Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 8

Guide to deletion

June 8

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Last minute resistance

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP is not a seduction community jargon hand book.--Peta 00:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method, which survived AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method. Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Accurizer 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete, someone can later replace contents with a redirect to Mystery Method, as its not enough for its own article. Its delete because I'd rather see it deleted than 'kept' due redir/del not forming consensus. Kevin_b_er 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN neologism —Mets501^talk 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete V. Joe 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of the walled garden the so-called "Seduction Community" has been building on Wikipedia over the last several months. As a sample, see {{Notable Members of The Seduction Community}}, List of commercial seduction teachers, and the contributions list of this particular editor. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above, merge/redirect to Mystery method since it surved AfD. Someone shoudl go through and AfD a lot of these articles (one or two of them is arguably notable like Mystery but and community itself but thats about it). JoshuaZ 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Inner Earth 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Seduction Community" indeed. Piffle. -- GWO
• Delete and root out all of this stuff. Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Mystery Method, otherwise Delete. Indeed, it is not notable enough to have its own article per nom. -- ReyBrujo 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Accurizer Computerjoe's talk 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism only in use in Mystery Method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:39, 8 June 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Peacocking

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Peta 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adambiswanger1 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method, which survived AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method. Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Accurizer 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sub-term of Mystery Method. While the primary article may have been notable enough for wikipedia, the multitude of subpages are not. Kevin_b_er 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*Keep NoPuzzleStranger 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.198 (talk • contribs) Striked out vote attributed to blocked sockpuppet account. Accurizer 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect Why not redirect? --Ephilei 02:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method —Mets501^talk 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Inner Earth 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Merge into Mystery Method, keep all that stuff together in a single article. Now that I review Mystery Method for the third time, I wonder how I missed its AFD. -- ReyBrujo 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mets501 Computerjoe's talk 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Neologism only in use in Mystery Method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:40, 8 June 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indicator of interest

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Peta 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete Adambiswanger1 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method, which survived AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method. Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Accurizer 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sub-term of Mystery Method. While the primary article may have been notable enough for wikipedia, the multitude of subpages are not. Kevin_b_er 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method —Mets501^talk 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Inner Earth 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stuff made up on usenet. -- GWO
• Merge into Mystery Method, keep all that stuff together in a single article. -- ReyBrujo 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mets501 Computerjoe's talk 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism only in use in Mystery Method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method. I have interest in the content. --Starionwolf 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm against the redirect. The phrase may have common usage, but this definition is solely in that method. Delete seems more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:37, 12 June 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 Redirect to Mystery Method. Richardcavell 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Indicator of disinterest

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Peta 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitionary: if this article is a forum slang term from what I understand. Otherwise delete. - Tutmosis 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method, which survived AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method. Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Accurizer 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sub-term of Mystery Method. While the primary article may have been notable enough for wikipedia, the multitude of subpages are not. Kevin_b_er 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method —Mets501^talk 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Inner Earth 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stuff made up on usenet. -- GWO
• Redirect to Mets501 Computerjoe's talk 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism only in use in Mystery Method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – Gurch 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Osman Nuri Topbas

The article has been a mess since October, without much improvement. I'm unconvinced that notability can be established. Indeed, I've little idea what's going on here. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Additional comment to the closing admin: don't interpret my nomination as a desire for deletion; it seems notability can be established. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: It's still mostly untranslated, and usually we delete articles that remain untranslated for more than two weeks. --Hetar 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We typically AfD them after they have been listed for translation at WP:PNT for two weeks and haven't been translated. This one had the wrong tag and so was never found by WP:PNT. Let's try to find a Turkish speaker to help before we delete this, so keep for now. I promise to AfD it again if it doesn't get translated. Kusma (討論) 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Nobody listed the article at Wikipedia:Translation_into_English#Turkish-to-English until I did so just now, which is probably why the article wasn't translated earlier. TruthbringerToronto 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Quite simply, it fails to assert his notability to a high enough degree Adambiswanger1 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article is not translated into English and if after two weeks, should be deleted, subject is non-notable. --Terence Ong 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you know that the subject is non-notable? I guess it is nn because tr:Osman Nuri Topbaş has no nontrivial incoming links, but that is a rather weak sign of lack of notability. Do you have a better one? Kusma (討論) 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of translation. —Mets501^talk 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete . The turkish article has a big red notice at the top which machine translates as 'possible copyright ....' (i'm guessing problem?). Given this, we have no source material. Inner Earth 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep As we are addressing the copyright problems, and some links to his work have been shown, have changed my vote accordingly. Inner Earth 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Close the vote with no action, AFD is not the correct procedure. Page does contain copyvio (for those parts of it should be deleted) but the person is notable for writing religious books. --Cat out 10:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing per Cool Cat Computerjoe's talk 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- no notability asserted. Reyk _YO! 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (and expand) CoolCat's rewrite (thanks!), certainly delete the copyvio. Note that the subject is apparently notable enough to be translated into German, see [1]. Here's a link to the English translation of the same book at amazon. Kusma (討論) 20:28, 8 June 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 speedy delete. If it's a subpage in your own userspace, you need not go to AfD with it (or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which would have been the more appropriate place). CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:JB82/WikiStress level

I just go tired of keeping this seperate from my main user page. JB82 00:36, 8 June 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomachuck

neologism, something made up in school one day. Originally nominated for speedy deletion and contested, but as it's not a candidate for speedy deletion I'm listing it here --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Tomadelete SM247 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete Adambiswanger1 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tomadelete agree nom and SM247, wikipedia not for stuff made up in a school day. Nonsensy stuff. Kevin_b_er 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Tomakeep!!! I use this word all the time and have heard it in other environments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.87.23 (talk • contribs) .
• 'Tomakeep' I live in Austin, Tx and have heard this term used at the lake. There is also a list of people who regularly use this term on the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcrow (talk • contribs)

(injected comment) This user has only made 8 edits, all pertaining to this article, and is the creator of the article. Kevin_b_er 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT, 6 unique Google hits, none of them having anything to do with this. Accurizer 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• TomaDelete! Funny, but definitely a neologism. Sorry. Maybe this can be revived if it becomes an actual slang term. --0zymandias 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Chuck it per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Interesting -- I heard tomachuck used up on Lake Hamilton in Arkansas earlier this summer, and wasn't sure what it meant. Makes since now... kind of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.218.79 (talk • contribs)
• Tomakeep. User:Jen 08:36, 8 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.87.23 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think WP:NEO and WP:NFT pretty much cover it. -- Kicking222 01:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. -- Koffieyahoo 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Accurizer. Lbbzman 02:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• What if I was able to get the word tomachuck to be used during a prime time television show... who that solidify it as a word —The preceding partially signed comment was added by Prcrow (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

This is a duplicate vote as of this comment. Kevin_b_er 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NFT, no matter how many kids show up to claim they've heard it at the lake. Fan1967 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larbage and my own and others' comments there. If in the incredibly unlikely (yet admittedly possible) circumstance that this term is adopted into common usage, the page may be recreated...on Wiktionary, where it would belong, and not here. So, either way, deletion is warranted. SM247 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. At the VERY least it should be noted that based on wikipedia policy WP:NOT the article should be deleted. The entry is a definition of a fake word anyway. MBob 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN neologism —Mets501^talk 03:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Even if it weren't a non-notable autobiographical neologism (which it is), it would still be a dictionary definition. - Andre Engels 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hey look, sockpuppets! In any case, this is unencyclopedic nonsense. IrishGuy talk 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Scot^t 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very, very n-n. Inner Earth 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever happened to kids wanting to keep their secret language secret? -- GWO

Reality TV happened - now everyone wants to be a star --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all of the above Ydam 12:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Andre Engels et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per stuff created in a day. -- ReyBrujo 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per obviousness... Wickethewok 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• speedychuck -MrFizyx 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nnn Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• TomaDelete, possibly speedy. I guess it's just BS, rather than WP:Nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unvarafiable nonsense. RN 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.167.122 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:02, 11 June 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 no consensus – Gurch 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi

Unverifiable. Not-notable. Probable copyright violation. Medtopic 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• What to do?. The man deserves a better article than this. He is definitely notable in sufism, and as the founder of IHRC India, where you can also find some of his writings.[2]. It is more difficult to establish notability and verifiability than for a comparably notable American preacher and teacher (see WP:BIAS), and I like these names that run for almost a full line's length, but I don't immediately see how the article can be salvaged. --Lambiam^Talk 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. gidonb 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. Definitely notable, as a founder of a major research center and one of the leading lights of a sect that contains over fifteen million people in India alone. Hornplease 20:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The arguments are persuasive.--Runcorn 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See [3]. I think the Professor test applies here, and he barely passes. Perhaps his residence in India is the reason for the lack of Google hits. Adambiswanger1 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. It should be possible to extract a good article of about two paragraphs from this mess; drop the rest but not the whole article. - Andre Engels 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's a straight paste out of here. strong Delete only because this is obvious self-promotion by his organization - webpage was updated yesterday, probably to release the copyright... I don't vote Keep on promotional materials, even if the subject may be notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Crz is correct that in cases where an article is a cut-and-paste hagiography (or even simply a promotional vehicle), delete is likely as appropriate as keep and cleanup even if the subject is likely notable, inasmuch as most of the text likely can't be used in any event. In the case that there is salvagable text here (much of the detail of course, is unencyclopedic), and if we're generally in accord with the proposition that the subject is notable, perhaps stubifying the article (e.g., as Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi is a scholar of Islamic history, author, and founder of the Islamic History and Research Council India.) and then allowing others to expand might be the best route to go. Alternatively, if deletion is agreed upon, it's likely best that the subject be added to WP:RA, in order that a bio may be crafted in the future. My thinking, I guess, parallels that of Lambiam, and, as he, I'm not certain what we ought to do... Joe 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.I dont know who created this page, i just wikified it a bit, after a search brought me to this page, as noted it is straight copy from the official website but it is not self-promotion as I partially help maintain that site and noone from our team created this page, it was me who added the non-copyright notice to avoid deletion. Dr Sharfi is one of the most respected and prominent scholars of Islam in Hyderabad and India and I think keeping this page will enable a better page over time.If Google search was possible in Urdu you will get hundreds of links about Dr.Sharfi. To satisfy those googlers

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A1 nonsense as declared hoax.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mario and Luigi: Operation Rescue

Article is an admitted hoax, since it is about a non-existent game. At the mildest, it's original research. It's non-notable in any case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. No question. Adambiswanger1 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kinda a fan fic for gamers... yeah... nn. --0zymandias 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Accurizer 01:29, 8 June 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 merge with Gwen Stefani. The material in the article is already present in Stefani's bio, so a cheap redirect seems a good way to go. Joyous! | Talk 19:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingston James McGregor Rossdale

I happen to think the child is currently NN. Until the child does something inherently notable (other than being born), the info should just be included on the parents page's. Bachrach44 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Relation to someone notable is not enough. Adambiswanger1 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• But, but, being the best looking human child isn't notable? Aw, fine, then, delete. GassyGuy 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Adambiswanger1. I think we need an article for Michael Jackson's son "Blanket" before this. Accurizer 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, i don't think his parents are notable either, but thats just my own POV --Xorkl000 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into parents pages. -- Koffieyahoo 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all celebrity children until they do something to earn some notability in their own right. Being born doesn't qualify. Fan1967 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Being born does qualify if you get widely reported, written up in the press, millions of people know who you are, etc. Everyking 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What could you possibly say about the kid outside of the fact of birth, that's already in the parents' articles? One of the Jolie-Pitt kids' article, before it was deleted, said that she reportedly "likes giraffes and coos when she sees one." With a newborn, you can't even come up with something that pointless. Fan1967 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's the difference between getting 15 minutes of fame, and actually being notable. Congratulations for being born, kid! Who are your parents? Congratulations to them, too. Tychocat 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "first biological child of..." What's the alternative, mechanical? --Calton | Talk 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Adopted, I would assume (which would be their child legally but not biologically). Confusing Manifestation 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gwen Stefani. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The kid also has a notable father, although less notable than the mother. Are there any potential issues involved in which bio you choose to redirect to? Everyking 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's mostly that Stefani is more famous than her husband. But if it's too hard to decide which parent to redirect to, I will support a delete instead. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The birth did get an awful lot of attention. I don't see how you can delete an article on someone so famous. Who cares that he's a newborn? Famous is famous. Everyking 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But until the baby achieves something separately from his parents, substantially everything that would go in this article will also appear in the articles about either or both of his parents. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I've always considered notability to be assigned, not achieved. Everyking 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Nice, but utterly irrelevant, since it's not the kid who's gotten the attention, it's the event (the birth) -- and even THAT isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!. --Calton | Talk 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
              • • Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable? Everyking 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? What part of "isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!" did you manage to overlook? It wasn't all that long a clause, really.
                  • And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable? Probably about the time you present a source demonstrating he's done something more notable than gurgling and pooping. Of course, if you have any sources for notable gurgling and/or notable pooping, I'll accept that, too. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't have any sources about him doing anything notable, but I've already made the argument (as I always do in these cases—we had a fuss over Britney's baby, I think his was deleted, but JFK's prematurely deceased baby was kept) that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions. If people think the baby is notable—and that can be demonstrated by public interest manifested in the press—then he's notable regardless of anything else. I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. And I think there's a pretty big number. Everyking 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • I've already made the argument...that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions. Which was, as I pointed out, irrelevant, but I guess you missed that, too.
                      • I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. So this is the logical place for information on Gwen Stefani's pregnancy, as opposed to, say the actual article on Gwen Stefani? ("No... That's just what they'll be expecting us to do!") Besides, who's going to look this name up? The only articles it links from is from the parents's articles -- and if you're coming from there, you already know everything that's in -- or could be in -- the article. Meaning it's, well, worthless, unless you want to add in the information about the notable gurgling and/or notable pooping. Or maybe you could use this Los Angeles Times article as a model. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 06:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gwen Stefani. A no doubter. -- GWO
  • !!! --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • .... thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal ....
• Speedy delete not notable. Mr Stephen 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, CSD:A7. The information is already found in both parents articles. Notability in Wikipedia cannot be inherited. -- ReyBrujo 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it can. The Disco King 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I would argue it is not possible to compare a Countess with a singer's baby, not even if she is the Queen of Pop, because the Countess has a RL nobility title. :) -- ReyBrujo 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going for notability, though, I'm sure that more people have heard about Gwen Stephani's baby than some random Countess in the Netherlands. That would be even more true if we were to talk about some other celebrity kids' pages that have been redirected, like Sean Preston Federline, or Suri Cruise. In both cases, the only "notable" thing the kids did was be born to really famous parents - exactly what qualifies the Countess. (Don't get me wrong - I'm in favour of deletion, I just don't see the point of indiscriminately collecting articles about non-notable members of the royalty.) Cheers! The Disco King 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I like medieval titles that were left behind by most countries in the world, mind you. However, it is my belief that, by using the 100 year ahead test, there are more chances for a dutch to have heard about the Countess (as she may be included in history books due her affiliation with the Crown, minimun as it is) than the baby of a famous singer (which may very well discover an AIDS treatment in the future). I don't like nobility titles, but if determined countries still use them, it is because they believe in them (if not the people, the government). -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anytime someone's article includes the phrase "nth in line to the throne" where n is in single digits, it's pretty guaranteed that person's entry gets kept, rightly or wrongly. Royalty is genuinely hereditary. Being a pop star isn't. Fan1967 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Thought about putting this one up for AFD myself. Wickethewok 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Non-speedy per nom. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Fairly weak keep. I think it probably deserves an article. To be technical, WP:BIO says "Persons achieving renown...for their involvement in newsworthy events". Which seems to qualify the kid (unless you argue that the events weren't newsworthy, but they did make the news). I don't think keeping it does any harm. Trebor 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but also The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) From what I understand, her only noteworthy event was the birth. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect Not a royal. CalJW 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gwen. In the past, AfDs have concluded that such children should redirect to the more notable parent. youngamerican (talk) 13:34, 15 June 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Upland rd

Simply Non notable Adambiswanger1 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some links and categories to make the article more useful. Several other streets and roads in Australia and elsewhere have their own articles. TruthbringerToronto 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to live nearby. It is a nice street, with pavemants and traffic – just like every other street. Clear case of Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create. --Ezeu 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I am from Australia and this is a street in a suburb. It is not a highway or main road or hisotric interest.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I came across this page after condering a rental property on upland road. I found it extremely useful to know the traffic conditions and the frequency of student use. If this topic has been of interest to someone enough to write a page about it and useful to someone like me planning on moving to the area there is no reason why it should be deleted.big_jas 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I know not of Australian road geography, but I do know that the article does not assert why this road is more important than any other one. -- Kicking222 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Doesn't hurt anything. --Ephilei 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ezeu and Blnguyen. Accurizer 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I concur. Having been here myself, it is not a notable street, certainly not more than any other in this part of Brisbane and indeed actually less so. WP is not a UBD or street atlas. SM247 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. WP is not a repository for everything. Tychocat 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if WP had an article for every random street it would have millions more pages! —Mets501^talk 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't explain why this street is notable enough to warrant an article. Possibly might be worth a mention in our article on St Lucia, Queensland but definitely not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this has no merit at all, so don't worry about the St Lucia article. Jammo (SM247) 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the street had historical importance, such as the original road through the UQ campus, or something like that, then it might have a place. Its use by UQ students is not worthy of an article (Note: My possible anti-UQ bias is already declared on my user page under the studying at QUT statement) Ansell 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - street is not notable and nothing notable has happenned there - Peripitus (Talk) 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Kicking222 and Ezeu. Mr Stephen 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jammo (SM247). Someone living in the area should know whether it is notable or not. A note could be added to the St Lucia, Queensland article, but not more. -- ReyBrujo 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Streets in general do not need their own pages per some guideline somewhere... Wickethewok 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn street Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia, not a street plan.
  If the world has gone sufficiently mad that this is actually not deleted, it should at the very least be renamed to something reflecting its geographical (un)importance. — Haeleth Talk 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable street. --Roisterer 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable street. --Starionwolf 23:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delte as per Blnguyen and nominator. Nn street. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:58, 13 June 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 speedy deleted by Fang Aili (talk · contribs) (Liberatore, 2006). 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Drew Ankne

Not notable, as per WP:NIO Xorkl000 01:04, 8 June 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 no consensus to delete. Merge doesn't require AFD. Petros471 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve Henifin

Non-notable game company musician. Kickstart70-T-C 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I never created these pages as they existed months if not YEARS before I ever saw them the only thing that I've done is added pictures to the article and any new info that may have surfaced. I'm also not under their employ - HGLatinBoy 6:37, June 8 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dyack. Other members of this company are forthcoming. (sorry, I misread something) User:HGLatinBoy appears to be editing/creating these company members' pages, but I don't believe this user is in their employ. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He fails WP:Notability for composers-More importantly, my own discretion tells me he is not notable enough for an article. Adambiswanger1 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. I'm sure he's a great guy and a talented musician, and I hope this resume gets posted somewhere else. Tychocat 03:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, - Motor (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, fails notability for musicians, but he may fit the one for persons. However, I can't check that right now. -- ReyBrujo 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I cannot understand the reason for deleting this article. He is a known videogame musician, and the article is factual with no spin or bias. Wikipedia is not paper and as such, this article does no harm in being kept, and in fact adds towards a healthy base of videogame musician biographies. In my personal opinion, I feel that if people put their effort in to creating and editing articles, rather than trying to delete them (not including junk and spam, of course), Wikipedia would be a much more productive place. --Daniel Lawrence 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yuzo Koshiro and Robert Prince have articles, and they haven't done anything noteworthy lately. Metal Gear Solid qualifies as noteworthy. Change vote to Merge to Silicon Knights. Koshiro and Prince wrote memorable soundtracks, but Henifin did a MGS remake. Danny Lilithborne 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • MGS is noteworthy, but that doesn't mean all the people who worked on it are. The New York Times is noteworthy, but the paperboy on your street is almost guaranteed to not be. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I see how a music composer is on the same level as a paperboy. Danny Lilithborne 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, let's take it up a notch then. Of the 10 members of the board of directors of Microsoft, only three have their own pages. Notability is a very difficult thing to prove, and that's why guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:CORP are so vital for these debates. If there's a problem with those guidelines, certainly you should bring up that issue, but this is not the place to do so. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did a little more research and decided to change my vote. Danny Lilithborne 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Silicon Knights --Starionwolf 23:17, 11 June 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 no consensus, which defaults to keep. Joyous! | Talk 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

