanity. --Kinu 07:56, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:01, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism Melaen 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-admitted neologism Ruby 07:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 01:51, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy deleiton, but notability is asserted. Australian celebrity gossip columnist. You decide, no vote. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk:Dante Ceccon: This should not be deleted because Dante Ceccon has written and exposed many celebrities in a way that has not been done before. He asks many questions in articles which give readers a chance to think. For a junior writer he has contributed alot to the what I think Australian media by writing in such newspapers as The Courier Mail and Herald Sun. He also is passionate about humanity and should therefor be noted in this encyclopedia. He is no average joe but a great juior writer in Australia.
Delete One English language Google result, from an Australian school. Article makes bold claims of notability but none are backed up with evidence. --kingboyk 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:143.238.150.234 deleted Kingboyk's comment and added three fake "keep" arguments from known Wikipedians. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 6 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising for a non-notable website, & only one user has edited it. Latinata 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local bowling association website Ruby 22:42, 3 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. Mo0[talk] 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as nn speedy, but notability is asserted. Bringing to AfD instead. Seems to be unreferenced. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the guy who nominated it for speedy. Unverifiable. Stifle 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unverifiable. Kappa 03:00, 6 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] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unknown band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[46]] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my vote on "Prays" article Jcuk 00:43, 7 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a prank. The purported websites have been registered by somebody else in the US, not the UK. I can't find any references by searching for "prince amarjit singh" or "ringos charity" or [47]. The article was created as a solo edit by the account and then vandalized or embellished as part of the prank by the known and repeatedly blocked vandal IP 194.154.22.35(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log). See also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony kenneth item above. Hu 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gosh, Two hundred million pounds would at least BUY one a write-up somewhere on the net Ruby 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly artsearchengine.com, while registered in the US, is registered to someone called Singh (KC Singh, not Amarjit) who gives a UK mobile phone (cellphone) number as a contact number. The website is up but just consists of a "coming soon" page. Both the other websites are also registered to a UK individual (Padma Singh, in Windsor, UK). (The location of a domain registrar doesn't say anything about the person registering it; tony-walton.me.uk is actually registered through Schlund in Germany, for example, and I'm UK-based). That's not enough verification for what looks like a complete load of tosh, though. Delete, along with Tony kenneth which looks strangely similar. Tonywalton | Talk 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as simply non-verifiable. --Lockley 19:21, 8 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lists his primary notability as involvement in Punk'd, but individual is listed under "Celebrities who have been "punk'd" but haven't aired on MTV" -- a near miss on a single television appearance and a friendship witha notable individual =! notability, unless something else turns up on him. AdrianLamo · 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same editor has created entries for this guy's parents, who also seem to be of questionable notability: Nils Gessinger and Susan Caldwell. --kingboyk 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Adrian Lamo. I'm puzzled as to his listed in the Punk'd article as a celebrity, and yet in the biography I get no impression whatsoever of celebrity status. --kingboyk 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria guidelines at WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Anonymous IP 201.0.37.97 (talk·contribs) has asserted some notability on my talk page, "…[Frank Alexander] has been writing songs for Eric Martin, Richie Kotzen, etc." However he has no listing at the All Music Guide. An IMDB search is inconclusive. There is a listing at Rottentomatoes.com but it's unclear if it is the same person and even if it is, it's unlikely that the films listed would pass the notability critera for films. I would suggest to the anonymous editor that if he wants to assert notability, he should do so by citing sources rather than arguing it on talk pages. If he can do that, with credible references like a discography or a starring role in a film that has received wide distribution, I may change my vote. --Malber (talk·contribs) 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The article now contends that at the age of 12 he wrote "Bullitproof" which was performed by the New Zealand band Pacifier. However this review of the group's album does not mention anything about the song being written by a child prodigy. You would think that it would be worth mentioning. (Note: subject was 12 in 1986, the album was released in 2003.) If it can be authenticated that Frank Alexander is the author of this song and that the song charted on any national music chart in at least one large or medium-sized country, then I may change my vote. I still feel a bit like "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" The person contesting deletion needs to be doing this dirty work. --Malber (talk·contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment unfortunately, due to 201.x's vandalism, the page has been semi-protected by Nlu (talk·contribs). I don't believe there are going to be any constructive updates to this article to bring the subject up to notability status --Malber (talk·contribs) 18:55, 6 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] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[48] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prayscruft. AdrianLamo · 22:36, 3 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] 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[49] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prayscruft. AdrianLamo · 22:36, 3 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 per Carie. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nn-bio but this person is clearly of massive importanc,e, having almost got into a "reality" show. And she was rude to the Simon Cowell clone, so clearly not all bad. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lots of other non high profile american idols have their own wilipedia page so i don't know why rhonetta can't have one. besides, she is being talked about by millions.Firefoxsilver9 05:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything useful can be merged into the Idol article, otherwise Delete as nn. --kingboyk 23:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several other American Idol contestants have articles in wikipedia. There is no reason to delete this article. PMLF 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several others have been deleted, including Emily Neves (someone jumped on her before she was quickly eliminated), Leroy Wells and Mary Roach (article is for someone else now, resurrecting would require the modifier "(American Idol contestant)"). A few others might have been deleted as well. However, I was opposed to all the deletions. CrazyC83 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she (and everyone else) needs to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, but does it really belong on this article? Creating a segment on a new article, i.e. American Idol (Season 5) Contestants, would do the trick. Many don't remember her by name so they'd have a hard time getting here. Keep if no new articles are created. CrazyC83 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Redirect to American Idol (Season 5), or a new page American Idol (Season 5) Contestants. CrazyC83 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be? I strongly dispute that. I see little if any encyclopaedic merit in lists of names of people who lacked the talent to be selected for a show which is, in the end, just a talent show anyway. In ten years time if the winners have made a name for themselves they can have an article. Why this pressing need to document every details of every TV show as it happens? Some parts of Wikipedia are turning into fan blogs. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 10:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Carie. Stifle 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep. Kappa 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be mentioned in American Idol Season 5, but I don't see a need for a redirect. Makemi 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like no consensus... CrazyC83 22:10, 8 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] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[50] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the other stuff re. this collection of articles. AdrianLamo · 22:48, 3 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] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[51] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more prayscruft. AdrianLamo · 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by RexNL per the rarely-invoked CSD:A2 (article in a foreign language that already exists on another language's Wikipedia. Stifle 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complete garbage insulting university freshmen. And it's written in portuguese. Just delete it...
--Mahound 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((notenglish}} Ruby 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I couldn't see any AFD tag on the article, but I've marked it with {{db-notenglish}} as a speedy deletion candidate. Hopefully an admin will roll on by soon and zap it. --kingboyk 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per lack of English. --Kinu 04:19, 4 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] 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[52] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, prayscruft. AdrianLamo · 22:48, 3 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] 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[53] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Arbustoo 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:42, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed page I have added all the proof you have asked for Jtravis 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete
Dead Skin Mask HAS:
from "notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia" (your rules)
Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country<ref name="note" />, reported in notable and verifiable sources
JtravisJtravis 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tribute band with no assertion of notability. Which might be a mistake, or might reflect a lack of notability... Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE [[Jtravis}}Jtravis 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) I read you guidlines. Dead Skin Mask HAS been in a Magazine. LAW OF INERTIA. They press 75,000 copies of their mag. I have a copy if I need to mail to who is in charge here! #2. They have played Japan. #3 they have been on blabbermouth .net and knac.com. ALL can be proven! Maybe you should cite all other tribute band pages you have here, then too! I DO NOT find this a personal attack. You are not following your own rules. Here are 3 of your qualifications they meet, and you still insist on removing the page...what is wrong here?[reply]
Delete per JzG,yk? And by the way this AfD was vandalized once hereRuby 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is because the band is not very notable. Unfortunately new editors tend to take these things personally - it's not an attack. We have WP:MUSIC guidelines on what bands get articles here and there's no proof that yours meets those guidelines. If you have proof that we are wrong, please add it to the article. --kingboyk 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and apparent sock/meatpuppetry. Stifle 01:58, 5 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] 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Member of a tribute band. Are individual members of tribute bands likely to meet WP:NMG? I don't think so. Tagged as nn-bio but it kind of asserts notability so you judge. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn artist Ruby 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby --kingboyk 02:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tribute bands should usually fail WP:MUSIC by default. Kusma(討論) 03:41, 4 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 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted. Apparently he was once the fourth-best under-14 tennis player in "the nation" (presumably USA, but not stated). Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently a junior star whose career has failed to takeoff judging from the rest of the article. Fails WP:BIO. A Google search for "Michael Moreno" tennis comes up with 185 hits but nothing to indicate notability. [54]. Capitalistroadster 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any article that says keep your eye on this up and comer is trying to hide non-notability Ruby 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. (I deleted the "keep your eye on this up and comer" so you'll have to delve into the History.) --kingboyk 02:26, 4 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 11:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article writen by band member of unnotable band. Article created by a user that only adds to wikipedia on pages related to Prays -- also up for deletion.[55] Same user is the only one to edit this page and the only editor to contribute information on pages related to the band. The pages connected to the band Adam Woeger, Paul Guffey, In The Garden (Prays), Where He Leads Me, Living For Jesus, Very Christmas, Only Believe, Spontaneous Worship, In Your Presence, and Worship sampler are also up for deletion. Every single edit that adds information is the same user on every page linked here. Even the Category "Prays albums" is created by that user. This is pure vanity and self-promotion. A google search ("Adam Woeger" prays)--that is the singer/main member-- brings up 150 hits. Includes other unnotable/local bands Elisha's Request and Cynthia Paap, also up for deletion. Arbustoo 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalogue.Cactus Wren 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanibandcruftspamvertisment. This is totally nonsense, please do not promote your band here, do it elsewhere. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:58, 9 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.