• Strong delete. Article creator is creating multiple sequel articles with no references whatsoever — examples are Signs 2, Blair Witch 3: The Prequel, Speed 3 (being speedied), and I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer. Please also see Fan1967's statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs 2 regarding possible malicious motive behind same. Last Summer "sequel" kept getting AfD notice removal from anonymous users editing behind AOL proxy servers (see here and here), so that's a possibility with this one — your vigilance would be appreciated. — Mike •  01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know the person who wrote this "malicious" entry also wrote for Variety. [9] User:WCityMike I don't expect an apology to this "malicious" anon, for being proven completly, 100% wrong, because it is an unwritten rule on the internet never, ever admit you are wrong--even when it is so blatant as in this case. (Personal attack removed) Travb (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Did the user cite this? No. Therefore, was it unreferenced when created? Yes. Did the other articles nominated have any supporting evidence either? No. Did the user repeatedly remove AfD notices from the articles he or she was working on until an admin blocked them? Yes. In my opinion, no apology necessary for using the term "possible malicious motive," especially given Fan1967's research. And considering I've been around since August 2004 and have only recently begun working in AfD, I suspect your look at my contributions was done with a rather selective eye. — Mike • 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Did this anon write the Variety article[10] or the movie web article www.movieweb.com[11]? E-mail me and I will have you send me tickets when the movie comes out. Typically you ignore my central argument, about the Variety article, did the anon write this Variety article too. (Personal attack removed) How many articles will others have to find before you admit that this movie will come out, 6, 12, 20, 100? Answer: No matter how much evidence anyone provides, you will stick by your central argument that this article should be deleted. (Personal attack removed) Travb (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, cool down, Travb. There is no need to continue. Mike, if you are as veteran in Wikipedia as you mention, you will know when not to reply is better than doing so. -- ReyBrujo 04:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to apologize publicly to User:WCityMike I was wrong. I did not know that User:WCityMike has been an editor since August 2004. I am sure he has added a lot of actual content to Wikipedia, being an editor since August 2004. Again, my apologizes. I was completely 100% wrong.Travb (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, sir, and thank you for it. — Mike • 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Reference cited IMDB article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This one isn't a hoax, it's just so crystal-ballish as to be unfit for an article. They don't have a firm cast yet, no shooting schedule, and there's no guarantee the movie will be made at all (IMDB is really, really bad about listing planned movies that never get made). Fan1967 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a crystal ball, and the article can be resubmitted when and if a movie is actually made. Judging from history, I'm guessing this will happen in any case? Tychocat 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fan1967. ---Charles 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too crystal ballish, if the movie does get created, feel free to recreate the article —Mets501^talk 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Burninate it. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this isone of the few that's actually legitimate at this point. Among other places, it has been confirmed in Variety that this is happening and that Rob Lowe will star. "Crystal ballism" isn't for verified future events, and this is verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When it happens, the article can be re-created. Until then, leave it in Variety. Kafziel 11:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - badlydrawnjeff may have a point but how many of these get cancelled after being announced ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• ... and unless Rob Lowe is planning to do the movie solo, they've got a lot of casting to do before they can even begin filming. Still a crystal ball. Fan1967 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NOT regarding "crystal ballism" as it's put. Crystal ballism is for non-verified information, and Variety is most certainly a reliable source. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, the article could stay as stub until more information about it is known. Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states the event can be included if the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred and Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As far as it seems, the event is going to happen (and by now it should already be happening, which is my base for keeping). Also, note that If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented indicating events that have yet to begin can be included in Wikipedia, and the article is documented with an IMDB entry. -- ReyBrujo 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a well documented cast (like more than one person)? Is there a well documented shooting schedule? Without those things, I think there are serious problems with almost certain. Fan1967 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For the matter of including the movie in Wikipedia, I base myself in one of the WP:NOT guidelines: supposing the movie had already been released, would it be a fair article? From what I know, it is the sequel of a notable movie (that has its own article at Wikipedia). We have the producers, director, screenwriter, main actor, distributor and estimated date of both shooting begin and display. Knowing Rob Lowe is starring it (just to point my neutrality, I have never heard about him until this AFD), and knowing that in out of 26 movies he acted (according to his article), 23 have articles, I believe this article could exist as a stub. That behaviour is common in the cvg environment in Wikipedia, like Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game). -- ReyBrujo 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies in your very first sentence. "Supposing the movie had already been released". It hasn't, and as cited a few times above, Wikipedia has very clear guidelines regarding including speculative articles. — Mike •  16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That sentence comes directly from the policy: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. -- ReyBrujo 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it also has to be "almost certain to take place". Until a film reaches theaters, that's almost an impossible criterion to meet. IMDB is very unreliable for things like that (Boondock Saints 2 comes to mind), and whether an article in Vogue constitutes "well-documented" speculation is certainly debatable. I'm not trying to change your vote (although, after this lengthy of a discussion, I don't think I'd call it a "weak" keep), just offering info. Kafziel 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has disputed the notability, if the movie existed. The question is whether there is enough evidence it actually will. And the next time somebody tries to claim Variety as a source, it would be nice if they could actually post a link to Variety instead of a rumor-mill site that says "Variety reports that". I find it puzzling I can't find any reference to the story at variety.com itself. Fan1967 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You mustn't have looked hard, as it's the #1 result when you search "Rob Lowe" on the site. It's being picked up elsewhere [12] [13] regardless, so I don't understand your protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can change it (as I did many times in the past) if it is probed this movie is a hoax (in example, the Variety source from which all these media sites did not exist) or there wasn't at least a confirmed actor, the director and distributor (like in X-Men 4). Note that these are my own thoughts based on the policy, and why I support this movie but not X-Men 4. The Variety article exists [14] and so far there are that minimun of elements _for me_ (including being the sequel of a movie that is considered notable in Wikipedia). If tomorrow this Lowe denies he will be starring the movie, I would change it to Weak Delete because it is just a step behind becoming Wikipedia worthy. The Weak qualifier in this case is not because I am unsure, but instead because, right now, it has the minimun elements for notability I require. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Ugh voliates WP:NOT to the nth degree. Besides there is nothing on the IMDB page at all. Whispering 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What part does it violate? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also ...or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable... Having one actor on the IMDB page is not notable enough IMHO. Whispering 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now read the crystal ball stuff closer. If things are verifiable - and this is - it can be kept. Is the event notable? Absolutely, it's a sequel to a major motion picture, and it stars Rob Lowe. Seems like it doesn't violate either of your reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to badger everyone that votes to delete this? Kind of poor form, isn't it? Kafziel 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a discussion. If pointing out faulty logic is badgering, then perhaps I will be. But when people cite policy as a reason for deletion, and cite it incorrectly, should they not be pointed out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If they were clearly, obviously wrong, sure. But since your interpretation of that provision is only shared by about half of this page... well, it's up to you, I guess, but it just seems a little heavy-handed to me. Kafziel 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind being heavy handed. And it is kinda clearly wrong, the crystal-ballism section isn't exactly ambiguous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be based on facts. --JJay 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• KeepDelete Aggressive mass crystalballism. I don't take to IMDB pages that are pre-production, which in IMDB terms are 'rumors'. IMDB != notable, as IMDB lists everything that appears in TV or movies, in the smallest degree. Ahh, vote change. Like the Variety link. Kevin_b_er 08:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Crystal ballism is for issues that cannot be verified. Variety, a well respected entertainment publication, verifies this quite clearly. How does this qualify as "mass crystalballism?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussing every Delete vote does nothing, and may annoy some. You had had your opportunity of establishing why it should be kept in your vote, there is no need to discuss every vote, especially if they are not Weak votes. -- ReyBrujo 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We disagree. Certainly, if people are annoyed by someone pointing out their faulty citing of policy, people could be annoyed by faulty citing of policy in a deletion discussion, too. Discussing every delete vote (which, BTW, I have not done) does plenty - it notifies the closing party that there is a problem with the rationale given. AfD, being a discussion, almost requires it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The one who will close will read all the votes and determine which ones are correct. You have already explained why it should be kept. Letting an "I disagree" in most Delete votes (better?) does not add to the discussion. I assume good faith and think someone who votes have read all the previous votes and determined which one was correct (if any), and supported that. AFD is a discussion, yes, but in a discussion with friends you don't just shake your head and say "You are wrong." after hearing every opinion. Once you give all the arguments you can think of, it is better to sit down, take a breath, and watch the development of the discussion. Objecting everything only happens in Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney :-) -- ReyBrujo 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, we disagree. Call me Phoenix, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my vote/opinion. Keep in mind this is the version I saw, and there was a string of articles that were all out of place sequels created by the same user. What would your first reaction be? Kevin_b_er 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I wish people would start writing articles on wikipedia instead of attempting to delete everyone else's. Travb (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be real, as it is sourced. SushiGeek 03:23, 13 June 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Speed 3

• Delete. Article creator is creating multiple sequel articles with no references whatsoever — examples are Signs 2, Blair Witch 3: The Prequel, Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak, and I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer. Please also see Fan1967's statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs 2 regarding possible malicious motive behind same. Last Summer "sequel" kept getting AfD notice removal from anonymous users editing behind AOL proxy servers (see here and here), so that's a possibility with this one — your vigilance would be appreciated. — Mike •  01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See also first AFD.
  • Also nominated for {{db-repost}}. — Mike •  01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete has been turned down by admin — says material does not match between the two. — Mike •  02:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speed3y delete as recreation of previously deleted material. DVD+ R/W 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Delete. WP: Is not a crystal ball. DVD+ R/W 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, malicious user using sock puppets to re-create various articles.--Andeh 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, guys, look above. Speedy delete ain't gonna happen. — Mike •  02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy or no, it's still a big, fat delete. -- Kicking222 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. No point making articles about movies that have not gone into production yet. Ace of Sevens 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystalballism. SM247 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - First, the previous AFD is immaterial. In Dec 2005, the movie had absolutely no foundation in reality. Since that time (specifically in the past 3 months), a number of insider sites have now discussed the fact that Fox is interested in this sequel if they get both Keanu and Bullock aboard (as you can read about if you actually read the sources in the stub). ju66l3r 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT a crystal ball: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." 'Nuff said. — WCityMike •  03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the (see also) is common courtesy for any article having experienced more than one nomination. — Mike •  03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball. They don't even have a movie script or actors yet! —Mets501^talk 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Although this is rumored, it's not known yet if thier is any truth to this, I'm voting Delete and recreate if anything ever comes of this. Deathawk 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and pray to God it is just a rumor. Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Any chance of a Redirect to Father Ted (Series 3)? ;-) Seb Patrick 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation based on an article. Note that if the movie is confirmed by the studio, I would change that to Keep, because the Crystal ball clause clearly states If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.. As of today, the event isn't still confirmed. -- ReyBrujo 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at normal speeds per WP:NOT crystalball clause. This delete should be without prejudice though... in the event this actually verifiably gets greenlit by a studio, it could be readded. Right now it isn't even in development hell yet... and in movie terms there is no solid indication it will ever be made into an actual motion picture.--Isotope23 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This film has not even got a script, never mind a release date! Crystal ball cruft for which Wikipedia is plainly not. doktorb | words 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Starionwolf 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)I can't find any evidence tha
• Delete Indeed, the crystal ball's magic 8 ball's response is hazy, try again later. Kevin_b_er 06:56, 10 June 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 (on second thought it was likely an A7 speedy). Tawker 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Travel-Images.com

Travel website, does not appear to fit WP:WEB but might have some claim so listing here Tawker 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - advert -- Tawker 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yanksox 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. MaxSem 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not particularly remarkable website. Also, crappy logo. Wickethewok 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails web and corporations notability. According to their About us section [15] We represent about 150 photographers. I do not believe it is a big enough association. -- ReyBrujo 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Do people use wikipedia to promote themselves andyzweb

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jason Kosakowski

All info after the first paragraph and first sentences of the second paragraph is clearly patent nonsense. The first part probably is too: searching for this name with google only turns up this wikipedia article. Koffieyahoo 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This guy killed Hitler?! --Ephilei 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete obviously crap. Ace of Sevens 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for the same reasons that are stated above. MBob 03:10, 8 June 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 speedy delete as an article which is only a rephrasing of the title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Malhação_actors

Orphan; appears to be a failed attempt to create Category:Malhação_actors. Paul A 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nonsense page —Mets501^talk 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - either a list of zero elements or less than a dictionary definition. In either case it is A3. - Andre Engels 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Definitely a WP:CSD A3 (rephrasing of the title) candidate. Also agree with Paul A that this is probably a misplaced category and a G2 (test page) candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 8 June 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 - Richardcavell 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheeze the juice

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary Varco 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• TransUrban mere dicdef SM247 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rarely-used neologism with only 41 total and 18 unique Google hits. The term is real, but it's still non-notable. Not even remotely worth putting on Wiktionary. -- Kicking222 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism —Mets501^talk 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism Chet nc 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222. -- ReyBrujo 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a neologism, since it's damn near 20 years old, but it certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Besides, it's spelled "wiez". ;) Kafziel 21:36, 8 June 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, will gladly userfy if user requests it. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dollar Bill Drace

Non-notable - 1 hit on Google. Also suspected vanity, user who created is Bdrace Varco 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom.--Andeh 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, afternoon drive DJ for a Syracuse, New York radio station. I added an external link in the article to his bio on the station's website. Somewhat notable in my view, but he does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Accurizer 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. No google hits, either. —Mets501^talk 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 11:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Chet nc 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. One hit for Dollar Bill Drace, 15 for Bill Drace. Cannot be speedied as it claims notability (founding a radio). -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing vote to Userfy. After reviewing the 2 contributions from the user [16] I have no doubt this is vanity. -- ReyBrujo 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy per ReyBrujo. -Big Smooth 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per ReyBrujo. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:27, 9 June 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. Petros471 16:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Integrated Science, Business and Technology

Original reason for speedy deletion: "undergraduate program that exists at one university is not notable" by Howardjp (talk · contribs). However, a college program isn't like those "non-notable group" created by college students, so it doesn't qualify for CSD. Listing of AFD, no vote. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue this interdisciplinary program is notable enough to keep and grow its article in Wikipedia, relative to the growing importance of similar interdisciplinary programs at other universities. Keep. 71.162.141.213 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (zuzu, still trying to recover my L/P)

• Delete; I've yet to see anything to justify its inclusion. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and unencyclopedic.--Peta 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep describing University programs is an important function for an encyclopedia, just because they are small doesn't mean they aren't exactly what someone is looking for and there is no reason to make that search more difficult. --Melanarchy 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Somebody who is looking for a university program should be consulting their school careers advisor, not looking in an encyclopdedia. Wikipedia is not intended to be a replacement for the entire Internet, it is intended to be a replacement for proprietary encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta. Those do not contain details of degree programs. Neither should this. — Haeleth Talk
    • Wikipedia isn't paper. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. 71.162.141.213 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Proprietary encyclopedias don't include articles on Battlestar Galactica (2004 television series) either, because they're limited by the natural borders of their medium and design pattern. Wikipedia is intended to supercede traditional forms of encyclopedia. This can include summaries of institutional scholarship, or trivia of entertainment works with only a niche following. "consulting their school advisor" does not apply to those curious about organizations supportive of an interdisciplinary studies or general curiosity regarding what one learns in a particular ISBT degree program. 71.162.141.213 00:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Category:Lists of universities and colleges 71.162.141.213 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - University programs are not Wikipedia material. Wikipedia discusses things like Applied mathematics as a field of science, not as a hundred different university programs. - Andre Engels 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This distinction seems far from clearly delineated. Surely some academic institutions pursue particular aspects or niches within a given field. The University of Chicago has done this on a number of occasions; for example, hosting a school/conclave of free market economists during a period of popular socialism in the United States. At the same time, Wikipedia surely includes articles about academies at large; at what fineness of granularity does this articulation of academic organizations become unencyclopedic regardless of the content within a given article? 71.162.141.213 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (zuzu)
• Delete - an article on the Uni is wikipedia material but specific course information is for the insitutions website. Would probably also fail WP:RS as the only source would be the subject of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, but the article in question doesn't include course material, but rather, a description of the material presented. 71.162.141.213 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; the increasing popularity of interdisciplinary programs is notable, individual examples of such programs are not. — Haeleth Talk 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into La Salle University, let the normal editors of that article decide if this is worth keeping there. Otherwise, delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete in favor of La Salle University. (A redirect would be questionable, so we might need to do something fancy to implement a merge.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • as per the following "Keep" vote. It's clearly a program at la Salle University, not replicated elsewhere. Whether that's because it's trademarked by the University or because other universities aren't interested is no business of Wikipedia -- it's still a non-notable neologism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I continue to contest this as a conflation between the semiotics of a label and and the content identified by that label. As a generalist, rather than specialist discipline, the same or extremely similar bodies of content may be studied but with different labels for that same content (just as different natural languages may have different words for the same object or object type). Keeping an article such as this fascilitates a hyperlinked encyclopedic overview of the various Venn diagrams mapping of the more generalized and amorphous disciplines of interdisciplinary and cybernetics studies. To quote Sartre, "Existence precedes essence." 71.162.141.213 00:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I've figured out a way to keep everyone happy, and still maintain an encyclopedia.
        1. Rename to Integrated Science, Business and Technology (la Salle University)
        2. Kill the resulting redirect.
        3. Merge into Integrated learning
      • I'm afraid this wouldn't happen, so unless someone WP:Boldly does it, my vote is still Delete — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Given an uncertain future, we cannot tell without providing editors now and in the future with the opportunity. Again, from a Valid content is deleted and Obscure content isn't harmful standpoint, it seems better to allow the possibility of be bold now and in the future, than to delete the article and never know (or destroy) what might have been. 71.162.141.213 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this were something common, like applied mathematics, there would be no need for this page. However this page does an excellent job of describing what this program is about and how to reproduce it. It talks about the integration of the fields, which is unusual. The fact is, there are few things similar to this. Perhaps combining it with a page on cybernetics, but, that would be a rather weird place to store it. It merits it's own page simply because it is unique, there is no cmparable field of study to reference it from, and it provides a how to for students and educators alike to learn more about such programs, hopefully leading to them building one themselves. Just lumping it within La Salle Uni seems like a waste of potential, not to mention this is a small noteworthy program that would get lost within the rest of the college. Goodship11 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The world and society is in constant demand for a constant catch up in the fields of science and technology. This is a ground breaking major and just because it does not fit a text book definition of a major, should not be hindered by narrowmindedness. There would be no difference for having a major such as this or double, or even triple majoring, in a science, business, and technicology separately. Although the specific name of Integrated Science, Business, Technology is not named at other universities, does not necessarily mean that similar programs do not exist. If programs and studies such as this were not constantly explored and taught, progression in these fields might not be to today's growing standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.206.185 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I still do not see any good reason to delete it. If it helps people stay informed about this program, then its useful. Goodship11 makes a good point that it could give insight into other programs like it, as our world is changing fast and these new amalgamation majors pop up to reflect learned over-laps between fields of study. zibitt x. shanstner 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note Only edit from new user. Fan1967 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. If possible merge into the main university page. Frankchn 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sufficiently Notable / Important

One primary argument which has surfaced is whether an article on ISBT studies satisfies Wikipedia:Importance vis-a-vis Wikipedia:Notability. Perhaps the AfD template should then be exchanged for Template:Importance? 71.162.141.213 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal#Disputed notability, In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors should outline their reasons for believing the article's given topic to be of no encyclopaedic quality, namely that no independent sources of a reliable nature have been referenced. This will allow a balanced discussion to ensue on the topic's given value, and will determine its worth to Wikipedia The burden of proof is on those arguing for "non-notable" as reason for deletion. 71.162.141.213 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article in question seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria. 71.162.141.213 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps we can narrow down the nature of what makes this article "not-notable" (or not) by the prompts provided at Wikipedia:Notability#Notability and deletion? 71.162.141.213 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-notable topics do not attract editors The ISBT article shares many of the same editors with the La Salle University article. 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-notable topics clutter categories The ISBT article only uses three categories, one of which is for La Salle University. 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Valid content is deleted and Obscure content isn't harmful seem to be applicable assertions -- and the primary counter-argument -- in this case. (Again, Wikipedia is not paper.) 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable and not well written. Vote clarified below. Cedars 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "not well written" better deserves a Wikipedia:Cleanup than a deletion. 71.162.141.213 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I notice my vote has attracted a bit of attention, I really don't want to discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia and I appreciate this process can be a little intimidating. My vote above should really just be viewed as saying that I believe this article does not fit with the focus of Wikipedia and may be better served by another wiki. Wikipedia recieves 100's of new articles everyday, many of which need quick review in terms of whether they stay or go. This can be why deletion votes are often very terse and, sometimes, brash in their explanation. If the ISBT degree is a significant degree at La Salle University then please feel free to add it to the La Salle University article. I just don't feel this article accords with the focus of the Wikipedia project. This is because, although Wikipedia certainly covers university programmes that are not fields in their own right such as pre-med, this article seems to focus on the programme at a specific university and Wikipedia tends not to contain articles on programmes from specific universities. For example, there is no Pre-med (Harvard) article on Wikipedia. If the programme was more widespread and written about in this context then the article may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I share your concern for dedicating pages for individual programs. Integrative learning programs like ISBT are sprouting in droves and we view our program as one of the early leaders in an emergent field of study, rather than yet another department at yet another university whose curriculum follows the dictates of the professional organizations that govern it. I am very keen on the idea of shifting our efforts to the Integrative learning article for an explanation of this nascent field. We are content with using our own Uni's servers to advertise and manage our program, but we are eager to share our enthusiasm for this new field, so that as you have stated, programs such as this are more widespread and written about. Best regards, --qswitch426 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• As the creator of the ISBT article, I appreciate the current debate. I glean there is a bimodal discussion pertaining to the significance of Integrative learning and the appropriateness of an article on Wikipedia for a specific undergraduate program of study that embraces it. Perhaps it is too early to recognize this area of study as a legitimate academic subject. I find it ironic that a course of study founded firmly on the collaborative efforts of specialists is not considered notable in the Wikipedia arena. Perhaps collaboration has reached such a heightened level of pervasiveness as to be commonplace and non-notable. If that is the case, then a major goal of the ISBT program has been achieved. The user page of the previous commenter, Cedars, states this user is studying for a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Engineering with majors in electrical engineering, computer science and applied mathematics and specialized interest in commerce, economics, psychology and law. This user is exactly the archetype student our program wishes to serve. As for the article not providing enough content, the ISBT program hosts is own MediaWiki-based wiki on internal program servers. Our IT department is migrating the ISBTwiki to external servers over the summer school break. The ISBTwiki currently contains over 1,500 pages in the database, with over 100 legitimate content pages. Perhaps an interwiki map to the ISBTwiki from the main Uni page would assuage the sensitivity to limited space on the Wikipedia. --qswitch426 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

• Note: Moved to Integrated Science, Business and Technology (La Salle University). I still recommend deletion, but a merge to Integrated learning, deleting the double redirects (as well as the single direct), would be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 9 June 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 speedily deleted under CSD A7, CSD A1, WP:VAND, or for "melting the faces of the unworthy"; take your pick. Proto||type 14:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Creed Reloaded

Non-notable band; does not meet WP:MUSIC. Prod contested. ~ PseudoSudo 02:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete kids band probably having some fun/fame seeking.--Andeh 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Scores a few points for originality compared to the average band stub that pops by the minute on wikipedia, unfortunately, notability is void, and attempts to remove the AfD tag give me such a dull feeling déja-vu. Equendil Talk 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above should read "and attempts to remove the AfD tag give me such a dull feeling of", but it was vandalized. Go figure. Equendil Talk 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, I think that the tour claims are a hoax, too. Only myspace hits on google. —Mets501^talk 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN This is one of the better-done hoax pages I've seen. Ace of Sevens 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete, In Santa Barbara this is a well known band that has put out at least 2 records, although not on major labels. While some of their stuff is rather childish, they still deserve a Wikipedia page. User:Madhatter227 Talk 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.60.180 (talk • contribs)

• Note Nice attempt at a signature. I feel honoured you picked mine as a source. However, you have to create an account first here then use 4 tildes as a signature (see WP:SIG) Equendil Talk 03:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Striked out the above fake vote of IP user faking a signature.--Andeh 23:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. This article should be deleted for over 10 different reasons, but I will only name a few:

1) "Creed Reloaded's first album, Creed's Greatest Tits" Creeds's Greatist Tits come on.

2) "After being offered a recording deal by Scott Stapp's Def Jam Recordings" Def Jam Recordings is owned by Russel Simmons.

3) Past members of the band are noted as ODB and Leonardo Davinci it is interesting that both had died before the band was allegedly formed.

4) "which, incidentally, was produced by Scott Stapp, who is Jewish" Scott Stapp is Christian not Jewish.