Vanity article of unnotable band. The user who created the page only edits unnotable bands that he is connected with[56]. A quick google search of "Elisha's Request" brings up only 755, which includes many unrelated organizations bearing the same name. The Worship sampler they are on is also up for deletion due to non-notablity, which was created by the same user as this and related pages. Wikipedia is not here to promote unknown acts. Delete redirect page Elishas Request as well. Arbustoo 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just added speedy tag. Arbustoo 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Arbustoo 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Prays, et al. AdrianLamo · 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity --kingboyk 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -Jetman123 08:23, 5 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy but no obvious category. It looks like a non-notable garage band site, but I'm kind of guessing here since I don't know what "choons" is. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely decipherable, bordering on a couple speedy categories (ESkog)(Talk) 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. 'Choons' is a word used by young folk (like me! cough) to describe what you may otherwise know as songs, tunes or records :) --kingboyk 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Larsinio as nn-bio. I wasn't sure about the "Raabe Prize for Sacred Composition" so I'm bringing it here instead. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy is what I would probably have done, since the creator is User:Weberc, so evidently related ( a bad idea. The scale of composition does not look that significant (many instrumentalists I know also write a few dozen things a year, usually performed by friends, which may encompass ensembles of world-famous musicians, but not published or notable). Needs more data, and it woudl be better if done by a neutral third party. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (i.e. Delete from main space) I dig the photo and I'm sure he's a nice chap, but we need to have articles on notable living people only. This genetleman is not notable enough yet. --kingboyk 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per JzG. Stifle 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Weber and I are NOT related. We know each other though Lenoir-Rhyne College; he is a Professor of Music. His work in the sacred music program there is indicative of the continuing St. Olaf College tradition of music via F. Melius Christianen, well know American musician in the sacred music field. Dr. Weber my not be noteworthy enough yet I know; however, his continuing contribution to the sacred music major (i.e., making it a recognizable field) and his well known and award winning compositions, make his an influential musician in the church music of today.User:WeberC, 5 February 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] 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable musician. A google search of "Cynthia Paap" brings up 8 hits, none of which contain any information about a musician. The article was written by the same user who is in the Prays band (also up for deletion), which is connected to the Worship sampler (up for deletion) that she is on[57]. This is vanity and has no value for wikipedia. Arbustoo 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (and I've tagged it with {{Db-bio}}). No assertion of notability. Has appeared on a sampler only. --kingboyk 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk Donama 06:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability per WP:NMG, and if anyone wants to speedy it I won't object, but I am not sufficiently neutral on the issue to do it myself. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 11:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for 3 days. I thought the idea was that an admin would either speedy it or remove the tag - hasn't happened. I've removed the speedy tag since the AFD ends tommorow. --kingboyk 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable singer. A notable lack of Google hits. Mr Frosty 19:18, 7 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] 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not encyclopedic. Not every doctor in the world needs to be in an encyclopedia Opes 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 75,000 google hits disagree with you. He's not just any old doctor - he's a politically and adminstratively important one. Staffelde 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem with this article is that it reads like a press release and is a probable copy and paste job. It's not a real wiki article by any stretch of the imagination. --kingboyk 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather a different issue, of course - it could be knocked into shape without much trouble, although to be frank I'm not interested enough in Dr DB to do it myself.Staffelde 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appointed by Bush the first National Health Information Technology Coordinator, among other accomplishments Ruby 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - However, the current text is unacceptable. Not only is it not encyclopedic, it's not original. It comes from a website that is copyrighted by Allscripts Healthcare Solutions (this is a Google cache, as the page wouldn't load).