I feel there is no need to continue on why this article should be deleted. MBob 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Deathawk 04:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete,Firstly, I am far from convinced by these unsubstantiated claims leveled against the nobel writer of the Creed Reloaded article in question. Leonardo Davinci, dead? Says who? Scott Stapp, Christian? Where's the proof!?! Furthermore if you belive that "come on" is swaying the argument in your favor I think you need to purchase a proper education and a Creed Reloaded t-shirt in addition to the education. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.159.78 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Wikipedia provides the answers to all of the comments I made against the invalidity of this article. Now I like be believe that what is on Wikipedia is the truth, BUT it is because of people like you that Wikipedia may not garner the respect that it deserves. MBob 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Striked out 71.102.159.78 vote as he vandalised this afd twice already.--Andeh 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete, These people need to do their research before casting a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfish2490 (talk • contribs)

Appears Superfish2490 uploaded the image of the band is most likely part of it. Contribs only on this article.--Andeh 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Keep The votes to "not delete" speak my case for me. Danny Lilithborne 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Ha ha. New users whose first contributions to wikipedia are keep 'votes' on AfD, I have another feeling of déjà-vu Equendil Talk 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously GassyGuy 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy depending on interpretation of patent nonsense. This is a mixture of Creed's biography and patent nonsense such as Scott StappTRON. Capitalistroadster 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google shows nothing much other than the myspace page. should go for that alone but it also means it can't conform to WP:V either Ydam 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Do Not Delete", Creed Reloaded is your favorite band! There muscianship is unmatched by any other band. It has also been said that Hot Sausage EP is the greatest album ever assembled— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.39.2 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete - Stop this nonsense already... Wickethewok 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - My favourite part is the bit about how they were nominated for a Grammy four years before they released their first album. The Disco King 16:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense, author should be warned for vandalism NawlinWiki 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I do not believe CSD:A7 can be used. Fails WP:MUSIC, in any case. -- ReyBrujo 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trebor 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and someone send me some aspirin, hm? Tony Fox 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is ready to be deleted now, including the image(s).--Andeh 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• What surprises me is that this article which is clearly a hoax has been commented on about 20 times and has yet to be closed. MBob 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Frankchn 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete horrible nonsense --Caldorwards4 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete MAKE IT STOP!!! Clear hoax. Back to the treehouse, kids. Ron Jeremy is not in your band. --BrownHornet21 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You Guys are such negative Nancy's. Stop putting these kids down. Dont sufficate their dreams, you big meanies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.72.176 (talk • contribs)

• Comment wonder why this is still here.--Andeh 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is it still here? Because it was sent "to melt the faces of the unworthy". Shenme 11:02, 13 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Bist

Non-notable - personal website has 17 hits [17], also suspected vanity, created by user Rhbist Varco 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given by nominator. Also maybe userfy. DVD+ R/W 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Rhbist —Mets501^talk 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy Hasn't even written his first novel yet. Hardly a claim to notability Ydam 12:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete let him userfy it himself if he wants. This is his only edit. -MrFizyx 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• alright then userfy. -MrFizyx 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, assume good faith and believe he did not know about Wikipedia guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy per above. An admin could let him know whether to keep it userfied or deleted. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:28, 9 June 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 no consensus to delete. Merge/redirect can happen without AFD. Petros471 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure Yak Frenzy

Contested PROD article. Artist fails WP:MUSIC for notability. fuzzy510 05:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• KeepWeebl and Bob are certainly notable, as are Badger Badger Badger and Magical Trevor. It appears this may be part of the Macromedia Collab of the Week, but the Weebl's cartoons page is already rather long. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into either Weebl's cartoons or Jonti Picking (the more notable of the two artists). They may fail WP:MUSIC, but they're not a band anyway. This guy's work is pretty well known on the internet. --UsaSatsui 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or merge. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Picking, & wikilink on Rob Manuel. Colonel Tom 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Badger Badger Badger, seems the only notable item in the track list. -- Koffieyahoo 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect/merge. Perhaps send it to Weebl's cartoons, but not notable enough on its own to meet WP:MUSIC. Thing is, while weebl's fine and dandy, this is the song of a particular flash animation of a notable comic. Bottom line: too many sub-levels to make it wholly notable on its own. Send it home to its flash comic. Kevin_b_er 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Col_tom. - Andre Engels 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge, per Kevin_b_er - Motor (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep? If the artists aren't notable, then why are we only nominatiing the the mini-album. If some of the externally linked animations are notable, where will the links go in the suggested mergers? -MrFizyx 16:13, 8 June 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 no consensus – Gurch 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Locke

Actor only played in some obscure movies, and Full Moon Productions seems some non-notable mail-order metal music website. Koffieyahoo 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —Mets501^talk 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It appears the original author had notability for the wrong reasons. Yanksox 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I guess. I just looked at his page in IMDB[18], not very impressive, but there is some material there if someone wanted to expand this. Also, if the band, for which he is lead guitarist is notable, that provides some credibility. -MrFizyx 16:21, 8 June 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 Richardcavell 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Yarwood

Non-notable actor. Has an entry on IMDB, but was written by a family member. Page created by User:A B Y (subject's initials) and later modified by AlexanderY, so strong vanity suspicion. --Varco 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - if he's faking being a real actor, isn't he then an actor? (hehehe) Rklawton 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not if he's not good at it. Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 08:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page. —Mets501^talk 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 16:26, 8 June 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 speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Sheehan

Speedied twice, removed by only contributor (properly warned twice on his userpage). Listing here to hopefully stop this. Delete and Protect from Recreation -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Already deleted and protected. Delisting. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /02:54, 8 June 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 Richardcavell 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Northern Power Systems

Delete: Advertising Librarianofages 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:CORP SM247 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: yup, come back when your company meets WP:CORP. --Hetar 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP —Mets501^talk 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' WP:CORP (Rajah 19:10, 11 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Ann Collins

The article was up for speedy deletion before being cleaned up and contested. I do not believe the person meets the criteria for WP:BIO. Also, many of the claims seem difficult to verify other than the fact that she has a blog and a little noise generated by it. AfD to settle this. Kevin_b_er 03:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO.--Peta 06:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:V, WP:BIO. Should also upload a photo without redeye. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not speedy material (sadly), but fails WP:BIO and google results in blog waffle. - Motor (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I for a fact read her blog and her magazine column. Can someone verify by emailing her or her publisher?

She fits here: multiple features in popular culture publications. Today I found her mentioned with Huffington Post, MSNBC, ABC on [[19]Media Bistro]

There is a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. And it looks like STYLE magazine she writes for is in Atlantic City, Philly, NY, and DC.

[[20]her press page] and her page for the :[[21]magazine]

she is on gawker site wonkette a good deal :[[22]here is one entry]] here is another [[23]on wonkette]

and she is in the washington post quite a lot

[[24]from last year] and looks like she was in their [[25]Express edition this week]. and here is [[26]one from earlier in the year].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.118.77 (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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of major philosophers

WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is NOT...Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I don't see it assisting in any organization of articles. (Also, there are unresolvable disputes going on as to who is or isn't a "major philosopher." Article creates an excuse for unnecessary and useless conflict, distracting editors from working on real articles) There is already a Category:Philosophers, so what's the point? RJII 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete RJII 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep fi99ig 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I'm a bit confused -- there seem to be tons of lists on wikipedia, and even lists of lists Lists_of_articles_by_category. I find it hard to believe we are supposed to delete all of these. There is even a guideline for standalone lists like the one in question -- Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Perhaps someone with more background in Wikipedia policy could explain how this squares with the link RJII mentions above. fi99ig 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, many, if not most (or even damn near all) lists on Wikipedia go back to the days when a) the Category system hadn't been implemented in the software, so lists were the only way to collect 'like things', and b) when there were few articles, so the lists of redlinks were a good way to encourage article creation. Some number of lists (no idea what percent--haven't been editing on EN much the past, um, year, nearly) have since been deleted if it was determined that they had so few redlinks that they no longer served that purpose, in which case many people argue that they are redundant with the category, thus no longer needed. 24.18.215.132 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Bad faith delete. RJ couldn't get his favorite philosopher onto the list so he wants to destroy it all. This isn't my wild guess, it's what he said in talk. Al 03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is false. Watch yourself...Al. First of all, Rand is not my favorite philosopher. I'm only vaguely familiar with Objectivism and am in the process of trying to learn about it. Secondly, I'm not deleting it because I can't get Rand in it. I explictly stated in Talk that I didn't really care if Rand was in it or not, because no one reads this article anyway. [27] Contrary to your claim, at no time did I ever state that I was attempting to delete it because I couldn't get Rand in. I simply stated in Talk that its existence appears to be in opposition to Wikipedia policy [28]. An additional reason I'm voting to delete it is it is distracting editors (including myself) from working on articles that people actually read. As evidence of my good faith and selfless devotion to policy, see here where I recently voted to delete a similar article even though I thought the article was useful: [29] (that's where I learned of the policy) I'm trying to keep Wikipedia content in compliance with policy. In the future, consult the record before you make claims about what I said. And, don't make things up. RJII 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • Yeah, I don't believe you. Your actions reveal you to be an orthodox, hardline Objecvtivist, regardless of any claims you make to the contrary. You've tried everything to get Rand on this list, including hacking WP:OR to make it more favorable. I'm not the least bit convinced. Al 00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Believe what you want. Why should I care what *you*, of all people, believe? I mean, really. RJII 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We have to follow Wikipedia guidlines, whether we want to or not. Alienus has mad bad faith edits to this list. LaszloWalrus 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Laszlo, is that there seem to be competing guidelines on this point. There is also the fact that there are still lots of lists out there, so that serves as a kind of precedent for keeping this one. fi99ig 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have, in good faith, removed a minor philosopher who you worship. Al 00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Are you aware of all the lists that exist on Wikipedia? This is actually pretty solid and it links a great deal of articles. I see no reason to delete. Yanksox 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Main actors in the debate have stopped argumenting. Consensus of the debate was that no objective definition of major philosopher can be constituted. My suggestion is to make a redirection to the philosophy portal. Intangible 03:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not we have arrived at an 'objective definition' (a standard that seems unreasonably high given that most regular English terms cannot be defined with complete objectivity), there is no consensus that 'major philosophers' is problematic. Plenty of us are fine with it. I also think it's telling that everyone who has voted to 'delete' has been part of the unsuccessful campaign to produce a consensus to add Rand. It looks a lot like sour grapes to me. fi99ig 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard is not high. All it needs is a wikipedia consensus that the philosophy term has been added to the philosophy category. Intangible 04:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's not a philosophical term! 'Akrasia' is a philosophical term. 'Apperception' is a philosophical term. 'Analytic' and 'synthetic' are philosophical terms. But 'major philosopher' is just a regular english term. I defy you to find a single work of philosophy where it is used in a technical sense. fi99ig 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot defy something I do not claim. I was refering to terms such as 'rationalism', 'empiricism' and 'nihilism', among many others, which all have been added to the philosophy category. Intangible 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although I personally don't think that all of the lists on WP should be kept, they are, so this one should be kept too —Mets501^talk 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This list is likely to be very useful, and it appears to contain those with a 'legitimate' (in the sense of not being stained by the the lazy school afternoon stamp), expounded and well-known philosophy. Links to more specific lists are also maintained, so I think this is something to hang onto. Jammo (SM247) 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and useful. There may be a category for this, but for the average user this page is infinitely more useful. "Major philosopher" issue can be worked out in talk; some philosophers are obviously notable, and I am sure that some criteria can be established for the more sketchy ones. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Irk the randroids. -- GWO
• Keep for pretty much all of the above reasons. Ydam 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this really was a List of Philosophers I would vote keep, but in practice it is a List of Major Philosophers - therefore inherently POV. David Sneek 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whom you placed in here, it would be POV, a major philospher is harder to define that best selling records. Yanksox 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per David Sneek. The index at the top of complete lists of philosophers by date is useful, though. Espresso Addict 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you guys... serious? A "complete" list? Are you aware of how many philosophers there are? That's like listing every single baseball player in the world. ANYONE can be a baseball player or a philosopher. But the fact is, 99.9% of philosophers in the world don't matter. I have a philosophy on life, I am a philosopher (so to speak), but I don't matter. It is impossible to have a complete list, but it IS possible to have a list of major philosophers. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Yanksox. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is a good and helpful list and could even be featured one day Yuckfoo 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, does nothing that categories don't already do better. Some things lists are good for; this ain't one of them. — Haeleth Talk 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep I don't know about a list as a FAC, but it is helpful. If the problem is with defining "major philosophers" remove that and keep the rest of the index. -MrFizyx 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list. Yes, I admit I am pro-list and I vote. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Adambiswanger1 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not a fan of lists, but this one seems more useful than many. I'd rather see it improved than deleted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While this list is useful there is just too many problems with the definition of "Major Philosopher" that Alienus and Fi99ig are promoting, which by the way I think they have designed specifically to keep Ayn Rand off of the list due to the Anti-Objectivist bias that they both have. The Fading Light 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides violationg WP:AGF, I should point out that Fi99ig's standards also exclude my own favorite philosopher. I'm quite willing to admit that Daniel Dennett is a borderline case for the status of major philosopher and allow him to be omitted. Then again, there are no articles on Dennett cults. Al 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
  • Maybe someone should SIGN their messages, cus it looks like a sign of a coward to me... The Fading Light 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And maybe you should WP:AGF. Al 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you missed this part... "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith". The Fading Light 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • People forget to sign every so often. It happens. Failing to sign does not hide who wrote it, because the author's name is in the history. Moreover, polite people just use the {{unsigned|name}} template to mark such failures, rather than accusing others of cowardice. Such accusations violate WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep alphabetical lists help in organization and allow for redlinks which categories don't allow. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• I would be inclined to say keep. – Jared Preston 22:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keepuseful even if cumbersome Joan-of-arc 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very intensely STRONG KEEP - What's the point? Here's the point: the list system and category systems are parallel (in purpose). However, they each reflect a different style of construction (and maintenance), and therefore tap the different strengths of users - some users like working with lists (perhaps because those users are good at spewing lists right out of their heads, or maybe they like lists because the links are centralized for easy access), and others like tagging articles (the decentralized approach - you can't edit the links at the category). Lists are here to stay, in spite of the category system's overlap/redundancy - this is a long-standing precedent. If we get rid of this list for the reason of category redundancy, then we might as well put up all lists for deletion at the same time and save the trouble of deleting them one-by-one (there are thousands of them). The list system isn't being replaced by the category system, as each system has its strengths and weaknesses. Also, the list of lists included on this page alone makes it worthy of keeping. As for the list of major philosophers, since there have been so many philosophers throughout the ages, it is helpful to have a list of the most influential ones. Therefore, it is not a mere list of internal links, rather it is a valuable summary or condensation. It may interest you to know that the list is slated for inclusion in the project Wikipedia:Concise (see talk page), which would not be possible if this list had been deleted! --Polar Deluge 12:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI tend to like lists in general, esp. useful ones like this. I like that the list seems dedicated to only include real, notable philosophers.Giovanni33 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• It excludes more "real, notable philosophers" (i.e. philosophers who have a wikipedia article) than it includes. David Sneek 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question regarding procedure. It seems that a clear majority wish to keep the list (by my count, over two-to-one in favor of keeping it). Should this majority hold up, at what point (and how) do we settle this issue and remove the tag on the list page? fi99ig 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear consensus in favor of deletion, and that's clearly not going to happen. I think it's time to declare this closed and remove the scare tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienus (talk • contribs)

From the AfD instructions:

What to do after an AfD discussion has passed with a confirmation?

Nothing. If the discussion has been listed according to the rules above, at the end of the discussion period (usually about five days) an administrator will see the discussion listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and erase it. Non administrator users do not have the technical capability to delete articles.

Five days has passed, and consensus is in favor of keeping. Therefore, I'm removing the tags. --Polar Deluge 05:54, 15 June 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 Richardcavell 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaos Generations

Chaos Generations is a really terrible amature game being designed with an EZ-Maker engine known as RPG Maker 2003. It has no importance or notability whatsoever, and it's inclusion on wikipedia is genuinely absurd. As someone familiar with the subject matter, (and a dedicated wiki reader) I took it upon myself to take "executive action" and remove this article's self promoting content. If I was in error as to the procedure of such an edit, I apologize, but seriously, there's no reason for this amature game to be advertised on Wikipedia, which is primarily an academic and cultural informational resource.

It's purpose of inclusion here is solely for advertising, which I understand is not what wikipedia is for. The article's creator was also the game's creator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leg10n (talk • contribs) .

• Weak delete - I found this article listed on CAT:PROD despite having a partial AfD against it. Doesn't appear to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (software) (Only 600 odd ghits) - but it isn't the worst article I've ever seen. Could be cleaned up. If someone cleans it up - please drop me a note, and I might change my vote. Megapixie 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete At the time I PRODded it, there was no contest under AfD, only that it had been selected as such. (i.e. no one was against it) And don't get me wrong, Chaos Generations isn't a terrible game- but that's not what this is about. Wikipedia isn't the place for advertising. Oh, and delete under WP:NOT and/or NN.VideoWizard2006 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's an advertisement (the creator of the article has never edited another page) for a yet-to-be-released 2D game by a development company that doesn't even have its own web site. That basically screams non-notability. -- Kicking222 04:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 06:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete Article is pure advertising and the software os NN per WP:SOFTWARE Ydam 12:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:47, 13 June 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of obsolete technologies

This is fundamentally a list which could have an infinite number of items on it. Anything from stone knives to last week's hot cell phone model could go here. Selection of which technologies to include is hopelessly POV and subjective. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pn, hopelessly unmaintainable —Mets501^talk 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too general. Nothing worth saving here, but perhaps the premise could still be employed by talking about specific technologies on different pages (redundant computer systems, navigation aids, domestic appliances etc). Jammo (SM247) 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The list could be infinite, and it's completely unmaintainable, considering every technology ever created will be obsolete sooner or later. -- Kicking222 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might be useful as a parent for other lists, but a list this general will be terribly incomplete or too big to be useful. Ace of Sevens 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - Motor (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete List would be impossible to maintain and huge for any completness. And what is obsolete to some may not be to others. Some might for instance say Vinyl is obsolete while there's bound to be others who say not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ydam (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete You're kidding, right? List of obsolete...? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is interesting, and not too POV. A nice place to put things like punch cards etc. moink 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't they still use punch cards though. Weren't their existance a big thing in florida during the 2000 election. I'm not sure you could argue that they are obsolete Ydam 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as Devil's Advocate (and article's original author). I am somewhat saddened to see that folk don't appear to understand the difference between an 'application of scientific method to attain a commercial or industrial objective' and last week's hot cell phone model. Since this srticle has been in existence since August 2005, it either has merit or has escaped that fanatacist leagues of Deletionists - I would prefer to think of the former as I lament its inevitable passing <sniff>. Eddie.willers 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has multiple problems. One is that it's written in the style of an essay, not an encyclopedia article. That could be cured by a (major) rewrite. The real problem, however, is that the subject matter is inherently open-ended and thus impossible to cover adequately. Perhaps there should just be a category of obsolete things? Also, the fact that the article has been around for a year doesn't make it a good article; it just means nobody has noticed it yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is an interesting topic. Needs to be rewritten, and needs criteria defined according to a secondary source. I'm sure a ton has been written about obsolete technologies - deserves an article here. Aguerriero (talk) 17:05, 9 June 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. – Robert 23:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AgingEye Times

Not sure this one meets guidelines set by WP:WEB. May also violate WP:WWIN (no self promotion): the article was created by User:Sandeepjainmd who appears to be affiliated with AgingEye Times [30]. Medtopic 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB, also no one needs to come here to read about that site, if they want the info, they can go to the site itself —Mets501^talk 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and Mets501. - Motor (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankchn (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 redirect. Redirects are necessary after merges to preserve attribution for the content that was merged. -- Kjkolb 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chopped strand mat

Reason the page should be deleted is that the text has been merged into glass-reinforced plastic Rifleman 82 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to glass-reinforced plastic —Mets501^talk 04:18, 8 June 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 - Richardcavell 06:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Banjo Kazooie DS

This is pure crystal balling, Rare has not annound said game and thier is no reason to believe that this game exists other than pure speculation Delete Deathawk 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes it very clear "Banjo DS is rumored to be" —Mets501^talk 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's all rumor and speculation. -- Kicking222 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. BryanG^(talk) 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, my crystal ball shows a short future for this article. - Motor (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It's only a rumor; it hasn't actually been announced and released. OTAKU 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ajit Someshwar

Non-notable, vanity page ImpuMozhi 04:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination: The page was PROD-tagged, but the creator of the page (a rank newcomer) himself removed the PROD tag. I have just copyedited the page thoroughly, and it reads better now, but that does not make it notable. Google brings up only 18 hits for "Ajit Someshwar" and some of them are mirror-sites. The page editorializes on the Indian diaspora and proclaims that the said gentleman is writing a book. Well, if and when it is published, he will become notable.