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: Article was nominated for deletion in 2004 with no concensus reached]. Not a real nation, and in essence an internet club. I contend that WP:WEB should apply. 752 or 596 Google hits. 35 posts on official forum. Seems to me to be a big boys' version of something made up in school. Deletekingboyk 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Micronations seem to be an attempt to pretend notability where none exists: few, if any, are anythign other then egregious vanity. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG, destroyer of micronations. AdrianLamo · 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable micronation. --Billpg 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? And how can it be a micronation if it doesn't even exist? It's a website and should be evaluated as such, imho. --kingboyk 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of news references listed (if real). --Billpg 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one. NN political fringe group. youngamerican (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ten real world media coverage references. It clearly exists as an organization which has been active for some time in the real world, though not a territorial claim. There seems to be a bizarre anti-micronational wiki page vendetta brewing here. Georgewilliamherbert 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You'll see I've actually cleaned a lot of them up, and spent a great deal of time on it. However, I would concede one thing: that the label micronation doesn't help. It's too broad. If these things were labelled as political movements or clubs they might stand a better chance. As it is, when lumped in with Sealand or Republic of Minerva which has/had territory, Hutt River Province which has gained legendary status in Australia, and curious historical anomalies such as Lundy or Republic of Indian Stream, entities such as this come across as vanity and cruft personified. --kingboyk 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a small wave of these AFDs against micronations, starting with the one User:Gene Poole founded and right after his apparently controversial Request for Adminship? There are only about six dots here to draw the lines between, and the pattern is sort of obvious. Either this is some sort of retaliatory action, or the timing is so ludicrously coincidental that nobody's going to believe otherwise. If you are serious, I strongly urge you to back off AFDing these and try and make a case on talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated Principality of Freedonia for deletion first, having stumbled into the micronation area yesterday via Sealand, the sub pages of which I have cleaned up immensely. I then came to Empire of Atlantium. Well aware of the controversy, I asked for Guy's opinion on whether it would be wise to delete it given the past controversy and that exactly these kind of comments would arise. Based on his advice, as an admin and a user I trust, and given my further research and contemplation I went ahead. This is all quite transparent and is detailed on User_talk:JzG.
Unfortunately, Guy has made a bit of a balls up by then proceeding to nominate a truck load of others including the famous Hutt River Province. I knew nothing about that and have voted delete. The other nominations are his, not mine, no doubt inspired by my question to him. I have nothing to do with those nominations, and was taken by surprise.
You will see from edit histories that we are both neutral editors with a strong distaste for cruft and vanity articles. That's the only agenda here. I would respectfully suggest therefore that you assume good faith, check out our edit histories, and comment on the proposed deletions based on the merit of the articles and the deletion arguments and nothing else!
That's my final word on conspiracy. I am a good, solid, neutral editor and my history shows that. --kingboyk 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Irony here is that you two have started out by (assume good faith) accidentally hitting a bunch of the more notable and well known micronational pages, and Gene's; Gene has also been fairly active in trying to keep truly not-notable micronations (that truly are nothing more than just a web presence, etc) from getting pages or excess coverage in the main Micronation article.
I am not a micronation enthusiast; I don't belong to any and merely find it an interesting subject, combining aspects of small group and volunteer group dynamics with geopolitics and the evolving definitions of what soverignty means in the modern world. I have no problem with the premise that there are internet-only and non-notable micronations not worthy of WP entries. I believe that Gene would agree with that premise as well, and I think he's been actively working within the micronation article spaces to try and accomplish that, though from the standpoint of a micronation member/founder/enthusiast. Though personally involved, his NPOV seems to stay in good shape.
If this is indeed a serious interest in cleaning up the micronations section of WP, I submit to you that a bunch of AFDs are the wrong approach. I also submit to you that given the AFDs so far, there is an issue with identifying the level of notability of various articles. Purely in-wikipedia and google search sources aren't necessarily good enough. I suggest that engaging on say Talk:Micronation to identify consistent and community agreeable notability standards is a good course, rather than continuing to AFD things. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. FCYTravis 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, less than a 1,000 google hits. Arbustoo 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be something that has gathered multiple mentions in major media over an extneded period of time. How can we even consider deleting it? - brenneman(t)(c) 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) brenneman isn't saying "keep" because this isn't a vote and his opinon is clear. [reply]
Delete, Comment I pose that we should require a micronation to actually be both micro and a nation. Lacking territory of any size, this is neither. AdrianLamo · 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've voted twice. --kingboyk 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's how they taught me in Chicago ;x AdrianLamo · 04:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The number of articles about it specifically and the number of articles that mention it while covering the overall phenomenon suggest sufficient notability. (notoriety, I guess, rather than laudatory praise). This article (and the arguments given about its notability) seems a textbook example of why the Google test does not always reliably work to judge notability. I'm at a loss as to some of these nominations. However, suggesting that there's a vendetta brewing against micronations does seem to be stretching the point a bit, lets assume good faith. Lar is saying "Keep" even though this isn't a vote because sometimes he fears his opinion isn't clear! ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - my instincts tell me this is little more than an elaborate hoax (the nation, not the article), and not of the same notability as Hutt River Province, etc. However, the references prove that it is, at least marginally, notable. --djrobgordon 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not purport to have any real territory, long history. Plenty of sources. Lankiveil 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all micronations unless they have a significant history and notability. This does not, in my opinion. Stifle 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe this is even a micronation, it's just a website. Dpbsmith(talk) 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is clearly a one man operation pretending to be a micronation. Perhaps if it is deleted, the single person, that imagines it to become something more, will be less vicious in his POV warring over real micronations. Considering Gene_Pooley and his Centauri sock, as the "emperor" of this dream have gotten some publicity, there could be an article about him instead, mentioning his dreamed of "empire". Harvardy 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard. Second edit by this editor. --Gene_poole 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lovely and talented Wik returning yet again. Not no mo'. He go bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that time of year again already? Keep. --Gene_poole 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to declare an interest? I'm not doubting your right to have a say, but it's usual to declare one's personal interest I would have thought. --kingboyk 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I "have an interest". After 4 attempted AFDs of this article and more than 3 years of orchestrated harrassment by Wik and Samboy I'm surprised there's anyone left on the planet who hasn't been told at least half a dozen times. Daily. At length. With links. In 3 languages (not including sign language and smoke signals). --Gene_poole 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per external news refs and survival of previous AfDs. Turnstep 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, what is this? some sort of mad bandwagon trying to delete all micronation articles? This has been referenced already in the media and is notable as stated above. Piecraft 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article is notable. It certainly is verifiable. Brokenfrog 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has media coverage. Kappa 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 9 delete voters so far would presumably disagree with that assertion. --kingboyk 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 actually. Wik isn't permitted to vote. --Gene_poole 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, checked his edit history and I agree it's not a valid vote. --kingboyk 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unlike some of the other imaginary countries with articles, this one isn't particularly notable. Thumbelina 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some micronations are notable, Sealand was even a featured article, I believe. But there are "vanity" micronations, and I think this one is one of them. Ifnord 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been covered in the media. It may be just a micronation, folks, but it's a famous micronation. Wiwaxia 07:13, 9 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] 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, evidently somebody still living likes him, but just over 100 Google hits for his company, so administration of it isn't all that notable. AdrianLamo · 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Head of a redlink nn company. I feel this is probably a memorial, and if so I truly sympathise but refer to WP:NOT --kingboyk 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a memorial Ruby 01:12, 4 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] 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a vanity page for an unpublished (and generally, that should mean not notable) novella written by Christopher Levy (User:BigGuy219). This book could not be found on Amazon.com as a published work, and the article appears to have been created and largely edited by one anonymous IP. The writer has also done some edits on the page. Might be a great novel, mind you, but if everyone published a summary of their unpublished Great American (or Russian, or British or what have you) Novel, Wikipedia would be filled to the brim.