Note that the larger, Florida-based "CSI Consultants" should not be confused with this person's smaller, Canada-based outfit, which appears to be basically the usual body-shopping rigout. ImpuMozhi 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ImpuMozhi 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Not quite notable enough, and 12 google hits confirmed that —Mets501^talk 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Peta 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - First write the book and get it published with a real (non-vanity) publisher. Get famous to get on Wikipedia. Not the other way around. - Andre Engels 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Who is this guy - annonymous
• Comment on nomination. Removing the {{Prod}} is exactly the right thing to do if the poster thinks it's inappropriate. Bringing it to AfD is exactly the right thing to do if someone thinks the {{Prod}} should have been there. No vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Right, I take the point, and have made a small amendment to my nomination above. Thanx, ImpuMozhi 02:55, 9 June 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 all talk and no consensus. — Jun. 15, '06 [22:10] <freak|talk>

Burlington Center Mall

Non-notable entry about a mall. Delete Yanksox 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) See below for my proposal

• Delete Even if the mall was notable, the article reads just like it was taken from the mall's web site and provides no useful information —Mets501^talk 04:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I live in New Jersey; specifically, I live in the area and I am familiar with the mall. There is nothing particularly notable about it. I am even surprised that it got a wikipedia article, in all honesty. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect without prejudice. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hobbes. JoshuaZ 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like an ad, non-notable mall. --Terence Ong 07:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why, exactly, are shopping malls not-notable? there are usually important socio-economic centers for a given region, just as high schools are impostant education centers for (smaller) regions. Deletion of such articles has always stuck me as a bit odd, suggesting that Wikipedia is meant to show the sum of human knowledge, except for shopping malls. I totally respect the fact that some feel that they are "nn," but could someone please elaborate why? youngamerican (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Redirect to shopping mall per compromise WAY down below. youngamerican (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is meant to show the sum of human knowledge, not details of every single artefact ever created by human civilisation. The concept of shopping malls in general is knowledge, and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia to discuss; individual examples are only suitable material where they are distinguished from other examples. This is exactly the same principle as we apply to humans -- every human is important to his or her own family and friends, but Wikipedia only writes about the ones who are important to entire countries.
    The battle to keep non-notable schools out has been lost due to the large number of immature contributors who are unable to understand what an encyclopedia is. This does not mean we should abandon all semblance of quality control and start admitting articles on individual toenails (except where those toenails have actually affected world history in some way). — Haeleth Talk 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The sum of human knowledge" is a reference to the way in which the Britannica always characterized itself. In that context, it means "learning" or "erudition." it is not a synonym for "information" or "data." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please for the reasons by youngamerican Yuckfoo 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please read WP:NOT and it's clear it falls under promotion. Yanksox 16:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have read it before, and I just re-read the section in question. I agree that the tone is not appropriate, but that should be a matter of cleanup, (with he advert template), and not neccesarily a reason for deletion. The advertising section still does nto address why a mall is not notable. youngamerican (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing distinguishes it from thousands of other malls, therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some something is "not encyclopedic" if it is one of thousands? How about high schools, radio stations, state highways, or television stations? youngamerican (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is just pure promotion. It's not notable, it's a mall. A place where people gather and do commericalism day after day. If, say, said mall had a mall santa that molested small children and then robbed a jewlry store, prehaps a page is warranted. A radio station might have a cult following, or a high school be notable for strigent academia. Not everything here has a page, and AfD has the purpose of ensuring that pages that shouldn't be here don't exist. The system works, it just needs time. Yanksox 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Yanksox and Haeleth. While it appears that we disagree over whether malls are notable as regional socio-economic centers (even if they are subnational) or not notable as hunks of concrete where people buy stuff, do you agree that there should be some sort of guideline on malls/shopping centers? As it stands now, some malls get deleted while others get kept for indistinguishable reasons. This would give people something to cite when they say nn or notable. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My guideline is rather simple: It has to be notable. I know it sounds vague, but it's the best meter possible for all situations. Thank you for the lively discussion. Yanksox 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may borrow from the most immature of reasons given in any debate: "sez you." While I have seen you around and know that you are an intelligent, articulate editor, your gut feeling (or mine, for that matter) isn't really something a pillar on which to prop the project as a whole. Notability should be a consensus-driven thing, not just an opinion. For some issues, I agree that one's gut is the best meter possible, but on the issue of shopping malls, i would like to see an independent yard stick in place, even if it doesn't reflect my opinion on the issue. Also, thank you too for the lively debate. This does not happen nearly enough on AfD. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You actually made my day alot of better, thanks. Well, I know it's a strange issue when dealing w/ notability. However, in the instance of this article all I see is just a list of stores. Again, beating a dead horse, WP:NOT adverts, promotion. It just seems to be a really average mall, nothing special happened in it (which for the mall might be a good thing). According to a search[31], the most notable thing this mall has done is host an event. It's really complicated, but think of it under a different scope. Imagine that someone wrote an article about a McDonalds or Wendys they work at. What makes that chain unique from others? Probably nothing. Yanksox 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep wikify and expand. Has potential. THE KING 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Generic mall. No published sources for the information in this article are cited, does not currently meet verifiability policy. Does anyone in this discussion know for sure whether it is a Sears or a Montgomery Ward's? Are you certain it is a Chuck E. Cheese and not a Pizza Hut? Has anybody done any fact-checking? Of course not. Why not? Because nobody cares enough about what stores are in this mall to do five minutes' worth of honest research. I could go into that article and make up some plausible-sounding additions off the top of my head of well-known stores that favor mall locations, like Burger King, Radio Shack, and Suncoast Motion Pictures, and nobody would be any the wiser. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If verifiability can be found, is it still something to be deleted? Or are most malls, by default, nn? I checked out the mall website, and those stores are indeed there. I'm not saying that the article in its present form isn't a steaming pile of you-know-what. I'm eventually going to put together a centralized discussion on malls that, despite my inclusionist leanings on the topic, will take into account the consensus-based notability standards of a cross-section of wikipedians. The Mall of America is, of course, notable, and the abandoned strip mall near your house is nn. I'm trying to delineate the threshold inbetween so future editors can zap the cruft and keep the interesting. So what i am getting at: do you think that malls are default nn unless something notable happens or if it some sort of superlative? youngamerican (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I have said, I live in the area and know this mall. There is nothing notable about it. There is a Strawbridge's (going to convert to Macys, I believe), Sears, JCPenny, and other stores. This mall is not well known outside of the region, as other editors have demonstrated. No notable event has ever happened there (per above, such as shooting, or something of that nature). Verifiability is not the problem here; the website exists, I am sure newspaper article exists, and I have first hand experience, but that is not what matters. It is NOT notable. It is located in South Jersey, and as much as I hate to say it, South Jersey is as unnotable as it gets. The Cherry Hill Mall, on the other hand, one of the "competing malls" mentioned MAY be notable because it caters to the affluent and Cherry Hill is a well known area even to North Jersey and out-of-staters. The Burlington Center, on the other hand, is not. Any of the information here could probably just as well be in the general Malls article. Having said that, I do believe this article was created in good faith, but listing every mall in America is unproductive. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. After a fair bit of research, it appears that this mall actually is notable to the community it serves, as it is frequently referenced as a landmark for directions and such, and I also found it unusually noteworthy that there is a ministry on the premises, as noted by the Courier Post. [32] [33] Silensor 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with this, now, is if this mallministry is notable, considering that it is only located in the Burlington Center. No one doubts that the mall is notable to the people it serves, but that is not the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia. If that was the case, then this would be my personal webspace, since everything would be notable to me Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article does not assert notability.Aguerriero (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Keep and redirect per compromise below. Aguerriero (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in the hope that all malls will have articles. These are "notable" local landmarks. --SPUI (T - C) 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I do add malls, but they do need some reason for inclusion. Adding your average local shopping mall is not a good direction to take. Likewise if something is used as a way point in providing directions does not make it notable, just noticable. Since all chuches are not notable, the fact that it houses a church kind of says it is not notable. For the record, the latest trend in the west seems to be chuches buying malls and using the rent as income for the church. Do we need to add all of these mall based chuches and the malls they own? Vegaswikian 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but definitely needs cleanup. An enclosed shopping mall is a landmark in the locality where it is situated. The claim of NN for a building or structure essentially means that virtually all building and structure articles should be AFD as well. --Shuki 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't follow the rationale behind this. Are we looking at the same mall and article? This is promotion in my opinion. I see no merit for this article to remain. Yanksox 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the user is saying that some Wikipedians consider verifiable malls to be notable by default as regional socio-economic centers. As far as this article being "promotion," that is grounds for cleanup, not purging, IMHO. youngamerican (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, there are an extraordinary amount of malls that exist within North America, so for one mall to be considered encylopedic it has to stand up among the rest. Agreed? Well, in this article all this is listed is a description of eateries and big chain stores. There isn't anything exceptional about it, it's just...normal. Also for the comment about being a socio-ecomonic center, that is giving way too much credit for what the establishment is. By using that rationale, I could inculde my barber shop since a great deal of people from the area get hair cut there and there is a monetary transaction. The same could be said of a local McDonalds. It doesn't become an exceptional example if it is one of many. The current article is written like a directory and it can't get better. The only solution would be to elminate it since, it just has no notable whatsoever. This is deletable under, WP:NOT (promotion, advert, indiscrim. list of info. Let's also think: What useful purpose could this article serve? Would it attribute towards anything in the future? Most likely, not. I still urge for deletion unless something notable occurs with/in/to this mall. Yanksox 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How about: move this article to Generic shopping mall and make most descriptions of individual malls redirect to it? You could swap the descriptions of the Burlington Center Mall and the Burlington Mall and I don't believe anyone would be the wiser. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting mall articles that do not show any degree of notability beyond being a regional socio-economic center to shopping mall is not my top choice, but it isn't the worst idea ever. It would pick up googlers and the original text would still be in the history for people to attempt to expand upon if they can assert the extra level of notability that seems to demanded from some on AfD. So basically, I still say keep, but I think a redirect for this and other "generic malls" to shopping malls might be a workable compromise, per my and Dpbsmith's reasoning. youngamerican (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So, your suggesting moving this to a blank article and list what exactly? Yanksox ^(talk) 12:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Im not sure what you mean. I think we were suggesting redirect mall articles to shopping mall unless their is something particularly notable. youngamerican (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm very tired. That's a good idea. I like it. Yanksox ^(talk) 13:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know how that goes. such redirects will leave past edits intact if someone knows a reason why an article should be expanded (superlatives, notable events, etc). youngamerican (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Indrian 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per youngamerican. bbx 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note to potential closing admins: There appears to be a last-minute consensus building here. Give us a little bit of time here. Thanks. youngamerican (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I have notified all parties not on wikibreaks that participated in the discussion of the possible compromise and I request a bit of an extension on this AfD, if possible, in hopes of avoiding another no consensus and in order to maybe set something resembling a precedent. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to that request, prehaps a three day extension may be in order. Yanksox ^talk 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Yanksox Plan is quite simply actually, delete redirect to clear out the history. Redirect Yanksox ^(talk) 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with the delete part for two reasons. 1)The history will still be there in case someone can show exceptional notability for this mall and can build off of past history and 2) (and more importantly) so we can get a precedent going for speedy redirects for other malls without having to go through process to get the history deleted. youngamerican (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect-without-merge. At this point, deleting the history is overkill. I don't think histories should be deleted unless there's some very serious issue with the material in the history along the lines of libellous. In this case, retaining the redirect serves the purpose of leaving a placemarker to show that at some point someone, somewhere wanted an article about the mall, and the history does at least contain the address of the mall and its website. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the article needs a lot of work, but let's take care of that before any deletion. Alansohn 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be kept. To be blunt there is really a complete lack of notability. In fact, recently an editor has been placing what could appear to be joke edits into this article. There is no reason to keep, but I like Youngamerican's suggestion of redirecting. Yanksox ^(talk) 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I changed my vote above; redirect isn't a bad idea (I was kind of advocating it up there), but the history is pointless. The official site exists. As it is, the only thing is directions (easily obtained from anywhere), and a generic description (that, in my opinion, isn't even very well written). Delete it, then remake the redirect. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:55, 15 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quackenworth Publishing

Case of WP:CORP, I think - less than 300 Ghits and nothing on Amazon, does not appear to be notable Jammo (SM247) 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete and Comment I read their books when I was a kid, and saw copies in just about every clinic I went to (and as a sick little boy I went to my fair share). However, it's been awhile, and times change... Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It fails a straight WP:CORP, but I can't help thinking that if the notability criteria for a book is that it should be widely available and have an ISBN, then the publishers of widely available books with ISBNs are notable (Amazon link). Mr Stephen 11:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Can't see that any of their books have wikipedia articles. Only Two books only listed on Amazon. Website shows that most of their sales are likely to be direct and so not a wide readership. Seems to fail WP:CORP - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not establish notability, and is self-promoting as the author is User:Quackenworth. Aguerriero (talk) 17:38, 9 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma

A POV fork off of Haldane's Dillema, by a non-notable "baraminologist" written by mainly be Remine himself. Hits WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, and most seriously WP:N. JoshuaZ 04:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki to Evowiki, violates WP:NOR. — Dunc|☺ 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Written in the first person, it appears to be an attempt to use WP to publish original research - the article was created by FreezBee, but the content was written by Walter ReMine himself. This belongs in a blog, or a paper, not on Wikipedia. ReMine does not have his own article; his arguments about Haldane's Dilemma, if notable enough, belong in that article, not this POV fork/personal soapbox essay. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Concerning the deletion, I need to ask for some advise. Since Walter ReMine happens to be connected with Haldane's Dilemma, I would think he cannot be left out completely. Readers will expect to find some mentioning of him. The question, though is, whether a separate article should be devoted to that, or that would rather be something for EvoWiki to deal with. Or, alternatively, a section in the main article should be decvoted to that. As long as ReMine was around to interfere with the article, I thought it best to try to confine him to his own article; but of course, it's not meant a necessarily permanent solution.

--FreezBee 10:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If ReMine has a notable connection to Haldane's Dilemma, he can get a mention in the Haldane's Dilemma article. —Mets501^talk 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is a POV fork by FreezBee. I know it can be hard working things out on the main article, but that is where this belongs. Ted 19:13, 8 June 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 Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Physics equations

List cruft Koffieyahoo 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree- I don't think this article is listcruft at all. It's not an indiscriminate list of info; it's not infinite; everything on the list is verifiable; and, unlike 99.9% of lists on WP, this one could actually help people. -- Kicking222 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there are also a few thousand physics equations missing from the list at the moment. It'll never be complete and within the realm of physics the current list is quite arbitrary. -- Koffieyahoo 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete little context provided and better dealt with on existing pages already. Jammo (SM247) 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A list would be a terrible way to present the sum of all physics equations. Equations are meaningless without context and ideas. Anyway, good idea or no, it's not realistic nor useful to put all physics equations from all branches of physics in a single list. On the other hand, comprehensive lists of equations are often used for college physics 101 courses, and it would be nice to have such a list. But first, it has to present itself as being such a list, and nothing more. Second, it goes in wikibooks, not wikipedia. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• What would "College Physics 101" refer to? UCSD, for example, has at least 3 different introductory Physics course sequences for freshmen. Each one uses drastically different equations. --Constantine Evans 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's true. Different levels of physics use different versions of the same equation. I did not propose a solution to that problem, because it's not my problem, as a Wikipedian. Let them figure it out at Wikibooks. But, since you ask, I will suggest at least three solutions: 1. Give each equation at a general (vector calculus) level, and subsequently mention how it simplifies in certain cases (reducing to no-calc, no trig equations). 2. Give 3 separate lists, for three separate levels of intro physics (this is not as silly as it sounds, we will eventually have a thing called wikiversity, right?). 3. Choose one level, mention at the top which level and prerequisites the list requires, and let students who need a different level sink or swim. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Lethe. GassyGuy 08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Lethe pretty much covered it, equations need explained and are better covered in articles. This list is unlikely to ever be complete. Scot^t 08:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lethe. Inner Earth 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Lethe. -- GWO
• Delete, perhaps if the page name was more focussed... but this is a too general. However, even if the page was more carefully named, the information would be better placed on the relevant page. - Motor (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the number of physics equations continues to grow: such a general list would be pointless —Mets501^talk 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lethe. --Pak21 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Just Delete. Changing my vote per good points made below. Someone wishing to do a good job on this would do just as well to start from scratch. Still, if it were layered and referenced the 'pedia something like the Table of integrals why not here? -MrFizyx 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• [previous discussion]Keep or Transwiki to wikibooks. The list of equations needed to do high school or introductory college physics DOES NOT grow, it is a relatively short and very static list. Thats the beauty of the subject. This is a useful reference. If you must, move it to or merge it with what is already at wikibooks and provide links where appropriate on wikipedia. It does need a lot more context to be useful to someone new to the subject. -MrFizyx 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• As I said in my vote, yes, such a list is useful. Every high school or college physics 101 student needs such a list. Why shouldn't Wikipedia be able to provide it? I would simply add that the list here in its current form, is too badly written to be transwikied. Let's just delete it, and when someone wants to do a proper list, then let them do so (and let it be at wikibooks). -lethe ^{talk +} 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The equations needed for 'high school' would vary massively from country to country. I can't see this list having much of a use. Delete per above. Trebor 17:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well thats not exactly true. The laws of physics are pretty universal. If one were really going to flush this idea out you would want to have equations with algebra and calculus variations, but other than that.... The current content isn't worth fighting over, but I do see potential in the idea here. Its a huge exageration to suggest that you would need thousands of equations for this to be useful. -MrFizyx 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The 'thousands of equations' would be needed to give any semblence of a somewhat complete list of Physics equations. The list does not claim to be a list of only 'High School Physics Equations'. Even for high school or introductory college physics, what level are we to assume? I have heard that some high school physics courses don't even require basic trigonometry. The introductory college physics course I took used the differential form of Maxwell's equations. There is an immense variation in the amount of math used in introductory physics courses. --Constantine Evans 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I know well the full range of students and "introductory" courses you mention. I still think there is some merit to the idea, but alas, I've changed my vote to delete as the current content is junk anyway and you've made some good points. -MrFizyx 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikibooks. Not a good list for wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and lethe. Equations without context do not physics make. Anville 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lots of physics equations out there, should we include everything? If they want an equation, just goto Physics then search down from there. Frankchn 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this list were to have any claim to completeness, it would be far too large and impractical. Also, as aptly illustrated by the current content, the lack of context inherent in a list makes this a terrible idea: nearly all of the items make unacceptable assumptions - static friction, gravity only from the Earth on a small scale, all objects in collision are massive, etc ... Adding a sufficient amount of explanation would be tantamount to including the corresponding article for each equation. --Constantine Evans 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated (kind of), physics equations without context are just wrong. To give an example, E = (1/2)mv^2 is only correct in the context of Newtonian mechanics. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0SpinBoson (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Seems sorta of pointless considering that other articles contain these equations. -- Lueser
• Delete My vote's not terribly necessary here, but I'll jump in anyways. We're not a textbook, and equations don't mean anything alone (lethe's three lists for three physics classes demonstrates that well). — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:15, 12 June 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 speedy delete as a hoax/attack page. -- Kjkolb 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

David Foletta

This is a hoax. There is no record of him at the Anglican Church. The user is new, being created just after I reverted this information on Down syndrome by an anonymous user. The name was reinserted into Down syndrome after this article was created. The information given is similar to other hoax entries. Ted 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. V. Joe 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Zero hits for David Ignasius Foletta with Google. Few for David Foletta, with none appropriate. Church is real (recently burned to the ground, which is a nice twist). Ted 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no google, no nothing. --djrobgordon 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Kicking222 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it on Until someone can prove the entry is not factual - it fully is, he is a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.43.133 (talk • contribs)
  • Uhh... the burden of proof is on you. Delete burninate this crap. Danny Lilithborne 06:14, 8 June 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. Petros471 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stupid and contagious

A Friday night public-radio show in Sitka, Alaska. Zany? Maybe. Notable? Not so much. (The bad photos don't help the "Amateur-Night-in-Dixie" look of the article.) Was Prod'ed, by tag removed by creator with the comment, Removal of deletion proposal because the personal opinion that this radio show isn't "notable" is not a viable reason for deletion. This article meets all four policies in the deletion policy. Calton | Talk 06:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This show airs on Raven Radio, a legitimate public station in Alaska. This isn't some guy broadcasting his pirate radio show from his bedroom, this is a legit (maybe small fanbase but still legit) show on a legitimate FCC certified radio station. Therefore, it isn't a vanity piece. On Wikipedia we have dozens of entries for small TV stations, radio stations, and radio shows. Is it notable? To the listeners of the radio station it MUST be since it is still on the air. Just because it is a small fanbase does NOT mean it is NOT notable. We have entries on artists and jazz muscians who NO ONE has heard of outside their respective genres and does THAT mean they are not notable? of course not. The same rule applies here. TruthCrusader 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. So much verbiage, so little sense. I mean, "legitimate"? Since I didn't use that term nor any synonym thereof, I'm trying to imagine what it's supposed to mean. I certainly wasn't arguing that the public-radio station hosting the show was illegimate -- which would entail, I dunno, maybe a band of totebag-carrying latte-drinkers skulking through the woods, secretly broadcasting bootleg Bob Edwards tapes or something. --Calton | Talk 20:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, and Speedy if possible. nn program with nn hosts with nn content. Most of this entry is unsubstantiated and unverified, with much of the rest being inherently contrary to WP:POV. The section on "Other Appearances" is simply listcruft. Agent 86 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Google test miserably. - Andre Engels 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unextraordinary local radio station. Here we are now, entertain us! -- GWO
• Delete, not notable, not reliable and not worth reading (unless you are obliged to in order to vote here naturally). - Motor (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We're supposed to be reading the articles first. Uh-oh. -- GWO
• Delete Local radio programs are almost always non-notable, and this one is no exception (in addition to failing the Google test). -- Kicking222 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Do Not Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when has it become law that Google is used to verify notability? Show me where it is written down as such. TruthCrusader 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you missed this. No, it's not a "law" -- but then, you're the only one who used that term. Hint: "test" =/= "law". --Calton | Talk 20:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to minor and local to be classed as notable. Imagine if we had every single local radio show that had a small fanbase in here. Ydam 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any verifiable, useful bits into Raven Radio in order to make that article more complete. youngamerican (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I would go with delete over keep, though. youngamerican (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. To the closing admin, let me further clarify: If it is close to a "delete," do not let my merge through it to a no consensus. I would rather see a delete than a default keep from no consensus. youngamerican (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per youngamerican. Notability hasn't been asserted, but radio exists and is a good place to put this information. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This page may not be the most informational on Wikipedia, but it does meet the polices. It is a real show on a real radio station and if someone wants information on it, where are they going to go? Just because it doesn't show up on Google means nothing. If you google search "Ricahrd Larry Rusk," you don't get anything. Although that man ran the biggest underground drug operation in the state of Texas known to this day. He was eventually gunned down by the FBI. Just because you can't find his name on google means that his operation wasn't notable? No, it doesn't mean anything. Same thing here. The "Other Appearances" was meant to be intertaining and not taken seriously. Anyone who knows this show is obviously from Sitka or surrounding small communities and will un-doubtedly know that those people never were on the show. We also can be fairly certain that the only people who are reading this or the article are people who know the show because...who else would care? The pictures are there to represent the light-heartedness of the program and its atmosphere, not to make it look sophistocated. But what it all boils down to is: There are three policies plus the copyright policy. This page meets all of them. It has a neutral POV, the information about the show is viable information, its obviously not original research, and what copyright could it possibly be breaking? There is unlimited space on the internet. Its not stealing anything away from you. So why not let it stay?--Dnomyar 7:13, 8 June 2006.
  • Because it doensn't meet the slightest standard of importance or encyclopedic merit? Because it's, in fact, trying to steal -- host space, bandwidth, and most importantly, reputation by association.
  • It is a real show on a real radio station ... My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my box of Kirkland brand Household Surface Wipes on my office desk are equally real, and they're not getting articles, either.
  • ...if someone wants information on it, where are they going to go? Wikipedia not being a webhost, not here. If you have no money (and if you're in public radio, that's a given), try MySpace.
  • Your "Ricahrd Larry Rusk" argument is particularly amusing -- yeah, such an article would be deleted since there's no proof he exists other than your say-so. Besides, I'm not following the logical chain here: because an unprovable subject doesn't have an article, yours should?
  • its obviously not original research Two untruths in one clause: no, it's not "obviously" or even debatably -- "not original research" -- it doesn't have a single reference, not even the bog-standard MySpace page every garage band has.
  • The pictures are there to represent the light-heartedness of the program and its atmosphere, not to make it look sophistocated. Pictures should added visual information to an article -- I hardly think a radio show requires pictures -- especially those that drive home the point that the whole enterprise is Amateur Night in Dixie. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the actual reason for the photos has more to do with ego than illustration, and to which I say, see the above reference to MySpace. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Haham hanuka 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge If the station merits an article, their shows should be a part of it unless the shows merit their own articles. Here, they don't, so voted merge. --Davidstrauss 07:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is essentially fancruft for people who listen to the show. No one else could possibly care. Aguerriero (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont give a damn about particle physics but that doesn't mean it should be blanked from Wiki. This article meets all the requirements, as stated above, there is NO reason to delete it SOLEY based on nn. TruthCrusader 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh, your original spittle-flecked argument above relied on some form notability -- no matter how tiny -- and now suddenly it's not important? Try to keep your stories straight, okay? --Calton | Talk 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to remember to be CIVIL, people. Agent 86 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. (or very weak merge) ... I live in a city with ~9,000 people. Nothing on the radio stations or local cable access is particularly noteworthy enough to include. --Kunzite 21:53, 11 June 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. Petros471 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Party of the United States