Additionally, a page called "doughboys" would more appropriately be used as a explanation of the WWI term for soldiers. The 1930 Buster Keaton film is also in wide circulation. Westwinds 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Ruby 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unpublished book by author we don't have an article on yet. Would vote to keep an article on Buster Keaton film. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Sounds like self-glorification and/or attempt to publicize on the above-mentioned user's part. --Kinu 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. The author of the novel's a Wikipedian, and not even he's defending it. --djrobgordon 06:57, 4 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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to verify as the article stands now Ruby 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - only three Google hits for the phrase, all reprints of this article at www.thefreedictionary.com.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about a merge and redirect is that it's easily undone. In the unlikely event that someone comes up with some amazing depth of information that requires a seperate article, they can go right ahead and reverse my action. As Ruby says this is a major show - but a hopeless article. I think Wikipedia doesn't lose anything by my action, it has actually gained. --kingboyk 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not like this show is an ensemble piece with dozens of major characters Ruby 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I consider that Carrie Bradshaw warrants a standalone article as WP:FICT, there is plenty of material to answer info on the Sex in the City page. Would vote to keep if there was a decent article. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't know what the contents are but should be a sufficiently notable character to have its own page. MLA 10:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When someone comes up with a good article, a new one can be created, but this vote is about the current article, which does not deserve to be kept. Why don't you check the contents before voting? RayGates 13:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Comment because I'm not going to bite the newbies and the above statement speaks for itself. MLA 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference: Go the article. That will redirect you to the Sex & City article with a little message at the top saying redirected from Carrie Bradshaw. Click on Carrie Bradshaw, and you'll go to the original article. You can then view the history. Here's a link which will take you right there: [58]. That's the last edit before I redirected. One paragraph and nothing which does any more than state the obvious. --kingboyk 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I restored the stub (for now), since the AfD seems to be leaning towards keep, for now. If the vote does indeed come out as M&R, a quick reversion to Kingboyk's edit will do nicely. youngamerican (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, I shall probably unilaterally replace it with a merge and redirect unless the article improves. It's an interesting conundrum really, because on the one hand we have this AFD debate, on the other hand we have a clear precedent that merge and redirect is appropriate for very small articles which are closely related to another subject and which have little chance of being reasonably expanded. Of course, I won't revert any such change if it's undone with a good reason stated in the edit summary. --kingboyk 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the consensus, as viewed by the closing admin, is keep, it would be inappropriate to unilaterally M&R. The best bet, if the result is keep, would be to slap an expansion tag on the article to ensure that it is improved and expanded. If the final tally indicates no consensus, however, it would be entirely acceptable to M&R and slap an expansion tag on the talk page, letting those that like the show know about the attention needed for the article. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to move that this debate be closed. I don't believe anybody will vote to delete. The merge/redirect issue can then be resolved at that page. --kingboyk 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cheers for the technical advice. A low quality article does not mean it should not exist. The article should be tagged for cleanup of some kind rather than being removed. MLA 09:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. C'mon, guys! The overwhelming precedent is that notable characters from important books/films/shows get articles. Grandmasterka 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. Despite my own personal dislike of the series, the majority of TV series have pages for major (and often minor) characters. Essexmutant 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case there should be articles for at least each of the four major characters. The descriptions of the characters on the Sex and the City page could be separated out into separate articles.RayGates 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The show is iconic enough and the characters are themselves notable enough for sucha treatment by wikipedia. youngamerican (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The other three main characters are all notable enough to have their own articles. Essexmutant 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added a link to author RatherConfused 12:06, 6 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, especially now Prince Leonard is trolled in Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A micronation. Which means: vanity, or a single-person political protest (usually about tax). Maybe one of the more notable ones, maybe not: a lot of it looks rather spurious to me. Anyway, let's have a review. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination is some sort of a joke, right ? --Centauri 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is one of the more notable ones. It's very famous in Australia and even gets a mention in 'Lonely Planet', the travel guide. --kingboyk 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable micronation. --Billpg 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I'm going to vote delete on some of these other MNs and think it is good to review the crap from the useful, but this one is well-referenced in almanacs, travel guides, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, and other sources as an example of a micronation (right along with Sealand) and could be a well-sourced article. I could probably recite a good bit of the facts about this one off of the top of my head, and I know relatively little about all things antipodian.youngamerican (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep After Sealand, clearly the second most credible aspirant micronation, regardless of how you feel about micronations in general. Third victim page in anti-micronational AFD rampage. Georgewilliamherbert 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like this might be an example of how a topic with ~500 Google hits can be more notable than it seems. AdrianLamo · 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google is a long way from being a comprehensive reference source on anything, and is of almost no use at all in determining the "notability" of historic subjects recorded largely in paper documents (ie anything before the 1990s) - although I know how difficult it is for most people under the age of 30 to come to grips with such a crazy notion. --Centauri 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (not speedy unless Guy withdraws the nom). Yes, this is well-known. Googling for just "Hutt River Province" will get a lot more hits, btw. —rodii 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kingboyk. Arbustoo 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly rename to Hutt River Province which it is better known as. Over 39,000 Google hits [59] including this ABC Television Australia interview with Prince Leonard. [60].