Sigh. I was hoping it wouldn' come to this:

Can't find any serious American references. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it, modifying it to show the current form of the party... a young start up barely off the ground. -AC

Message from the Pirate Party of the United States:
This article was NOT published by anyone who is affiliated with the Pirate Party of the United States. We believe that we are not yet established enough to warrent a wikipedia article. However, as most of you comment this is not some organization founded with no basis. Wired Mag. is currently working on a story and we have the full support of the Pirate Party of Sweeden. This article should be deleted at once, and in the future, when the organization is firmly established there should be an article made about it.
--
David Sigal
Chairman
Pirate Party USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewizrd (talk • contribs) 23:44, June 9, 2006

• Delete Zero google hits. This is a hoax and not even a funny one. Ace of Sevens 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • When I first read your comment I too got zero google hits when I googled it, but thought that due too its short history, google had perhaps not indexed since then (or whatever google does to find entries). I tried to google it a while later and got 608 hits. Martin Ulfvik 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of results: [34] I think thaht the article must be keep.--157.88.70.159 09:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It was me who started the article after having seen the Pirate Party of the United States being mentioned on the frontpage of the Pirate Party. The Pirate Party is fyi the largest Swedish political party outside the parliament (memberwise) and is the fastest growing one (just so the legitimacy of the Pirate Party does not come into question due to its name). A discussion about the Pirate Party of the United States is also present on the forum of the Pirate Party. The party is also featured on Boing Boing at http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/us_branch_of_pirate_.html. It should also be noted that the Pirate Party of the United States was just recently created, on June 6, 2006. Martin Ulfvik 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were created two days ago, it could hardly be notable yet. Ace of Sevens 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons stated above. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from the talk page of the article:

Even though I am the founder of the Pirate Party of the United States, I can assure you that it was not me who originally wrote the Wikipedia entry for it, but rather a member of the original Piratpartiet. This site is not a joke. It was featured on BoingBoint at http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/us_branch_of_pirate_.html, I've gotten 250+ emails from people expressing interest in joining, and Piratpariet chair Rickard Falkvinge called me this morning to express congratulations and interest in working closely with us. Again, this is not a joke - this party is for real and growing fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.55.82 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 June 2006

• You got 250 e-mails? Son, 250 bonafide votes wouldn't get you a seat on the Athens City Council. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability first, article later. And no, getting onto boingboing doesn't count. -- GWO
• Delete, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but damn, this is better than Yippies. Can you imagine the campaign slogans? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure "Steal This Book", "Steal the Soundtrack to This Book", "Steal the Movie of This Book", "Steal the Ebook Novelisation of the Movie of This Book"... -- GWO
• Keep. The elitist judgements being passed by certain people here really sicken me. TruthCrusader 13:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on your track record, I'm thinking it's the noun and not the adjective of "elitist judgements" that's giving you trouble. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ouch, good one. Incidentally, the use of the word "elitist" is AfD's corollary to Godwin's Law. -- Docether 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this page. Currently it it the *only* source of information available. I can only presume this page has been targeted for deletion because of political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.172.211 (talk • contribs) 13:54 8 June 2006
  • Uh, you realize that if this is the "*only* source of information available", then by definition it's original research and doesn't belong here? Perhaps you want to rethink that argument. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per what the founder of the party says himself: it is the only source of information available. WP:NOR —Mets501^talk 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Founded two days ago? Eesh... Wickethewok 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "the only source of information available"? Good grief. I only half-jokingly call this a vanity page. Seriously, nn at least. I note they claim credibility because they talk about it themselves. Tychocat 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Of course this deserves an own article! /Slarre 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - i tend to think that you should only delete an article if it is a piece of crap or about a subject which can't be expanded. and this one isn't one of them. THE KING 18:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. You should only delete an article if it meets the policy for deletion. -- Docether 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, currently nonnotable and original research, per Calton's comment. Best, Docether 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. — Haeleth Talk 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable if it's two days old. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment there is a pirate party in sweeden, but cant find anything about it being in the US. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7185.cfm antmoney85
• Delete per User:71.108.172.211. (I know he said keep...) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I myself have taken notable interest over this article since its founding (yeah, I know 2 days ago so try adding that) and it has received over 1500 diggs. I know you "deleteists" (now that's the type of word applying to Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day) will say "Who cares about diggs", but still this is in no way, shape or form the type of article that should be deleted. Besides, even though the USA has a large bandwidth issue its not like Wikipedia has a severe storage space issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 20:54 8 June 2006
  • Apparently you prefer we have a severe credibility problem instead, which is the logical outcome of pretending things made up in school one day are the least bit encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • That is just ridiculous! Until you show us a letter from Jimmy Wales or Richard Stallman, my hero, explaining that Wikipedia is so tight for storage space that they feel this 3K text document is the straw that's breaking the camels back, then you have no reason to delete this article. Besides, Wikipedia is about free information and the right to know, so am I being forced to aruge for my write to view this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 00:25, June 9, 2006
      • That's right! Aruge for your writes! Let's tell off all those people who want to delete this because they say it takes up too much space! Let's let them know...uh, wait, where are those people making that argument? Did they wander off to a different page? <Looks under carpet> Nope, not there. Let us when you find them and then we'll all give them what for! --Calton | Talk 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The link to the parties site doesn't even work yet. --Darkstar949 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't know what's this supposed to be, but 'www.pirate-party.us' is apparently down and just represents advertisement of it's hosting company 'Doteasy'. Now you can get various information about Canada there oO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.77.100 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 June 2006
• Arrrr!, or is that Delete. Set up chapters in each of the 50 states, run a serious slate of candidates, then you get an article. Not before. KleenupKrew 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to counteract global warming Flying Spaghetti Monster#PiratesDelete and forget about global warming. Ted 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Brand new parties have to actually establish themselves before they get an article. Fan1967 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at this stage. 600 Google hits most from blogs

[35]. No Google News results indicates a problem with verifiability at this stage. When this party registers and starts running candidates for office, an article on them would be warranted. It isn't appropriate at this stage. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Establish thyself and nominate some candidates to run. Frankchn 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I thought the Pensioners' Party was nn. <sigh> Eluchil404 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Whosasking
• Delete. While I'm tickled pink at the idea, they have no notability thus far other than sharing a name with the Swedish version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 June 2006
• Delete, per the many reasons above. PJM 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a Political Party is not just for gaining seats on a board or anything, but a political party can also be to bring an issue to the forefront and show others that it is popular and that change is necessary. This isn't a hoax, and this is gaining speed, especially since it is endorsed by the original Pirate Party, and even moreso since the Pirate Bay raid. If it's not here now it'll be here later. Phae 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether it "is gaining speed" is irrelevant. It does not meet standards for inclusion now. It is certainly possible that it may later, but, per the famous crystal ball policy, Wikipedia does not anticipate or predict. Fan1967 00:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Pirate Party of Sweden. Given that this entity is has less members and is less notable than my neighbors wine tasting club, its only claim to relevance is its resemblance and possible association with the legitimately notable Pirate Party of Sweden. Surely this entire article could be replaced by one line on that page. Kershner 06:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now, because the name of the article Pirate Party implies every Pirate Party in the world, and right now a well-sourced article about all the Pirate parties would be well under 32kb. Ashibaka tock 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the Party is bound to gain exposure, and so there is no reason to delete the article now only to have someone recreate it later. Joffeloff 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "is bound to"? Wikipedia? Not a crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because the party/organization is new, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept in Wikipedia. Was the Swedish Pirate Party deleted? No, but it indeed was put through the grueling Articles for Deletion process and was decided to be kept; hopefully the same attitude is upheld for this one. Mike 08:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Pirate Party of Sweden had media coverage and had run candidates. The same attitutude could lead to the US page being delete. On secodn thought, this shoudl be merged to Pirate Party, though and split back off if they manage to establish themselves. Ace of Sevens 09:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThe platform is raising serious issues of public policy that are not being addressed by other parties.M dorothy 14:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a place to 'raise serious issues of public policy'. It is an encyclopedia. A political party that has not yet filed for existence in any state, has run zero candidates and has no media coverage is not encyclopedic. It may be one day, but right now it is merely an attempt to use Wikipedia as a political springboard. Kershner 15:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Pirate Party, this doesn't deserve its own article just yet. The Pirate Party movement (outside of Sweden) does seem notable however and putting that information on the main Pirate Party article seems like the most prudent thing to do. Paul^C/_T+ 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Pirate Party until such time as the American chapter has done something notable on its own, at which point the article should be recreated with the new, notable information. Until the American chapter has done something independantly notable, it's basically just a footnote of the Swedish version. Fieari 19:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into pirate party of sweeden, if it grows give it a sub article... --T-rex 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I know, it is not yet a registered party, it hasn't yet been in an election, etc etc etc. The thing is, in 2 or 4 or 10 years, when(or if) this is a notable party and people do come to Wikipedia to read about it, I'm sure many of them, like me, will go back and see what the earliest revision is so we can watch how it developed in intimate detail. Wikipedia's strength, in my mind. is more than just its ability to update quickly and that it only has to pay minimal attention to bandwith/storage space, but rather it's ability to preserve each revision of the article in it's entirety, thus proving to be a researcher's dream in watching the development of ideas, and, yes, politics. Is this article detrimentally affecting Wikipedia's credibility or functionality? No. On the other hand, if we choose to delete the article, do we risk denying people what they come to wikipedia for, namely, information? Absolutely. --AK7 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the content must therefore by notable and encyclopedic at the time of articles creation. Your 'Keep' clearly articulates why this article does not belong in Wikipedia yet. Kershner 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've written a few responses but I'm having trouble explaining my views... basically what I'm trying to say is, first, Wikipedia loses little by keeping. Second, whlie we can only claim to be an encyclopedia, we are made into much more by our circumstances: we are a source of information, and I suppose one could say of "meta-information." We store not just a review and summary of the ideas that shape our world, but also how those ideas are formed and shaped, inasmuch as they have been in the years wikipedia has been around. Third, we should be concious of helping along future researchers. I'm well aware it's against policy to keep an article on the off-chance it could become notable, but the very-early revision histories would be a gold mine for future researchers, and the losses from it are infintesmally small. What do we lose by keeping around the article for 6 months (or 1 month) and seeing what comes of it? On the other hand, what do we potentially gain?
    • I should note that this is more of a general argument. I'm not saying that the revisions I see in this article's history are clearly going to be used for the historybooks a hundred years from now. I am saying that we don't yet know what information will or will not be useful a month, a year or a generation from now... so why not just leave it and let them sort it out? Have you ever heard a historian complain of too much information, too much documentation? The problem is almost invariably the loss of information.--AK7 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't know for sure... but wouldn't a merge and redirect effectively get rid of the article, but still preserve the history for "future researchers to drool over"? Paul^C/_T+ 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment AK7, The simple answer is "because that's the way it is." You are making a sound and coherent argument about the purpose of Wikipedia. To be honest, in many ways I agree with your contention. In spite of this, the topic was fully hashed out to a different conclusion long before either of us arrived on Wikipedia's steps. Wikipedia has a clear mandate about what it is and what it isn't. And it is an encyclopedia (and this topic isn't encyclopedic) and it isn't a crystal ball. Kershner 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't contest that there are a million policies that were decided long before we got into WP, but policy should enable us to keep useful information and delete the rest- not force us to say "well that's the way it is" and delete something that we (or just myself?) think is going to just be recreated before long (and that time, rightly so). I don't have any illusions of these people actually getting anyone on a ballot, let alone in office, but simply presenting a public face counter to the **AA's would make them notable- and every indication is that this is what will be happening in the next weeks and months. I do, however, get the feeling I'm pretty much alone in thinking this way, so if the consensus is on the other side, then that's where it is... --AK7 18:53, 16 June 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: Speedily deleted. Even though the former deletion vote wasn't exactly conclusive and I would otherwise be willing to allow a new discussion to go through, an article about a film which was cancelled before its making could even start is an obvious candidate for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghostbusters 3

It says right in the article that this movie will never happen. This is beyond crystal ball. Ace of Sevens 07:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, speedily or supernaturally, it doesn't matter. Agent 86 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but note this is just one more reason to not completely trust IMDb. Danny Lilithborne 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, article was deleted last month under the title Ghostbusters III - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghostbusters_III. BryanG^(talk) 08:20, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

National Educational Network, Inc.

Listed for speedy deletion, but not within the criteria. Author contests deletion and would certainly remove a prod tag. That said, non-notable website article that reeks of advertising. Deltabeignet 07:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The hits-counter on the site is at 1412. There's no way it's notable. Ace of Sevens 07:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Creation by [email protected] suggests vanity. (Originally posted at National educational network, inc and at Neni - now two redirects to be deleted.) -- RHaworth 07:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanispam ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — CJewell (talk to me) 13:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/spam/NN —Mets501^talk 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. NawlinWiki 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Most likely advertisement. Has not improved article, or responded to Mediation. Danl 21:58, 12 June 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. I invite someone to write a new article with the same name - Richardcavell 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonus

The article is much too narrow (not only investment bankers get bonuses, almost everone might) and contains stuff that is more POV than information. I first thought of dropping the incorrect parts, but would then be left with "A bonus is something people get paid. It is performance related," whih I find below par. Feel free to remove this nomination if someone has replaced the article with something better. Andre Engels 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If properly cleaned up, we'd be left with a dictionary definition. I can see something useful about the history of bonuses, but nothing worth salvaging in the current article. Ace of Sevens 07:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Contains this statement: It is performance related, and in the months coming up to deciding bonus it is particularly important to be nice to your boss. Unsalvageable. A cleanup, as said above, would leave only a dicdef, so delete. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. -- Kicking222 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above —Mets501^talk 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Trebor 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. £40-60k "relatively low"? Relative to what? Certainly not to the national average, which is £16k. — Haeleth Talk 18:48, 8 June 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 - Richardcavell 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spaceballs 2

Crystal ball. This movie is nowhere near far enough along to be definite. Ace of Sevens 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete total cystal ballism. It's basically an article that consists of two things mel brooks has been reported as been doing. Not films existance isint exactly the most verifable of things. Ydam 12:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't see any crystal balling, as all the stuff on the page is taken from its sources. As for if the movie is far enough along to be definite, that can't be said. Mel Brooks has been keeping very tight lipped about the whole thing, which suggest that he has something. If SB2 wasn't coming out, he would have said as much. JQF 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that is all speculation on your part though. It's not verfiable Ydam 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All the content is taken from other sources, but they're pretty much rumor mills. Fan1967 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Besides the title's incorrect it SHOULD be "Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money" Wildthing61476 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rumors do not belong on WP —Mets501^talk 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is evidence that the sequel is at some level of production; it may have been postponed while he works on the musical version of Young Frankenstein, but that doesn't mean that the project is completely dead. EVula 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As correctly asserted above, this article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. Justinpwilsonadvocate 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mel Brooks. (He's denied it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick perusal doesn't turn up anything to support the claim that he's denied it; source? EVula 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't have a reliable source, but there's no reliable source for the proposed film, so we're even. ;-) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Zing Touché. However, there is a reliable source: Mel Brooks himself. Yes, this is from 2004, but this is why I said that as long as it is at some level of production, it should be kept. EVula 20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course, the lack of activity since then might suggest that there's nothing happening. His wife died, he's been busy with other projects. No reason to believe this one's active. Fan1967 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No reason to believe that it isn't active, either. EVula 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • So we should keep it because it might be?? Fan1967 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Surely the burdan of proof lies with those trying to claim it is active though? I mean if we started keeping articles because we couldn't proove the weren't notable rather than keeping them because we could proove they were the whole system would quickly fall apart Ydam 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If we can squeeze out the crystal ball-ism, then what is actually verifiable might be able to stand on its own. It's worth a shot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• What is actually verifiable is that Brooks once talked about writing a sequel. That's it. No studio, no budget, no shooting schedule, nothing else. Fan1967 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are so. many. films. that are floating around in various stages of pre-production; the vast majority of them never make it to the screen. No need for articles on them until they are cast, in filming, and with a production budget. Aguerriero (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. This deserves perhaps a few sentences in the Spaceballs article, but certainly not its own article unless this goes beyond being a figment in Mel Brooks' mind. Ameltzer 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally lacks WP:Verifiability. Equendil Talk 19:59, 10 June 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. – Robert 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Devil May Cry (film)

Crystal ball. There is no listing at the IMDB and the page doesn't give anything but tentative plans and rumors. Ace of Sevens 07:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is real, but there's not much info on it now, so no need for an article yet. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--blue520 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge There already exists a wiki page that has video games that have been or planned to be made into movies. Lord_Hawk 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC-8)
• Delete crystal ball; poorly written article that's hard to follow as well —Mets501^talk 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 9 June 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. – Robert 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Freddy vs. Jason 2

Crystal ball. The only source is an interview with Robert Englund, which is far from a guarantee the movie will happen. There don't seem to be concrete plans. Ace of Sevens 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (& WP:NOT)--blue520 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crystal ballism and unverfiability. Ydam 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: No verifiable info as of yet. Deathawk 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 8 June 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 no consensus to delete. Petros471 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid (film)

Crystal ball. The article seems to be almost entirely speculative. The only real info is that Hideo Kojima would like to do a movie, which doesn't warrant an article. Ace of Sevens 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom (& WP:NOT)--blue520 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 09:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Untill its actually at least semi-confirmed (actors, etc), theres little point to having an article here.ACE Spark 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hideo Announced this movie and even IMDB has it as announced for 2008 Metal Gear Solid(2008) --Stripedtiger 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Contrary to popular belief, IMDb is no more reliable than any other Internet film page. Danny Lilithborne 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep per [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but those citations don't cut it. They all reference people "talking about making the movie" and "having a plan in place" but those don't mean anything in the industry. Make an article once there is a cast, a budget, and a studio. Aguerriero (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, don't feel this violates crystal ball policy. Per "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Seeing how Kojima has talked about it in his own radio show, in various interviews, including in PSW and OPSM magazines, Konami has talked about, official Kojima Productions promo materials talk about it, I think this can be made into a well referenced claim. Holywood is notorious for development hell, but that doesn't mean that we can just write this off under the crystal ball guidelines. Hideo Kojima has talked about it, and obviously feels it is going to happen ("False facts aside, a movie project is underway. I have finalized a Class-A contract with a party in Hollywood."), Konami has made public statements about the project, and Kojima Productions has actually advertised with the project at e3. Article needs some work on source cites though.--Codemonkey 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Rewrote the article, providing proper source cites. --Codemonkey 08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.--Cloak' 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep.--TheRockBoS 1:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep, this was announced in websites like Gamespot and Anime News Network. 70.68.46.180 04:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep, The delete votes don't offer any rationale (i.e. "Because") and the article not only has references but is based off of interviews from major players in the Metal Gear franchise, not 3rd party speculators. Silversnake020 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment None of this changes that there is no script, no budget, no shooting schedule, no director, no anything except an intention to make a film. Intentions don't warrant articles. There's enough now to warrant a mention on the Metal Gear Solid page, but not its own page. Ace of Sevens 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I feel they do warrant an article, as long as the 'intentions' are notable and verifiable enough. I feel they are. The way I read it, Crystal Ball policy both explicitly allows for this, and the stated basis of said policy is indeed verifiability and notability, thus something to be kept in mind when reading that policy. The policy is there to cut down "unverifiable speculation". This article isn't, I feel. --Codemonkey 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep also per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody has offered an explanation why permanent deletion is necessary, when page-blanking would suffice. Also the burden of proof has been met by provided sources added since article creation. --Tjsynkral 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Page blanking isn't done as a method of removing material from the database. — Mike • 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this meets notability. It's documented and would be worth mentioning on the Metal Gear Solid page. I can't see it being notable until it actually goes into production as most popular video games have someone intending to make a movie at some point. Ace of Sevens 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The crystal ball policy states this regarding notability: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I think that is true for this article. Or are you talking about some additional requirements? Something from WP:N, or linked from WP:N? --Codemonkey 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There does seem to be some interesting information there, and it's not third party speculation, it's based on the creator's announcements and those of his publisher. Would be acceptable to merge into Metal Gear Solid too, but no point in second-guessing the contrib. - Wickning1 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Codemonkey --DethFromAbove 00:10, 16 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Open merchant account

Admitted self-promotion (see article history). Unless notability can be established, delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete. Also note that almost all user contribs were some form of linkspam (own websites, affiliate links, etc.) Han-Kwang 09:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Haakon 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have two added Magazine references for the company website. Where an article for the company appeared in two internationally published publications. Hopefully this is adequate to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiach6383 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. I tried following the links mentioned above, they go to websites which don't mention the indicated titles, and nor do the alleged authors names appear with anything like those titles. Tychocat 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The referenced material are printed magazines, not websites. The websites quoted are the publishing companies for both of the magazines. www.vsj.co.uk is the publishing company for "Visual Systems Journal" amd www.internationalDeveloper.com is the publishing company for "International Developer" magazine. Back issues of either magazines will show an article about my company on the specifiied pages.

Harry Fairhead is in an author for VSJ, a google search http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=harry+fairhead+&btnG=Google+Search&meta= should show that

Similarly, Andrew pearsons states that he is an editor for International Developer on his blog http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/id/A1NG671UDGOIMT/002-4584802-5667245

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiach6383 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. I am well aware the websites represented magazines. I also know both Harry Fairhead and Andrew Pearsons are writers. Neither the above links, nor the links in the article, show either Pearsons or Fairhead wrote stories of the titles given in the citations. If you have direct URLs for the stories you say were written about the company, please give those. I'm still seeing an advertisement trying to sneak into WP. Tychocat 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:18, 8 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exovedate (band)

This is a vanity addition, of a non notable band.

If you Google; Exovedate Daneka Lisa Smith, (the band and their vocalist, as Exovedate is also just a word)... it gives only 13 results. Giving only links to the bands website and this article.

The band fails WP:MUSIC completely. Deathrocker 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Ace of Sevens 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is wrong! Exovedate is Canada's most successful Goth band. They have existed for 12 years. They are a signed band with the same label as Clan of Xymox. Their music has charted all over the world. They have released 3 CD's, and are on SEVEN gothic compilation CD's. To remove this page would be arbitrary and discriminatory. A googlr search for exovedate gives 649 results. You have some weird hate on for this band, and are acting in an aggressive and highly inapproriate manner. Wiki is not just a resource for Americans.

Further, the band meets the following "notability" requirements:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.[1]

They have charted all over the world

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

They are working on their 4th CD and are signed with Pandaimonium Records.

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Simon Wilcox was a lead singer with them. Check her article! Canadians know who she is even if you don't! Stop systemic discrimination!

geez, what more do you need? - unsigned comment by Mirandah

• 1. Exovedate is also a word, not just a musical project, hense why a search coupled with the vocalist's name heralds more realistic results (13 results)
• 2. There is no discrimination, the group fails WP:MUSIC regardless of their nationality. Incase you haven't noticed; Bob Marley and the Beatles are not American acts yet they feature on here.
• 3. There is no evidence for the claim that the group have "charted all over the world", (unlikley considering the band has 13 Google results) in the bands article it claims their songs have appeared on local college radio once or twice, that is common-place for most bands.
• 4. There is no "hate" for an article, this is an encyclopaedia, the article is un-encyclopaedia, fails the guidelines of WP:MUSIC and is a WP:VANITY addition.
• 5. No evidence exists that the band are "Canada's number 1 goth band". This is purely POV.
• 6. The band are not even mentioned on the label's site [42] the label hardly counts as "one of the more important indie labels" anyway. They only have one notable band signed. - Deathrocker 13:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like it noted that the individual who is asking for deletion has also VANDALIZED the Exovedate page. Delete Exovedate? You obviuosly have something personally against them, because there are plenty of bands in wiki, and specifically on the list of gothich rock bands, of less renown than them. This is so silly. Their music appears on 10 CD's. They are Canada's most accompmlished goth band, no one else has done that. You are very mean-spitirted actually. You expect a goth band to be as well known as the Beatles or Bob Marley your non-american examples? You ARE being discriminatory. Shame!

Clearly they met the objective criteria as has been previously stated, so I won't repeat it. But I would like it noted that every thing in the article appears accurate, and clearly they are therefore notable, unless something in there is wrong! - unsigned comment by Mirandah

Please hold the petty personal attacks, such attacks are against Wikipedia policy. I have neither “vandalised” the bands article, nor do I have a problem with Canada or Canadians.

Bauhaus, The Sisters of Mercy and Siouxsie & the Banshees are three examples of bands, who A) Are non-American B) Are notable, and follow WP:MUSIC guidelines C) Part of the goth movement.

Your band "Exovedate" are non notable, I have nothing against them personally, I'm just following WP:MUSIC, (which the group fails) it helps avoid WP:SPAM and WP:VANITY articles such as this one from appearing on Wikipedia. It is also highly POV to claim that they are "Canada's most accompmlished goth band" when you can't provide any evidence to back it up (or their so called "chartings all over the world"). - Deathrocker 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is no proof of notability besides User:Mirandah's unverified claims —Mets501^talk 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Eegads you guys write a lot. Though apparently the band leader founded Manitoba. Wickethewok 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, vanity page. The band isn't even listed on the label's website, as far as I can find. Also unverifiable, with big POV problems. Tychocat 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless claims are verified (which seems unlikely at the moment). -- Trebor 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Deathrocker, righteous scourge of nonnotable goth bands (American ones, too). -- Docether 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Gets a resounding "Who?" from this Canuck. (Checked around, didn't find much of any refs to them outside goth bulletin boards and things, and the record label looks more like a distributor to me, but I could be wrong there.) Tony Fox 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment Well, it is astonishing that there are individuals so unaware of Canada's history and culture that they think the band leader is Louis Riel, don't know who son and daughter Canadian musicians Simon and David Wilcox are, and think this whole thing is a hoax. But I do love democracy, and I will take it in good spirits. I do warmy invite you to learn more about our culture and artistic talent. With best wishes,

siren 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Mirandah

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

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

The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft (film)

Crystal ball. Just because the rights were sold doesn't mean the movie will be made. Ace of Sevens 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom GassyGuy 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: IMDb does have an entry for a Warcraft film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803096/). There have also been interviews related to the film (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6151334.html). Pasi 11:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my experience, IMdB is not a reliable measure of the status of a film's development. — Mike •  15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rights does not equal film. More crystal ballism (god help us if this ends up in uwe bolls hands) Ydam 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball —Mets501^talk 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I expect the article will have to be recreated at some point though. Feels a bit pointless. Still, no crystal balling. Trebor 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteMany rights have been sold, but that is never an indication of a forthcoming film. And of course, no crystal balling. ViceroyInterus 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bring it back if it ever makes it to distribution (unlikely). Ted 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, does not violate crystal ball policy, and is a notable and verifiable production. Crystal ball policy explicitly allows for discussion on future project, and even discussion and arguments on the prospects for success of a future project. Seeing how this is a notable project, that has had press attention, it should not pose a problem to make a properly referenced article. Development hell is notorious for movies, but that does not mean that crystal ball guidelines can just be blanket applied to all film projects that are in early stages. The benchmark should be verifiability and notability, which also is the stated basis for the crystal ball policy, and this project meets both. --Codemonkey 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I personally don't believe this violates crystal ball policy. Why would the word "expected" be in the upcoming films box? However, the pro-delete people have made an arguement, so my comment is Weak Keep. Userpie 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Until the movie is actually in production noting the verifiable facts on the main Warcraft page is probably best. Eluchil404 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Retaliation While the movie is not in production it is not cancelled either if they do not cancel the movie they will eventually start producing it and this article will just be remade.Zach 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Retaliation for what? Since the movie isn't in production, it can't be cancelled. It hasn't been budgeted, etc, onylicensed. Most hot properties get licensed. In many cases, the license is never actually used. Lord of the Rings had the rights sold more than thirty years before it was made. If the Wikipedia had existed at the time, would it have been appropriate to have an article that whole time just to inform people of who had the rights? Ace of Sevens 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure what ShadowZach means with retaliation means either. But if you read the actual interviews, press release, etc. it's more than just licensed, or optioning of the movie rights of some property. They've entered an agreement to produce a movie together. I hope I have edited the page enough so that it, verifiably, reflects this. Crystal Ball guidelines are there to cut down on 'unverifiable speculation'. I feel the project is in such a state that an article about it will not be 'unverifiable speculation', and that in fact the current state of the article is evidence of this. --Codemonkey 16:41, 13 June 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. Sango123 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Warcraft: The Movie

Crystal ball. The rights were sold. It doesn't mean the movie will be made. Ace of Sevens 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom GassyGuy 08:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per duplicate of article at Warcraft (film) Ydam 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as Warcraft (film) —Mets501^talk 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bring it back if it ever makes it to distribution (unlikely). Ted 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate of Warcraft (film) (which I feel we should keep). --Codemonkey 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Much worse duplicate of Warcraft (film). Userpie 16:46, 11 June 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. Sango123 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brunch bus

Appears to be a non-notable parody web site. 18 google hits on "brunchbus", site has no Alexa rank. Weregerbil 08:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete- seems like a funny website. just because it's not huge doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be put on here. Floyd3
• College friends + camcorder + webpage = Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On a scale of 1 to non-notable, this article is an 11. -- Kicking222 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable. --Phl3djo 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. NawlinWiki 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is notable there is a website for it

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Janis Ian (Mean Girls)

This is a non-notable character from a film and should simply redirect back to Mean Girls. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Character doens't have enough cultural currency to warrant her own page. Oddly, this supporting player seems to be the only character with her own article. Ace of Sevens 08:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 08:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Excellent movie, not a sufficiently important character (nor do I think any character in the movie is sufficiently important for their own article). As far as that Martha Johnstone debate... wow. Just wow. -- Kicking222 11:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even a redirect. Kafziel 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ace of Sevens. I would support a redirect to an article on the characters in the movie, but, since there is not such an article and this is an unlikely search term, delete. youngamerican (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quite non-notable —Mets501^talk 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think that the character is non-notable per se, but if there were articles on characters, you would surely think Regina George or Cady Heron would be written first. Delete. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:10, 9 June 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. Petros471 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ripper (television)

Crystal Ball. This is something that was planned and now may or may not happen. Needs to be deleted and redirected to Rupert Giles. It can be re-created if this ever goes into production. Ace of Sevens 08:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 08:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think that there is a place on Wikipedia for certain TV series, movies, video games etc. that didn't happen, so long as they're notable (either as a significant spinoff of something as notable as Buffy, or by a particularly notable creative team), and that there's enough interesting information and history to make the article worthwhile. Had that been the case with Ripper, I'd have voted Keep. However, despite looking at one point like it would go ahead, I don't think things ever got far enough along the line (with plotting, potential casting, whatever) for this article to ever be particularly substantial - unlike, say, Buffy the Animated Series, which I feel is a worthwhile article. Note that if this is deleted, there's information in it that it would be worthwhile merging elsewhere - whether in the Giles entry or in Buffy itself - and also that Template:buffyversenav will need to be edited (unless the article redirects to Rupert Giles and a section on Ripper is created there, in which case it should be alright). Seb Patrick 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep I don't think it sould be deleted as it is still a potential venture and is at least as important as a given book in the timeline is. and as to "either as a significant spinoff of something as notable as Buffy, or by a particularly notable creative team" it would be a significant spinoff if it were to go ahead and mutant enemy are a particularly notable team. In a couple of years after goners and wonda woman there is a good chance that this could still go ahead. I wouldn't delete it untill someone has made a statement that it will not go ahead, so until someone produces that evidence I think the article should stay.--Knavescurvy 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Another possible option maybe to create a Buffyverse undeveloped projects page (which could also include Buffy animated, and Spike movie)? I'm unsure whther this would be a better idea than merging the Ripper article with the Rupert Giles article? I shall vote later after some discussion. -- Paxomen 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It is purely speculative and once it has been confirmed as being a real series, an article about this can be set up. At the moment, it's not worth keeping at all. NP Chilla 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment - the article doesn't belong on the Rupert Giles page as it is to me more about the buffyverse than the character at the current time it can be seen on the buffyverse chronology timeline as a potential series that occurs after season 5 of angel and the web page clearly states how speculative it is at the moment which is not this year but there is intrest in doing it in a few years. the only other alternative that I would deam acceptable is to create a Buffyverse undeveloped projects page.--Knavescurvy 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Slay as above - if this ever did materialise then this could be recreated. Hopefully with some content. Barneyboo (Talk) 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• comment I'm sorry that I am bothering you all again but I have just looked at Deletion_policy and as this is not a hoax not misleading and not unverified (everything that the article states is verified) not nonsence or vanity or even poorly written, In fact there isn't an actual problem other than that the article doesn't state how likely it is to happen which as that information is unavailable is not a problem with the article so unless someone actually states a proper reason as in the deletion policy this process is inconcistent. --Knavescurvy 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At best, demands WP be a crystal ball and accept that a possible idea someone may still pursue sometime in the future, could become a TV series or something... at worst, fancruft. Tychocat 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: Ther emight be a place for some of this material in one of the other Buffy/Anthony Head related pages.

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

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

The result of the debate was listed at WP:CFD. Punkmorten 09:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:RoboCop_directors

This appears to lack any importance whatsoever. If this does belong in an encyclopedia it belongs under the respective films. Dakart 08:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Categories. Danny Lilithborne 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Already did... Sorry about that. --Dakart 09:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteThis is too small to be a useful category. Ace of Sevens 09:22, 8 June 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 userfy/delete. The votes suggested "userfy," but I looked at User:Moranovision's edits. He/she has not edited here for 6 months, leading me to believe that the article wasn't simply a misplaced userpage. Since "userfy" includes removal from article space, that's what I'm doing. Joyous! | Talk 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank Morano

Created by an IP and immediately further edited by . Subject of article has a homepage of Moranovision.com. Clearly vanity seems to be non-notable as well. IrishGuy talk 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy with prejudice. Danny Lilithborne 09:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Danny. Nearly Headless Nick 09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy otherwise NN —Mets501^talk 15:58, 8 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemo Head

Forked from chemotherapy, a non-specific side-effect of chemotherapy not recognised in itself by medical science. Google yield 2,400, Wikipedia article is #2, many others are mirrors, and even then many hits are on unrelated concepts. The assertion that this "phenomenon" resembles ADHD is ludicrous. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nominator. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN neologism and amounts to dic def and unreferenced. Ace of Sevens 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced parts and Smerge the rest to chemotherapy. Some sketchy evidence of the existence of an altered mental state with chemotherapy exists, but certainly the extent claimed in this article goes beyond what has been documented. Only the referenced bits deserve a line entry in complications of chemotherapy -- Samir धर्म 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN neologism, if any of the parts can be verified, however, they can go into chemotherapy —Mets501^talk 16:01, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Florida beachweddings

This looks like an ad to me. Dakart 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ad? how to get married in Florida on the beach? Whatever it is, doesn't belong here. GassyGuy 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNon-enclyclopedic. It reads like a tourism bureau ad. Ace of Sevens 09:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-ency. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like spam to me —Mets501^talk 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Trebor 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:44, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Balgrabard

Alot of the articles on here are of no interest to anyone except those in a tiny select group, that does not justify deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetramMurgatroyd (talk • contribs)

The subject is of no interest to anyone outside a tiny group of students. WP:NFT Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. A db-nonsense tag was removed by the author. Mr Stephen 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ace of Sevens 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GassyGuy 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article seems nonsensical to me. --soum^সৌমোyasch 09:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense, but this line struck me as funny: He took up residence for many weeks both on top of, and magentised to, the fridge. —Mets501^talk 16:24, 8 June 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 there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting. – Will (message me!) 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

*** NB: moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma ***

Barely any google hits. Non notable. Armando Lloréns-Sar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.11 (talk • contribs)

• Comment If that's really Armando at DailyKos this AfD is misattributed because Armando is quite notable. The other issue is that User:armandoatdailykos does not seem to agree with his profile being posted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment article is currently blank which is grounds for speedy deletion. Given the popularity of Daily Kos, he may well be notable enough but he can wait for a decent article. Capitalistroadster 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not an expert on the rules on this, but it seems like he blanked it himself, with the comment it constitutes harassment. The article itself didn't seem objectionable but might have been seen as intrusion into his privacy. Does WP automatically follow the requests of subjects to delete their entries? ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert and keep The old article doesn't seem to have anything unusual in it. No idea why it was delted, but it seems like it was valid. Ace of Sevens 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - this was an attack page. Guettarda 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? "This was an attack page" is usually not grounds for deletion, but for cleanup. From a little Googling it seems to me that Armando's identity got leakied/revealed just prior to the creation of the article [43]. I don't see the reasons for Speedy or Delete right now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Given the popularity of Daily Kos and Armando's prominence there, he is absolutely notable. I did not look at everything in the page history, but the most recent non-blank version was certainly not an attack page. If he doesn't want to have a page here - well, that's unfortunate, but not a reason for deletion. (Daniel Brandt was on AfD several times because he doesn't want an article, and always kept.) David Sneek 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy attack page. Rewrite about notable blogger and his public activities at Armando (Blogger). Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Specifically, the combination of non-notable lawer A L-S with notable blogger A is OR, and designed to impact A L-S employment. We should have an article about notable blogger A, and no article about non-notable lawer A L-S. Given that individuals that are attempting to harm non-notable lawyer A L-S are able to link to diffs in wikipedia, history deletion is imperitive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  The process would be to propose a move to Armando (blogger). AfD is the wrong avenue for this kind of process. Someone actually willing to provide a background on this?~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • • Reply: I do not believe the history of the current article is useful for the creation of Armando (blogger), as it has no sourcing. I would not use it in a clean-room recreation, and the redirect created by the move would be WP:OR, requiring a deletion of the blanked page at A L-S after it was deleted. AFD is perfectly appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda. FeloniousMonk 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.--CSTAR 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comments: Without some kind of authentication we don't know whether

1. User:armandoatdailykos is actually armando the commenter and diarist at dailykos.
2. Armando Lloréns-Sar is actually armando the commenter dailykos. There is a claim that on an NPR interview the latter was introduced as the former, but until this becomes public knowledge this is OR.
3. User:armandoatdailykos is actually Armando Lloréns-Sar

--CSTAR 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda. FinFangFoom 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda Maximusveritas 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete empty now, not quite sure what we should do about this, though. Is there WP policy about not wanting articles about yourself on WP? —Mets501^talk 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda Pigkeeper 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in its blanked state for now until WP:BLP issues are handled. While the outing was trollish, and I respect the desire of many of you to not reward such poor behavior, Armando the Blogger is a notable blogger (one of the top bloggers at one of the top blog sites in the world), much more notable than the vast majority of other bloggers, and more notable than many tv and newspaper media commentators that we have articles on. Armando the blogger has already confirmed much of what has been reported, all we lack is a good citation. As a follow-up message to his diary, he has written on DKos: Who I represent is being posited as an issue. I can't put my clients in the middle of my politics. (by Armando on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 07:33:36 PM PDT). While he may want to deemphasize himself as a public figure, ultimately his real life issues can not be hidden from view on this encyclopedia any more than Limbaugh's drug issues can be (in fact, Armando looks quite good by comparison, since being a lawyer is not a crime ;-). The article needs to be NPOV and well cited, but deletion is not the answer (and will be appropriately overturned once proper sources are available). So we should just leave the article blanked and protected until a properly cited article can be written. NoSeptember 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think keeping an article in a blanked state is an option.--CSTAR 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Well, it has been blanked for almost two days already. But if you prefer, we can delete and restore. Once a valid source is found (and there are newspaper reporters typing away as we speak), the reasons for a speedy will be gone and a recreation will be valid. NoSeptember 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment We all appear to agree that the article about the lawyer fails WP:V. In the event that someone that is not-wikipedia becomes the progenator of the news, it would no longer fail WP:V. As it is now, we are the sole source of this information. As such, the article should be deleted untill that valid source exists. There is no reason to preserve the history, as there is nothing valid there, and difflinks to our history archives are being used to damage an individual. Why keep the article as blanked when you can just recreate it (and I would support such recreation) when a WP:RS reports the news without citing us as the source? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, why don't we enter what we know: Armando Lloréns-Sar is an attorney and a partner in the litigation department of McConnell Valdés and stub it, without reference to his alleged blogging actitivies, pending confirmation. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But, who cares? Just another lawyer it seems.--CSTAR 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case he's an unnotable lawyer and we can proceed as per nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Per Hipocrite's concerns above, I found the diffs that were linked from NRO and deleted those versions. So anyone clicking the NRO diffs will end up with an error message. Meanwhile, wikipedians who know how to use a history can still review the former content for purposes of this AfD. I hope this is an OK temporary solution for now :-). NoSeptember 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as blanked. As problem seems to be the association between Armando (blogger) and Armando Lloréns-Sar. If that becomes sourced, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the last non-blank article, except that it would have to be protected from User:armandoatdailykos, whoever that might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well I don't think we can keep it blanked, but the protecting administrator should've cut it down to the easily verifiable info rather than blank it wholly. Blanking is usually subject to a vandalism tag, administrator or not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep, revert to last complete article, semiprotect, and warn User:KosNation about blanking vandalism. Include Guest458's references in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

Here are two references associating Armando Llorens with Daily Kos.

Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.

Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.

--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The first is pure WP:OR. Did you hear the second, or are you using an intermediate source to tell you what is says? It is not good academic practice to ignore intermediate sources - in fact, it is a violation of WP:CITE ("A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it.") Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow either of those points. Care to elaboate? ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Quite obvious and notable Kos blogger. Revert to last good version before someone vandalized it. B.ellis 19:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, restore content, move to Armando (blogger), and include Guest458's references. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per B.ellis Bejnar 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an NPOV version. It's all publicly-available information, so I just don't get what there is to get upset about. A2Kafir 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the blogger "Armando" took steps to retain his anonimity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Stanford link above suggests otherwise. A2Kafir 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • He also went on the radio in 2005 as Armando Lloréns of Daily Kos: [44] David Sneek 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He's definitely notable, and I don't believe that anyone is still arguing that they aren't the same person. This info is out, and pretending that it isn't is the wrong way to go. Clean it up and work on NPOV, but don't delete it. Dori 00:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree that he's "definitely notable". It appears as though he has "retired" from blogging, so right now, he's just a lawyer with a brief past as a blogger. Until very recently, he didn't run his own blog, but was simply one of thousands of contributors at someone else's blog. He didn't have a separate page here at Wikipedia for him until this incident, when it was created simply to "out" him. That said, now that other sources have caught it, there's no point in trying to hide it. So it would probably be appropriate to put this new information on the Daily Kos page, but I don't think Armando deserves his own page. - Maximusveritas 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Only a developer can permanently delete information from the Wikimedia projects and there is no guarantee this will happen except in response to legal action." Retrieved from "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy" +

- The initial entry under Daily Kos was sourced in information from a deleted diary and published in Wikipedia with intent to do harm to the well-known blogger Armando. The previous references to his name and profession are obscure. The publication of this information has compromised his personal and professional life. Is it actionable? Are there grounds for a charge of harrassment? How long will Wikipedia continue to consider personal and private information its province? - During these times of illegal warrantless domestic surveillance abuses by the present administration I am appalled at how quickly the "anonymous" mob mentality has jumped on this opportunity to "out" a person's identity, profession, and clients, with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist. - M.Suskind - «Talk» 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Get a grip and stick to the topic at hand. No one was "outed" here. He is listed as a Kos contributor under his full name on a major news source (NPR) and on the website of a major university (Stanford). Are you seriously saying this fellow went on the radio and to an open university conference using his full name, announcing he was a Kos contributor, and expected that no one would make the connection between "Armando" the Kos diarist and "Armando Lloréns" the corporate lawyer? If he was trying to stay anonymous, why did he publicly announce his Kos connection? A2Kafir 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And, by the way, legal threats are not considered valid parts of Wikipedia discussions. (Never mind that there is no case to be made here, since it was clearly public information; FYI, there is a difference between "widely known" and "public."). Also, you are assuming bad faith, another Wikipedia policy violation, with your charge that this page was created "with no other intent than to do him harm." A2Kafir 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to M.Suskind First of all, I don't see any evidence for any mob mentality in this discussion. Spend a few seconds reading WP:AGF before you make slanderous remarks about the intentions of the editors here. Second, about Armando's intent to keep his identity private, I have never heard anyone else claim that Stanford University and NPR are obscure entities. Moreover, it seems to me that both sources were voluntary opportunities to speak publicly and seemingly Armando agreed to have his (semi-)full name and both his affiliations (attorney and blogger) be used to identify him for those occasions. So the alleged interest in his privacy seems to be a rather new thing, and I'm sure Armando understands the dynamics of the internet well enough to realize that if any information is posted on any website it is very much in the public domain. I was very sympathetic to proposals to keep his full name out of the public domain before, but with the new evidence I fear it's an open and shut case. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with DailyKos article. This article describes one of the most widely known bloggers in the world. As with the "Jeff Gannon" a.k.a. James Dale Guckert page, the subject has voluntarily made himself a public figure. If this article collects falsehoods, attacks, or other inappropriate information, then these can be handled by other means than outright deletion of the article. -- 18.252.6.136 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy" There was no due regard for the subject's privacy. It impairs his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist. It was Armando himself who deleted the information from the entry on the Daily Kos page and said that he considered it harrassment.