Keep. Odd but very well known over a long period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 February 2006
Keep - Notability seems quite well established, government tourist guides make mention of it and it has received writeups in mainstream press. I think if kept the main article should be Hutt River Province with Hutt River Province Principality being a redirect. I plan to suggest delete on some other micronations but not this one. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is useful and interesting. Wikipedia has lots of completely useless articles, but this isn't one. 85.28.65.75 09:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alleged micronation but the site barely Googles (12 hits) and has zero Alexa, the name itself gets around 120 unique Googles not al of which are obviusly relevant. I call cruft. Kept here. I'm seriously unconvinced. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notiable micronation. --Billpg 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some kind of article that may exist on homosexual issues in Australia. Otherwise, delete keep. youngamerican (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, notable, of interest to potential readers. —Caesura(t) 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fourth or so victim of anti-micronational-article AFD spree. Is notable, has territorial claim. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what? please, don't just proffer that it's notable, sign your comment, and walk away. if it's notable and you know it, help out the process by telling us how you know. thanks :). AdrianLamo · 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GWH and to counter possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on WP Ruby 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I trouble you to cite some examples of possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on Wikipedia? I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely curious where that's coming from. AdrianLamo · 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a possible example of possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on WP can be found hereRuby 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replying on your talkpage to avoid discussion sprawl :) AdrianLamo · 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep based on international press coverage, if nothing else. This article has now been nominated for deletion 3 times. The most recent attempt was barely 1 month ago. This constitutes an obvious misleading, bad-faith nomination, and might also be construed as constituting a systemic anti-LGBT bias. --Centauri 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked at the lengths some people will go to argue a point. --kingboyk 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG made a plausible case for deletion. Obviously, consensus doesn't support it, but that falls way short of bad faith. I'm also confused as to how this is the third nomination; it says "second" in the URL. And your link goes to an AfD six months ago. I'd appreciate elucidation :) AdrianLamo · 01:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a valid point, and the case for deletion was deliberately misrepresented. I'm shocked at the lengths some people will go to to claim neutrality while obviously consipiring to go on a highly-charged AFD rampage, as part of what seems to be some sort of wider vendetta. Perhaps you should show me where the record of the first failed deletion nomination was, seeing as you seem to know all about the fact that it was 6 months ago. As you well know, my link points to the second nomination, in January 2006, which is a good deal less than 6 months ago. --Centauri 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about anyone else, but I got left out of the conspiracy steering committee. I would appreciate clarification on your statement though -- I'm willing to entertain that I missed an AfD somehow, but as someone who's alleging misdirection, it behooves you to clarify the two points I raised :) AdrianLamo · 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you go and look at my link, and then compare it with the link you were looking at from 6 months ago. --Centauri 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. The January one was seemingly for "Gay and lesbian kingdom" by name, and was a package deal that also included this article. See? Simple confusion on my part caused by article names. As I indicated I was willing to consider, there was nothing sinister in your actions -- doesn't it follow that an AfD can happen on this without an agenda or conspiracy? :) AdrianLamo · 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were both wrong this is actually the FOURTH nomination. Your January one would be number 1, this was number 2, January 06 was 3 and we're currently in the midst of 4. Of course there's no conspiracy. It's merely a coincidence that a rash of micronation AFDs happened today. --Centauri 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more likely that an editor found a bunch of micronation articles, felt that they weren't notable, and tossed 'em to the community for consensus :) AdrianLamo · 02:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor fool. Didn't anyone tell him that he could achieve his death wish under far more pleasant circumstances in a pit full of hungry crocodiles? --Centauri 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is as yet no Wikipedia:Pit Full of Hungry Crocodiles guideline page. Perhaps you should create one, so we could give that link to ambitious newcomers to the micronation topic. Barno 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a suitable home can be found for it (an article about the very vocal and active gay rights movement in Aus, gotta be one somewhere?!) Merge per youngamerican. Otherwise Weak Keep per Ruby. --kingboyk 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative merge destination I could support would be to a page on Australian micronations, which would contain an overview of the movement and the merged-in content of some of the lesser 'micronations', including this one. (Idea of Centauri discussed on User talk:Lar) --kingboyk 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per precedent, and lack of compelling guidelines on notability of micronations. AdrianLamo · 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sense a large groundswell of enthusiasm for developing and documenting such a standard notability guideline... Georgewilliamherbert 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it on my to-do for when I'm starting to feel like I need more stress in my life. That'll be next week, I think :) AdrianLamo · 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably redundant advice, but I recommend starting a thread on Talk:Micronation when you do, so that it's noticed by likely interested parties. Georgewilliamherbert 03:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion :) AdrianLamo ·· 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Coral Sea Islands Territory which is in fact an official Territory of Australia. For example the CIA factbook lists it is a territory. [62]. This is a political stunt by gay activists who don't actually live there. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article was nominated for deletion on 010106. The result of the discussion was no consensus. WOWFM