I am sorry if it was understood that I meant Wikipedia editors were "outing" him. I did not mean that at all. His detractors and opponents on the right and those who just plain dislike him have made a concerted effort to disseminate this personal information as widely as they can. The publication of his personal and professional information is an attempt to smear him politically by his opponents. The original edit here was unethical and with intent to do harm. At issue here is intellectual property rights, and included in those rights is a person's right over publicity. As a web journalist he has built over the years a significant body of work. As a result of this "outing" he can no longer write on the web with the same name, as it would impact negatively on his profession, i.e. conflict of interest. Should he continue as a web journalist, he no longer can continue to claim that body of work.M.Suskind 10:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, M.Suskind, your reasoning is simply unsound. He was 'outed' (to use that term very, very, loosely) by himself on several different publications, going back as early as 2004, such non-notable publications as NPR, the Clark Campaign website, Stanford Web site, Majority Report Radio, and etc. The information was circulating on liberal blogs (truthout was one) two weeks ago. The cat was 'already out of the bag' as they say LONG before NRO 'outed' him. To suggest otherwise is to be uniformed on the facts. Even IF Armando himself suggests his identity was private, it simply was not, as he made it public himself many times over the last few years. --B.ellis 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The blogger Armando/lawyer Armando Llorens-Sar has NOT taken efforts to protect himself. Appearing by name at conferences, on a national radio network such as National Public Radio, etc., he has indeed "outed" himself.

• Comment Looking through the comments, I sense a general consensus that we should be able to mention Armando's full name and profession now that he's already been "outed". The question we really haven't addressed, however, is whether or not Armando is notable enough to have his own page. Some people have simply stated it as a presumed fact, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove it. Note that prior to this incident, Armando was not even mentioned on the Daily Kos page, much less his own page. As I said above, if he stops blogging as he says he will, he will be nothing more than a lawyer in Puerto Rico. That certainly would not be notable enough for his own page. Maximusveritas 06:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'd say in a world where a Hindrocket is notable Armando is notable as well. But I really don't have a strong opinion about it. If he is listed under DailyKos I'm fine with it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  A Google search for Hinderaker shows far more unique hits, including some major publications like the BBC. Armando is only referenced by Daily Kos and other liberal blogs. I think listing him under just Daily Kos is probably the best option. Maximusveritas 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well the fact that the first Google hit for the name Armando ends up on DailKos speaks for his notability. Also it seems like the majority of voters who didn't urge us not to "out" him seem to think he's notable. But then again, we could delete this entry as proposed, create an entry Armando (blogger) and put it up for AfD. Clearly the issues here have become too entangled to read a general consensus on his notability. ~ trialsanderrors 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  Clearly notable enough to have his own page. He has appeared as a guest on several national programs, including The Majority Report and NPR's Morning Edition. Plus, he is clearly the most popular "front page" writer at Daily Kos, which is the largest political website in the country.

• Keep While the intent of those "outing" Armando, may be malevolent, he certainly is a notable figure. Typos 09:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep I mirror the comments that the "outing" was mean, but his identity wasn't really hidden. And now the cat is out of the bag. People shouldn't have editorial control over their Wikipedia entries. Of course, we shouldn't be publishing private information. The Cunctator 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I heard this blogger mentioned on NPR's "Morning Edition" LAST YEAR. Listen to it yourself here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4978243 They say his full name, that he is an attorney, and that he is well-known blogger at daily kos. This program was heard by millions. I googled and found his full name, the fact that he is an attorney, and that writes for daily kos many, mentioned many times over the last several YEARS, including on the website of another nationally broadcasted program, "The Majority Report," where he also was a guest. The guy is obviously notable and should be included annnnnnnnnd I think ALL his biographical information that can be PROPERLY SOURCED by WIKI STANDARDS should be included -- just like every other wiki biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperconndria (talk • contribs)

  And it's his first edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this page still blanked and protected? ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 17 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Amy King

Looks non-notable. Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Google turns up loads of links, but they are not very relevant in asserting the notability of the person, so as to have him/her to have a page on Wikipedia. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete One book on Amazon with sales rank 2,250,490 (currently) and no publisher listed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew. -- Kicking222 11:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew —Mets501^talk 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Newbie question: My understanding is that notability for a writer is determined by the number of articles which cite that writer, as well as sales rank? If this stub were expanded to include reference to better-known authors discussing Amy King's work, would it be more likely to be kept? JonathanPenton 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Couldn't hurt. Right now she looks like an absolute nobody. Fan1967 01:46, 9 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TunaHAKI

This article was created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TunaHAKI Foundation, but this article, although about a charity that is 8 years older, suffers from exactly the same problems: no reliable sources (Google turns up hits, but only fundraising blogs, link sites and other propagation of the charity's own material, Factiva has nothing), no incoming links, and no assertion of notability: "they have formed an acrobatic troop which is well respected in their village" is a) unverified and b) not much higher than the claim of most local garage bands. I'm sure they do good work, but Wikipedia is not a directory of local charities any more than it is a directory of local businesses. 'Delete. Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is a tough one. Holding articles about African topics to the same standard of verifiability as ones about western topics, when there is a relative lack of African sources due to poor IT infrastructure, is an obvious case of systemic bias. Unfortunately, however, unless someone can come forward with a single, independent, reliable source that can confirm the charity isn't a hoax, I can't see any other option but to Delete. Road Wizard 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would point out though that if the verifiability problem was solved, the charity is much more notable than many of the American schools that have articles here. Road Wizard 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All articles must be held to encyclopaedic standards of verifiability. Countering systemic bias is about making sure we write about whatever is verifiable regardless of where it comes from, not relaxing standards. After all, Africa does have the Internet, and it has plenty of newspapers. As for schools, please don't WP:POKEMON. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... that seems quite an abrupt response and you also appear to have either misread or misunderstood what I wrote. I will assume good faith that the aggressive tone I am reading into what you have written is all my personal interpretation and not what you really intended. I will answer each of the points you have raised in turn.

All articles must be held to encyclopaedic standards of verifiability.

I never said they shouldn't. In fact, if you re-read my argument, you will notice that this is the reason I voted delete.

Countering systemic bias is about making sure we write about whatever is verifiable regardless of where it comes from, not relaxing standards.

Again, I never said anything about relaxing standards. My point was that reliable sources on topics related to Africa are much fewer in number and much harder to access than for similar topics in the USA. That we have to hold African articles to the same standards as other articles where sources are much more prevalent, regrettably results in fewer African articles being written. This is a bias induced by the system. However, the way to tackle the bias is not to lower standards, but instead to be aware of the bias and make even stronger efforts to try and identify sources than you would do for a similar article centred on a more economically developed region.

After all, Africa does have the Internet, and it has plenty of newspapers.

Yes, but how many people have internet access as a proportion of the total African population? Much less than the proportion of internet users in Europe, for example. Again, how many different papers per head of population and how widely available are they outside their primary area of publication? In the UK, I can go to a library in my town and pick up a wide selection of newspapers that were recently published in the USA; on the other hand, the number of African newspapers available to me is relatively small.

As for schools, please don't WP:POKEMON.

OK, I admit that I should have phrased that comment in a better way, but it was something I snapped off shortly before leaving for work. My point was that I was acknowledging that if we somehow get a reliable source to back up the article then it may be worthy of retention. I didn't think it was appropriate to go into a lengthy diatribe about why this page is notable when it is not yet verified, so I left just a quick note of my opinion. I will remember that Essay for use in the future, though I hope I will explain it a bit more clearly to the person I am aiming it at - perhaps by saying something like; You shouldn't use the notability of unrelated articles to justify the notability of another (see WP:POKEMON).

Well, this is the first time I have had to justify a vote of support to the person I am supporting. Quite an interesting turn of events. Hopefully I haven't said anything in this post that will trigger such a strong reaction. :) Road Wizard 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but there is no notability here. A LexisNexis search yields no hits in the last two years. That means no journal or periodical has mentioned them, African or otherwise. Aguerriero (talk) 19:40, 9 June 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DragonFable

While already voted to be deleted once before because it was a beta phase, I just want to hedge my bets and note that it should again be deleted as it is just starting its release in a few hours [45] so notability is still a question. Removing from the article the parts that read like a how-to manual doesn't seen to leave much encyclopedic information. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - completely non-notable game at the moment. In a years time the issue will decide itself - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN now, and this article belongs on a game guide site —Mets501^talk 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, currently nonnotable. If it becomes notable in the future, someone will write an article on it that doesn't read like a how-to manual. --

Docether 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Starionwolf 23:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it is not notable doesn't mean it should be deleted. What's wrong with having an article of a game that is not notable. I am a game maker and my games are not notable, but yet they are not up for deletion, I just had alot of rewriting and merging to do. Other people helped me rewrite. This article may currently be like a game manual, but it can be written to read like a professional encyclopedia article. One of my game's articles was unprofessional, but with the help of the community it is now. The same can be done with the DragonFable article. If needed the DragonFable community (players signed up on the Artix Entertainment Forums) probably wouldn't mind rewritting it. I would even help. How it is written is the problem not popularity/notability. This can be fixed.--VampireSlayer2 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep When I rewrote the article, I intended it to be a source of information. I am trying to get support for a rewrite that will make it look more professional and fix the article. The community is growing quickly, and deleting it would be denying them information, most of which is very useful --Computafreak 06:40, 16 June 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 – Gurch 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-history

unverifiable OR, or perhaps hoax or joke. There's certainly no connection with the actual Maya civilization, as the article claims. While there are a great number of offbeat ideas surrounding the Maya Long Count calendar, this is not one of them, unless it is very shabbily described. cjllw | TALK 10:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as hoax unless sources are actually found. Wickethewok 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a Hoax, I found this[46], this[47], and this[48]. I think a redirect to Maya calendar is in order. Yanksox 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely not a hoax, but doesn't need an article. Redirect works too —Mets501^talk 16:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge to Maya calendar - Not a hoax, is notable per Google, but sources do need to be cited. Would support merging or redirecting. Chet nc 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• ZOMG! Redirect to End of the world -999 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Well, if it is a rather vague distillation of some New Age/esoteric (mis-)conceptions about the implications of the Maya Long Count calendar, then the redirect should go to Harmonic Convergence, since it appears that is the context in which the term was used by Arguelles. There seems to be not much by meaningful content here to merge (to be fair to the article's creator, "meaningful content" is a rather scarce commodity in Arguelles' speculations in any event). It definitely should not be redirected or merged to Maya calendar or any other article on the genuine products and beliefs of the Maya civilization— these are entirely separate from and have nothing to do with modern-day syncreticisms and fabrications such as this.--cjllw | TALK 02:08, 9 June 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 speedied Proto||type 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Those!

just pasting my prod, here: crystal ballism and original research. WP:WIN, WP:NOR Chaser T 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedied for having no actual content. bogdan 10:43, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sifty

Quick Google searches indicate that this word is not commonplace enough for a Wiktionary entry. The only relatively notable "Sifty" seem to be Sifty Sifty Sam, and other dictionaries don't have the word. Wouldn't pass Wiktionary's Criteria For Inclusion. Dangherous 11:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Kafziel 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN neologism —Mets501^talk 16:37, 8 June 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. Sango123 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear-baiting

"Perhaps, due to the infrequent occurrences of the baiting of Polar Bears, few written citations can be found." - Fails WP:V Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, flummery. What's with all the "-baiting" articles of late? Kafziel 11:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all these -baiting articles into a single, master baiting article. Oh, never mind, delete. -- GWO

LOL. PJM 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Author has been banned for disruption and personal attacks, so that also throws the credibility of this article into doubt. --Elkman 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing in this article besides one sentence and two long quotes —Mets501^talk 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absolute trash. Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Little content or context --Starionwolf 23:22, 11 June 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. – Will (message me!) 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirasol

Non notable sunflower variety and development in Florida, Delete--Peta 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the part about the Florida development, and transwiki the part about the sunflower, as there's a strong chance it could never be more than a dicdef. -- Kicking222 12:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/transwiki part about sunflower per Kicking —Mets501^talk 16:41, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fountain of j-cloths

Transparent hoax. Infobox and album covers are from the Smiths, page content is cut-and-pasted bits, and photo is the kids' TV show 'Bodger and Badger'. AlexTiefling 11:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hoax. DarthVader 11:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kafziel 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Hoax/No actual content. Bodger/Badger meet Morrissey/Marr. Could've been interesting... -- GWO
• BJaODN. Well, it made me laugh. Mainly for the B&B picture and the album titles, but still... Seb Patrick 11:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye. The album titles are great. Take my spleen but not my soul wbagnfarb -- GWO
• Delete hoax —Mets501^talk 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (made me laugh too). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Anirvan 09:56, 12 June 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. – Robert 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Slaglexic

This article is essentially an attack page, and a hoax. Obviously no medical condition exists whose name is a fusion of crude slang and an unrelated Greek root. AlexTiefling 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hoax. DarthVader 11:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Something made up in school one day. Kafziel 11:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Hoax. -- GWO
• Delete I don't know about a speedy delete. Def. Hoax[49] Yanksox 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-nonsense}} or a hoax. --Elkman 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete hoax/patent nonsense —Mets501^talk 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The criteria for speedy deletion page makes a specific point of not including hoaxes. It's not patent nonsense; it has sentences, content, and some small measure of intelligibility. Kafziel 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite so. It is alarming the number of articles that get through csd using those dubious reasons though. If the lister had have put the article on csd instead of here i would put money on it having been csd'ed. THE KING 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete While not patent nonsense, it is indeed complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 9 June 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. – Robert 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Downer" Issues at DMV Hearings

As per most of Darren's articles, it is original research, which is part of what Wikipedia is not. He has reverted several of our PROD tags, and as such we (jwestbrook and myself) are nominating all of his contributions for deletion.--HubHikari 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

fixed afd nomination J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure about the OR call, but sufficiently many other problems (POV, vanity references, possibly nn, not linked in with rest of WP) to warrant deletion. Content looks like it belongs as a subsection on another page. Paddles 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. incog 21:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, author's crusade, not encyclopedic NawlinWiki 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and also examine Accident reconstruction to see if an actual article can be made out of it, or if it should also be AfD'd. -- Kicking222 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Accident reconstruction was rewritten more in keeping with the title. I removed the prod since it no longer applies to the current content. It does need some other editors to improve on what I replaced the old DUI in California article with. Vegaswikian 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and I suspect Accident reconstruction might be a good article title, but I see little if anything salavgeable in that article. Fan1967 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above —Mets501^talk 16:44, 8 June 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 Speedy delete The Land 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1995 Round Results

please delete this article has no further use in wikipedia. thankyou Bradley1956 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Incomprehensible collection of information and the author supports its deletion. Cool3 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and author. --cholmes75 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Cool3. Paddles 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. incog 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per db-author. Fan1967 13:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete {{db-author}} —Mets501^talk 16:46, 8 June 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3007WFP

A very particular brand of computer monitor. "The 3007WFP's large size and high resolution, combined with its great specifications and features, and stunning image quality, make it an excellent choice for any application, including design, editing, 3D production, video production, watching movies, and gaming. The monitor is highly affordable compared to other monitors with the same, or similar specifications" .... and so on. I half-wondered whether this is commercial spam, but on second thoughts doubt it. Either way, it really has to go, doesn't it? TheGrappler 02:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete Notability not present (Johnny Copper 15:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
• delete An advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Itsameanick 08:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete --Stephane Charette 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, as such POV issues. Also, I doubt the notability to begin with. Cool3 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. incog 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - XX55XX 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete' Stunningly unimpressive spamvertisement. Santtus 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Dell monitors and make it sound a lot less like an advertisement. I wasn't sure that particular models of Dell hardware were noteworthy, but since there's a category and a general article, that approach would work. --Elkman 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an advertisement —Mets501^talk 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Copyviolation tag Added, Speedy Delete copied straight off another website, reads like an advertisement.--Andeh 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Answers.com is a Wikipedia fork. Therefore, identical pages on answers.com do not indicate anyone has violated copyright. The Land 19:16, 8 June 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 move. This was already Boldly accomplished. Joyous! | Talk 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft part

Well, this page does just seem rather pointless...I mean, Aircraft Part. Clearly it'd be best to just have the actual parts, not some vague page such as this. Change1211 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've expanded this page significantly. --DV8 2XL 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Weak keep - a move might help, but the article is still in serious need of fixes in terms of content, POV, and uncited statements. Reads more like a press release from the industry's leading companies than a neutral article about the industry itself. Kafziel 16:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Aircraft parts industry. That's really the crux of it, at this point. Nice job by DV8 2XL. PJM 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move per PJM above. The article is worthwhile and explains why it's necessary to use certified parts, but the name doesn't really reflect that. --Elkman 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move - as above. Wickethewok 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Aircraft parts industry —Mets501^talk 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Moveed per WP:BOLD. ---J.S (t|c) 20:23, 8 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Structures of the USA

This is part of a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the Chinese, this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. There is also a crapload more of these GameFAQs-style pages, visible via Template:C&CG, which should all die. Grrrargh, it makes me cross. Strong delete. Proto||type 13:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete My command is that this article be conquered. Get it? -- Kicking222 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, how-to. Kafziel 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. PJM 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete GameFAQs guide —Mets501^talk 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Trebor 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; how-to guide. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Anyone care to do a mass nomination? — Haeleth Talk 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's coming after (and if) this 'article' is succesfully expunged. Proto||type 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• What part of "I got the message" didn’t everyone else get? I understand the pages can not stay here in their current form, but this is only making things worse since the recreation of any deleted material is an automatic speedy delete. Componding the problem is that I can't freeze the pages or otherwise indicate that they are not "live" for editing, and I can not simply blank the pages until I reach a WP:NOT friendly solution. I am to the point of simply giving up with the project, as ABSOLUTLY NO ONE seems to one to cut me any slack. What do I have to do to convice the community to back off while I retool the pages? TomStar81 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep the pages on your own computer (possibly with a local Wiki) until you find an appropriate Wiki to keep them on. (Oh, and my vote is Delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I, for one, didn't get any part of "I got the message"... where did you say that, Tom? I assure you that, for my part, this is nothing personal - I haven't seen or voted on any other Command and Conquer pages, and this is the first I've heard about a larger issue. Kafziel 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I stated that back when the China strucutres page can up for deletion. It was intend to convey that I had gotten the message regarding WP:NOT and these pages (by which I mean all of the structures pages) and that I would work on retooling them to make them more Wikipedia friendly. It is not that these pages can not be on wikipdia, its just that they can not be on wikipedia in their current form. Thats why I have been working to find a solution to the problem, but every time a page ends up on AFD it screws me that much more because the number of options I have grow that much smaller. The larger issue here is that RTS and TBS games rely on a collection of otherwise unremarkable units and strucutures for gameplay, and Wikipedia does not acknowlage this fact, so I am effectively waging a two front war to find that happy medium where the info present is WP:NOT friendly. Compounding the problem is that lots of people will vote delete for the info, but only a very limited number will suggest alternative outlets for it, and no on has of yet suggested a way that the info could be presented here safely. TomStar81 20:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't, and most users will agree that it shouldn't. Why not try usenet, or set up your own wiki? Kafziel 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont have the technical savvy to set up my own wiki, and it can stay here. What I am looking at doing is borrowing the StarCraft setup for units and structures and adopting that for use for the Generals units and structures, but before that can happen I have to figure out how that table works and how each of the factions units and structures relate to each other. Thats a two week job for me. I can do it, if given the chance, its just that no one wants to give me the chance ;) TomStar81 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about that. Kafziel 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sad, but true. Just for the record though, I have been working for about three weeks on different replacement schemes for the strucutures. If anyone is interested, you can check out the versions here, but remeber that this page is "mine" in so far as a page on wikipedia can be "mine", and the schemes pesented are ment as brainstorms, nothing has yet been set in stone. TomStar81 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the link Tom gives - User:TomStar81/Definition Debate - has all the text of all the game guide articles he made, and so the requests he makes for 'give him a chance' are misplaced. How-to guides have no place, at all, on an encyclopaedia; it doesn't matter how you try and crowbar it in. And once I clear this stuff out, I'm going after the StarCruft. Proto||type 10:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. You might want to try this wiki. Thats much better suited for this kind of project. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --InShaneee 16:53, 11 June 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 no consensus to delete, keep. Petros471 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehren Watada

Inherently non-notable. He isn't the only one to refuse to serve the U.S. Delete. Brought to AFD rather than speedying straight out as A7 because I wanted to know what others think, I don't want to make a potentially controversial decision. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:24 UTC (2006-06-08) 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. The article itself states: "nor is his case particularly unique ". Fan1967 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article contradicts itself, I believe there are hundreds of soldiers refusing to serve their country, non-notable, what's special about this? Its just normal. --Terence Ong 13:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note if this is Afd it may be worth pulling it off Current Events... --User:Firien § 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Or just un-wikilink the name. Fan1967 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it This is a current event; at least keep it for a while. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.60.20 (talk • contribs) 13:49, June 8, 2006.

• Comment Wikipedia is not a newspaper, to cover stories of temporary interest. Fan1967

13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No, it looks more like a propaganda page for the white house.

• Strong Keep Unlike most other conscientious objectors, his case has made the news worldwide, which is not the case for others in a similar position. Both Reuters and AP have picked it up. Google News lists 323 different news sources carrying this story. The "not particularly unique" comment is from a U.S. Army spokesman, hardly an unbiased source. Anything else with this level of news coverage would usually be considered notable; what's the difference here? -- The Anome 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Kafziel 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. article should look like Malcolm Kendall-Smith when finished and not the NPOV fest that is Ben Griffin (former British soldier). -- GWO
• Keep He is the first commissioned officer to refuse going to Iraq. Hermeneus (user/talk) 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  A British lieutenant refused to go last year (BBC). Cynical 14:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  Erm.. You see that link to Malcolm Kendall-Smith, above ;) -- GWO

• Keep he isn't the only one to refuse to go to Iraq, but he is the only one (or at least part of a very small group) to have received such worldwide media attention for doing so. Cynical 14:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Making national news is worthy of current inclusion, especially if there is additional press coverage in the next few days/weeks. I believe this deletion vote was called far too early. How can you pass judgement before even seeing the resolution? --Mattarata 15:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the high number of news sources covering him makes him notable. LarryQ 15:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. The fact that there are other soldiers doing the same means not that the entry should be deleted, but that an expanded entry should be created.--Something 15:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Look at all these news sources[50], that establishes notability. Yanksox 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - based solely on media coverage. Wickethewok 16:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination or Vastly Improve - get more information, some pictures and make it worth reading. Matt 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Trebor 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There will be a lot of news on him in the days to come. Deleting this article will only warrant its undeletion later. Hong Qi Gong 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep i hardly need to go into it. THE KING 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - just look at what kind of media noise his case makes. No wonder the military tries to play him down. Añoranza 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but recreate if he becomes a real cause celebre. He may just be getting 15 minutes of fame. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based upon the notable amount of media coverage this person has received. Yamaguchi先生 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Media coverage is just NOT enough for notability. This doesn't seem to a particularly notable case on his own - It would be unreasonable for every soldier doing to the same thing to be given an individual article. If we did, why not an article for every soldier killed in Iraq? why not an article for every soldier killed in Vietnam. why not an article for every soldier killed in WWII? Bwithh 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If media coverage is not enough for notability, how about heroism? Argyrios 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Please do not try to erase, by such frivolous deletion proposals, significant items such as this one, about the first officer to refuse to serve in the Iraq War. Badagnani 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's the first US officer. That's notable. He's not just another soldier. And there really aren't that many soldiers of any rank who have made a public issue out of their refusal to go, which is different than just avoiding showing up or whatever. Really only a dozen or so. Kalkin 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note In fact, I really don't see why Wikipedia couldn't have articles on all of those. It might be useful to someone to get a quick background from Wikipedia on these people, who go on speaking tours, get mentioned in articles not necessarily about them, etc. Kalkin 05:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I was surprised to see the AfD for speedy deletion. He's the first U.S. officer, as noted above. Just now, when I googled his name enclosed in quotation marks, there were 402 news stories and 14,400 web site entries. Someone looking for information should be able to find it at Wikipedia. If the article has problems, then edit to improve it please.--Beth Wellington 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per Beth Wellington. --Merovingian {T C @} 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Argyrios.--Rockero 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep He's the first US officer. That's notable.--Kev62nesl 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I came to this article to learn about this guy. If it had been deleted I wouldn't have been able to learn.