keep - I support the criteria given here: Category_talk:Micronations. This one passes those criteria, and repeatedly renominating it may not be helpful. Nor would arguing about whether there's a vast conspiracy to rid WP of small things. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's absurd, but it's real, and it has press coverage. --djrobgordon 06:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My thanks to all the above for informing me of my real motives, I thought I was just trying to clear up some cruft (having reviewed, Googled and left most fo the micronations in the category). Seems I was deluding myself and I am in fact a rampant deletionist with an agenda against micronations. I wish I'd known that, I'd have nominated the lot and saved the time spent researching. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I'm sure you'll somehow make up that lost 30 seconds. --Centauri 09:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a useful comment. I have found JzG to be a very thoughtful and hardworking contributor. He may tend to be a bit more deletionist than I am, but his nominations are always done in good faith (to assume otherwise is to in itself act in bad faith, in my view) and are worthy of serious consideration, because he does not make them lightly, IMHO. Deleting truly bad articles is part of what makes Wikipedia better, even hardcore inclusionists like myself know that. (I already suggested keep on this one, after all) I believe this opinion of JzG and his actions is not just mine, because he recently was made an admin with over 100 supporting voices and little dissent. Sometimes his comebacks may be a bit acerbic if you bait him, but I expect he's a bit frustrated at how people have piled on him and User:kingboyk about the spate of nominations. Remember, people nominate things as they become aware of them, so there need not be a nefarious plot here, merely a raising in awareness. JzG reviewed the category and a number of related articles to thus get nominated. Perfectly natural, and quite useful, IMHO. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the benefits of being bold, but an editor who slaps an AFD on an article without even bothering to glance at the talk page is not acting responsibly in my opinion. If he had he would have seen the failed AFD from barely a month ago, and saved us all hours of wasted time and effort.--Centauri 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd ask you to WP:AGF, as I am assuming you don't know that's what he did, you're apparently just assuming it. Although the admonition to check talk pages for signs of previous deletions is a good piece of advice, articles can and do get renominated, and it's entirely appropriate that they do, IMHO. 4 times may be a bit much, but the previous cites of that were confuddled, it looked like only one previous one. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my contributions, I would like to point out that I have voted a weak keep on this one, I voted keep on Hutt River Province, and I advised JzG to withdraw the nomination, which he did. Thanks Lar for the helpful commentary. --kingboyk 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to cover every publicity stunt. CalJW 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia has an article on the Conch Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic so why not one on this, it is a worthy micronation that is verifiable, notable, and of interest to potential readers I'm too, like many of the above people are shocked at the lengths some people will go to to claim neutrality while obviously consipiring to go on a highly-charged AFD rampage, as part of what seems to be some sort of wider gay vendetta, this is the 4th time this article has come up for deletion, the last time was less than 3 weeks ago and it has allways survived so just leave it alone *File:Legal9.gifWowfm 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. As one of the "conspirators" I really ought to have voted delete. Shame on me. --kingboyk 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being mentioned several times in media eager for sensations doesn't establish encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have similar articles in the encyclopedia such as the Conch Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic The only difference between it and the Kingdom is the Rebublic is str8 and the Kingdom is gay. Why has the Conch Republic not come up for deletion 4 times in the last 12 months? 12.09 Someonenotfamous
If this wasn't a gay issue I would have voted delete, and I suspect for others it's the same. So, rather than there being an anti LGBT conspiracy I suspect rather the opposite. You are of course free to nominate that other article for deletion but it seems to have become an annual festival. I suspect it has notability as a festival and not as a 'micronation', but I might be wrong. --kingboyk 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is this going to just be relisted and relisted until enough delete nods make it? xaosfluxTalk/CVU 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took me some time before I actually believed that this wasn't a joke. Although, there's a lot of unverifiable stuff on the article...for example, the national anthem and the flag. Nevertheless, we shouldn't delete the article because of these aspects.SoothingR 15:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it just came off of an AfD on January 5, 2006. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part however, as it was bundled up with another article's AfD (which can, as seen here, be a really bad idea). Turnstep 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and I have heard of this referenced on TV. Piecraft 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a media stunt gets some temporary news attention doesn't make it notable. —Cleared as filed. 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has got a great deal of coverage in the international gay press. David | Talk 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete, and I strongly resent the implication that nominating this non-notable micronation (redundant term!) is due to bias! User:Zoe|(talk) 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international press coverage. Kappa 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is both very interesting and notable. --Liface 01:41, 8 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 was DeleteMhiji 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football team ComputerJoe 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an amateur team; no record on Google, which would be unusual if they were pros (even low-level ones). As such, not sufficiently notable. -Colin Kimbrell 16:15, 3 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.
22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 17:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
(talk) 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
SoothingR 15:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)