• Keep Those that want to delete it must be paid by the pentagon.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's true that news on this guy may die down within a few weeks. But seeing as how he is controversial and he is current news, deleting this article will just lead to people either creating a new page for him or asking for undeletion. At the very least, just keep it around for now if only for that logistics reason alone. Hong Qi Gong 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This should be in WikiNews; but it can be in Wikipedia as long as it is fixed up and avoids recentism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article says he was the first who publicly refused serving the army, therefore of course it is different from the multitude of other "soldiers refusing to serve their country", seeing as he was the first to be outspoken about it - thus being reported on throughout the worldwide news. Also it is highly doubtful that "hundreds" refused in the U.S. army. Piecraft 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kalkin. --PeR 22:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also came to this article to find information about him. At minimum information from this page should be merged into another article about the Iraq war. The very fact that he is getting so much media attention makes him (like Cindy Sheehan, say) notable. --209.43.9.176 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just learned about this first officer refusing to serve for unique reasons with evidence of thorough review of legality and an officer's constitutional duty - and already it's requested for deletion? This is highly notable and informative. If the article is innacurrate, fix it; but keep it. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.217.184 (talk • contribs)
• Keep A disgrace but a notable one. --Mmx1 23:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure what to think of him but he's note worthy. 132.241.246.111 00:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Mmx1's comments listed above.--Looper5920 04:40, 17 June 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.

Proposal

Proposal: it's been more than five days (isn't that the usual period for evaluating such discussion?), so let's please bring this to a conclusion. Badagnani 04:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really up to us, but for a closing admin to meander down here and make a call. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy Football Hall of Fame

Advert for NN web site masquerading as an article. No independent google hits Mr Stephen 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Personally, I would've prod'd this as an ad in the first place. -- Kicking222 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 16:53, 8 June 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 merge/redirect. Petros471 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Britasur

This page appears to be fiction/nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 13:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable/hoax. Google has four hits, including this article. Kafziel 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Unsourced and seems like a hoax. PJM 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quite possible a hoax dealing with a made-up Hindu myth —Mets501^talk 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Vritra. Page suffers from being spelled as per an obscure Indian dialect. "Vritra" or "Vritrasura" ("the demon Vritra") is correct. ImpuMozhi 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Works for me - redirect. Should this alternate spelling be added to the main article? Kafziel 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if any useful info available and redirect to Vritra. Alternate spellings (transliterations) must be mentioned. --Gurubrahma 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / Merge I am actually suprised that some guys have claimed that this article and it's contents may be a hoax. I am no expert on Hindu Mythology but from what I have studied and what I know, this is certainly not a hoax. Unless, offcourse, given the fact that, mythologies donot usually have verifiable "historical proof", they are categorized all as hoaxes. I am sure that is not the case. I have read the article on Vritra and though there are similarilites, it seems to be different is quite a many ways as well and I am not too sure if they are the same. They do seem to have quite a few differences. What I would suggest is that we do some research rather than simply deleting the article. it may take a few days to get to the root of this. Can we till then keep it ? Please leave a message on my talk page on this. Jordy 12:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Vrita and Britasur seem to be the same characters, though, there is no mention of Rishi Dadichi in the Vritra article. I think the articles should be merged and content / info from the articles should be aggregated.66.90.101.213 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Vritra. This article is a duplicate one on the same subject. --Ragib 00:46, 15 June 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. – Robert 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

GiveNGo

NN online game, still "under development", appears to be spam Wildthing61476 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A game that will almost certainly still be non-notable (if and) when it's actually released. And why does an in-development online game need its own wiki? It currently has zero articles, which brings up the question: who would contribute to this wiki, and what would go in it? My guess: nothing. -- Kicking222 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is their website[51]. Can't achieve notability if it doesn't exist. Yanksox 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN game with a useless empty Wiki —Mets501^talk 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball -- Trebor 17:01, 8 June 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. Petros471 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct logic

• This page makes dubious claims. It changes in response to talk page remarks, but sources are not provided, or provided sources are irrelevant -- certainly nothing in a mathematical publication. I'm afraid it fails the smell test. -Dan (User:Fool) 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)~

The smell test? Naconkantari 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Let's say, smells like non-notable, possibly original, research. -Dan 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may amend my nomination to add a buzzword, let me add non-verifiable research, which is really what smells. -Dan 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Smells like original research. (Non-notable is difficult to apply to fringe theories.) As Anonymouser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a violation of his RfA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep There's a long, sad story here. The main author of the article, Anonymouser (talk · contribs), is believed to be a sockpuppet of Carl Hewitt, who is referenced in the article. Hewitt was a major figure in the logic-based end of artificial intelligence back in the 1970s. This is widely believed to be a dead end today, and Hewitt is one of the few people still trying to make it work. The general idea here is to develop "weak logics" which have more tolerance for ambiguity and contradiction than classic logic, which is very brittle. John McCarthy developed "circumscription" as an early effort in this direction, and there have been other variations on this theme. None of them are really all that useful. Bayesian inference seems to work better. What we're seeing here is something that, for now, seems to be a theoretical dead end. That happens in mathematics. The article does cite published papers, though, and I'm inclined to keep it in. --John Nagle 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The logic-based approach to AI has been revived the last few years in the forms of agents (similar to Hewitt's actors) and they may indeed have a future (my CS department is gambling on it) but this is of little significance. The article is based on two conference papers by Hewitt which do not seem to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal making this original research. (And even if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal there should be at least few other authors writing about or refering to Hewitt's direct logic to make this verifialbe and notable enough for inclusion.) —Ruud 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the publication date is March 2006, we may have to wait awhile for other publications to refer to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.124.7 (talk • contribs) 17:19, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

In that case we may have to wait a while before accepting this article on Wikipedia as well... —Ruud 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The author cites his own "published" (but not generally available) papers. Even if they are generally available papers in a peer-reviewed journal, they still violate his RfA, as noted above. See Hewitt (2006a) and (2006b) — both seem to be invited, but not peer-reviewed, papers. As (2006a) is referenced in the lead, the entire article is suspect. (One of my published papers was invited at a conference, but not peer-reviewed — I know better than to attempt to reference it in Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually both papers seem to have been peer reviewed although the COIN paper more rigorously than the AAAI paper. Also invited papers count as publications for the purposes of reference for the Wikipedia. In science there are many examples of invited papers that published important results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.25.74 (talk •

contribs) 21:15, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

Note: This user's contributions have been limited to this AFD and the article under discussion. --C S (Talk) 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many examples of invited papers which are not peer-reviewed. We shouldn't accept those until they are at least commmented on in a peer-reviewed paper, even if important. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is especially important where dubious claims are involved. -Dan 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The grounds originally cited for deletion are not valid. The article reports on a publication by a noted academic. The results of the publication have been presented in seminars at Stanford and SRI. So it is difficult to argue that it is not notable. The field is divided into camps that radically disagree with each other. Consequently the ultimate value of the research is a matter of great controversy. However, the problem addressed in the motivation section of the article is of the highest importance in computer science: What is the field going to do about the pervasive contradictions among documentation and code of large software systems (think Windows!)? Also there do not appear to be any glaring errors in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.59.254 (talk • contribs)

• As in my comment above, Carl Hewitt may be "a noted academic", but papers (2006a) and (2006b) are from conference proceedings, in which it appears he was invited, but the papers were not peer-reviewed. (And it's still fringe mathematics, rather than dead-end mathematics, even with the 20-year history. CS people, when trying to do mathematics, sometimes get confused.) If anything related to those papers is excised from the article, and there's still something there, I'd make it a reluctant keep. Those papers are invalid as primary or secondary sources, except as an indication of the opinions of the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To add to that, as I stated on the article's talk page, (2006b) is not even a relevant reference. As for the possibility raised about the editor's identity, well, I suppose it explains where the editor gets his info from... but then it means Hewitt has taken to refer to himself in the third person! Not likely is it? -Dan 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could the IP 72.254.59.254 (from South Jordan, Utah) please present evidence that it is not another sock puppet ofCarl Hewitt? Its edits on Talk:Direct logic do give that impression.-- ZZ 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Paraconsistent logics generally are among those "sciences" (like fuzzy "logic") which I consider to be scams. We should not dignify any of them with coverage which takes them seriously, i.e. at face value. If we mention them at all, it should be to expose them as scams. JRSpriggs 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It is neither peer reviewed research nor are the references to published research shown to be relevant (they are POV actually). Instead, direct logic evolves while we watch. -- ZZ 09:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Wikipedia article is about the views of the publication referenced in the article. If other people have different views they should put them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.20.137 (talk • contribs)

• More sock puppetry from South Jordan, Utah, repeating the claim that there was a publication and ignoring that it did not receive a peer review. -- ZZ 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

South Jordan, Utah? I am at a hotspot in San Francisco talking with friends about this. How do you know that the publication was not peer reviewed?

Given that it is not generally available, how do we know it was? How do we know anything at all about Direct logic? If we are supposed to take your word on all of this, are we really being unreasonable to ask you to identify yourself? -Dan 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.48.150 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Hewitt gave a seminar on this at Stanford. It seemed OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.64.71.47 (talk • contribs) 22:51, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

• Keep ditto SRI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.48.240 (talk • contribs) 02:04, June 10, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps I should change my vote to Userfy to User:CarlHewett, then delete as a violation of his RfAr. No, too much trouble. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Although it may be original research, the research appears highly validated and relevant. It is on these grounds that I am reluctantly vote to Keep it. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 20:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• So, it is original research - which has no place in a Wikipedia. As for your other points, the discussion shows that not even the basics of "Direct Logic" have been established (does it explode or not?). Anyway, if it is so relevant, Hewitt can surely publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Then, he can place it on Wikipedia. -- ZZ 10:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Even if we did accept OR (which Wikipedia doesn't under any circumstance), Direct Logic is not "highly validated". The introduction claims it is paraconsistent, but in the caveats section we read that it has not been proven that it doesn't explode. —Ruud 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• And the claim may be very hard to prove. These things are known as conjectures and some have become famous (e.g., Fermat's). Sometimes they take a very long time to prove (or disprove). --2ndMouse 13:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Since no one else except Hewitt has published about this, I think we can consider it to be non-notable at the moment; eventhough the author is notable. The article can always be re-introduced once more publications by other people have appeared. -- Koffieyahoo 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the immense show of support from anons, I have to say it looks like OR and smells like OR. Fan1967 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hewitt is giving a seminar on this stuff at the MIT Media Lab on Thursday. See hewitt-seminars.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.165.43.9 (talk • contribs)
• Keep; the verifiability and no-original-research policies are satisfied by previous publications, and notability stems from the preminency of the author. - Liberatore(T) 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• While the publications are discussed above and I have nothing to add to that aspect, I must say I don't agree that everything someone notable writes is itself notable. -Dan 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the presentation of this stuff at MIT was way cool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.85.18.103 (talk • contribs) 21:41, June 16, 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Max Cooper

Non-notable student director - possible vanity. Apparently no widely-distributed films. Can't find in Google or IMDb. Scott Wilson 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• delete despite my best research, I kind find anything. Delete per WP:NOT, promotion. Yanksox 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Burninate this, and throw in his alleged films. Either student filmmaker or total hoax, doesn't matter which. (Note, his school, Henley College, is what Americans would call a high school.) Fan1967 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to this redirect and protect. It's a Power Rangers character name. Fan1967 17:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete hoax or completely NN —Mets501^talk 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And thanks to Fan for the info on the use of the word "college" (though it's not as if this guy would be notable no matter what level of school he was in). -- Kicking222 17:12, 8 June 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 KEEP - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Backgammon Chouette

Delete and Transwiki to wikibooks. WP:NOT an instruction manual. (Plus, the info came straight from a copyrighted website owned by the writer, though apparently he can waive the copyright, which is why {{db-copyvio}} was declined.) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no copyright issue here if the owner agrees to the GFDL licence, though he still needs to alter copyright info on his website. WP:NOT is relevant I suppose. Equendil Talk 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Update: Owner altered copyright info on his website, and released the page under GFDL. Equendil Talk 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks just like game rules —Mets501^talk 17:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I wanted to introduce my self I am the author of the backgammon chouette article and wanted to thank Crzrussian and Equendil for bringing all this information to my attention about copyvio and various other wikipedia facts that I needed to learn before answering to any of you guys. Well after listening to Equendil Talk and asking him a fair few questions I made some amendments to the site which now includes the GNU Free Documentation License. As far as it being a game manual that is also not a valid point, a chouette form of backgammon which is played socially, and the explanation tries to show what is it all about. You might also be able to debate weather any explanation of a game is a manual for it as well, well ofcourse you have history, important people, rules of the game but you will still have to give an idea of how to play the game in order to make it interesting for the user. As well as you have to assume that a person, whose looking for backgammon or chouettes on wikipedia, might want to learn what is the term as well as get a general idea of how backgammon or chouettes are played by reading rules and game forms of play. I hope I conveyed my thoughts in trying to explain why this article should be published in wikipedia and that the simple and short explanation on the backgammon article is not enough for someone who is trying to really figure out what is the chouette is all about.

Thanks for your time, Davidoff 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki and Edit. Though this is a well-written and exhaustive article, it falls under "rules for playing the game" and should be sent to wikibooks. However, a shorter article, demonstrating that the game is widespread and notable, would be a reasonable inclusion in Wikipedia. A history of the game and a short, general overview of gameplay and scoring, similar to articles on other games and sports, would be adequate in this article. A link from the revised Wikipedia article to the "rules" document on wikibooks (for readers of the article interested in playing the game) would satisfy Davidoff's concerns, above. Best, Docether 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (see below for revised)

• Shortening the article.I have no issue with making the article shorter and following Docether suggestions. I could have a shorter less elaborate version here and in wikibooks have a version that explains the play and goes over rules in more depth. if that would satisfy the various reviewers of the article i would get to this now and see your thoughts as time moves forward.Thanks Davidoff 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Just giving a link to Wikibooks where this kind of articles would fit best : http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Games_bookshelf Equendil Talk 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Updates. i have updated the article and made it shorter and supplied a link to wikibooks which i will be posting the complete article on soon http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Games_bookshelf as Equendil suggested. Also i am starting a backgammon book on wikibooks which will slowly become a manual for playing backgammon. I am happy to hear any remarks of the recent changes so I might improve on them if needed Davidoff 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. A wikibook about Backgammon is plain great. Not all too sure what you mean above though, that "also" got me confused. The purpose of my link was mainly to make sure you had a link to wikibooks, since you are new to the whole wikimedia thing, and to show where such a wikibook should be listed, though I have no idea what's the procedure on Wikibooks to do so. By the way, you can link to wikibooks directly, for instance "[[b:Backgammon|Backgammon book]]" which displays like a regular wikipedia link : Backgammon book. See m:Help:Interwiki linking Equendil Talk 12:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Forgot to say: The tone of the article is a little too casual for wikipedia (I expect it's fine for wikibooks), in particular, addressing the reader with "you" is a no-no on wikipedia. Other than that, I think the content stripped of instructions is fine. Equendil Talk 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Game instructions were moved to wikibooks and original author is perfectly willing to address issues. Equendil Talk 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Updates. I now have corrected the issue of the tone that the article took and now it is explained in the third person which is more profesional then addressing the reader as "you" thanks again to Equendil advise and comments. Looks to me that it is presented better then before by getting help from various wikipedians and working on their feedback. Thanks Davidoff 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After transwiki and editing, looks pretty good to me. Another success without actually having to delete anything ... someone pinch me. Thanks all. -- Docether 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Information. Hey Guys, I wanted to know when and if the box on the top of the article will be removed and who is allowed to remove it, that is if we agree that this is a good article to be kept here on wikipedia. I think that most of you agree that this article was changed to meet the requirements of wikipedia, as well as a Backgammon book that had started on wikibooks. so I think all in all this will benefit readers wanting to know information on backgammon in the long run, especially with the link to the backgammon book thanks to Equendil, which will direct people to add and edit the backgammon book that I have started. Talk | Davidoff 03:13, 15 June 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. Sango123 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Spaced Out

nn, as the article states, little known. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note. This is not speedy deletable under csd g4 because someone (another admin) complained that I speedy deleted it for being non-noteable, but it could be noteable. I restored the article and immediately sent it to this forum.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. From article: is a little-known French animated series.... PJM 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it was produced by an animation company which, though relatively minor, has existed for several years and won awards and has had its programs shown on multiple networks. This particular program, from what I can tell, also was shown on various networks, and won an award in Argentina in 2003. Does that matter? DS 13:46, 10 June 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. Sango123 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquiles La Grave

Non-notable. His two books are effectively self-published - see [52]

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Question. The link takes you to lagravepub? the book was published by mallet books completely different publisher. If you run his name online a number of different projects pop up.

I put that link in because it's one of the few references to the book that I can find online - yes, it's to lagravepub. Searching [53] gives only 21 hits. Dlyons493 Talk

Have you seen this? www.artscolorado.org he is the director.

Yes indeed. I don't question his existence and he may even be sufficiently notable for a Wiki article, but I don't think he's notable ,as a Venezuelan poet. It looks like his books are in English and are self-published. I'd be happy to be proved wrong - we have very little material on Venezuelan literature. Dlyons493 Talk

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - books arn't listed on Amazon and only 99 hits on google. Top 10 hits seem to be all wiki-mirrors. ---J.S (t|c) 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by nominator and J. Smith. DVD+ R/W 20:10, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Osmium (band)

Yet ANOTHER nn band, Google search turns up plenty on the element, very little on the band Wildthing61476 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per WP:NMG - at the moment. I only see one release on the label "Dirthead" , at allmusic.com. If someone can make a good case for them, I may reconsider. PJM 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears non-notable, but the name is awesome! —Mets501^talk 17:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I agree on the name being excellent, but this article is just a poorly-phrased advertisement which literally provides no notability whatsoever. And, based on Google, they would fail WP:MUSIC even if the article was as well-written and well-sourced as it could possibly be. -- Kicking222 17:19, 8 June 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 merge. Petros471 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Asses of Fire

It's a pointless article about a five minute segment in the South Park Movie—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superior1 (talk • contribs) .

- Specify what exactly makes it pointless. Actually it gives the reader some good points for interpretation of this (central) motive of the movie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.178.113.169 (talk • contribs) .

There are many articles about the South Park universe, little things or not. This is just one of them. This doesn't need to be deleted. 80.222.222.118 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't totally pointless. Just because it was a small part of the movie doesn't mean it isn't worth noting.

This is one of the funniest moments in that movie...and is basically the understory for it as well. Who suggested to delete it anyways? Worth having on here for sure.

This article should be incorporated with south Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

• Merge with South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. --DCrazy talk/contrib 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per DCrazy. The unsigned editor who stated "Just because it was a small part of the movie doesn't mean it isn't worth noting" should review Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Certainly there's nothing wrong with noting this in the article on the film, but it isn't worthy of its own separate article. 23skidoo 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per DCrazy —Mets501^talk 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per slippery slope. Can you imagine the nightmare if we had articles on every singe plot element in every movie ever made? ---J.S (t|c) 20:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• merge per dcrazy. antmoney85

• Merge per DCrazy - Frederik Holden 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or Keep because it's an important plot element. JohanTenge

- Asses of Fire is a part of the South Park Movie, and reappears in 2 episodes as well, "Terrence and Phillip: Behind The Blow" and "The New Terrance and Phillip Movie Trailer" so it isn't only related to the movie.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Axem Rangers

I don't think this article is necessary. There isn't a lot of infomation about them, and chances are they won't be appearing again in the future. --Covenant Elite 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --169.233.14.15 00:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be deleted, so what if they dont appear again? Most of the characters in this games won't appear in other games, but none the less should still be respected.

I don't think this page needs deleted, but it DOES need a cleanup. - Marrshu

This page was basically copied from the Mario Series Character Guide from Gamefaqs; this page should not exist in its given form. 70.59.78.4 02:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Super Mario RPG. Well they exist[54], but I don't think a unique page is warranted. A merge might be the best thing. Yanksox 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Yanksox —Mets501^talk 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Absolutely no way this is notable enough for its own article. -- Kicking222 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, minor characters in a video game, and one of the anonymous commentators above appears to be suggesting it's a copyvio to boot. — Haeleth Talk 19:06, 8 June 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. Sango123 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cessation Of Innocence

Nonsense Quentin Smith 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. --Quentin Smith 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Is not Patent nonsense, but both book title and author's name fail Google test miserably. Rain74 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, no google hits —Mets501^talk 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unpublished series of books. Maybe worth having if any of these books are actually published, but non-notable until then. eaolson 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is nonsense. Google search only returns Wikipedia based results. Is a hoax. --Quentin Smith 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:V. There is no notability policy for books as far as I can tell, so thats a poor reason to delete. But, WP:V is a policy. And this article doesnt even make an attempt. Also, this isn't nonsense. The article was perfectly legible. ---J.S (t|c) 19:59, 8 June 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. – Robert 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cessation-Seirim

Nonsense Quentin Smith 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. --Quentin Smith 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason as previous article. Rain74 16:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as above nom —Mets501^talk 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since it fails WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 20:01, 8 June 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. Sango123 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brooks Information Technology

Article on company with no assertion of notability and almost no content; speedy tag deleted twice without explanation NawlinWiki 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't understand the reason for deleting this article. This is a known company, and the article is factual with no spin or bias. Wikipedia is not paper and as such, this article does no harm in being kept, and in fact adds towards a healthy base of IT companies --see Category:Information_technology_consulting_firms. In my personal opinion, I feel that if people put their effort in to creating and editing articles, rather than trying to delete them (not including junk and spam, of course), Wikipedia would be a much more productive place, --23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.214.231 (contribs).
• Comment - I agree, I think we should delete all private company articles... that way, no one will know anything... also, I think that all articles on anything else on this site should be removed, too. ---obvious sarcasm--- Guest 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment, with faked signature, was also added by 72.177.214.231 (contribs).
• Delete per WP:NOT, promotion. Also, has around 6 unique G-hits. Doesn't seem notable. Yanksox 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity - contributor is BrooksIT, same as the company name. Trebor 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The company I work for, in the same business, is considerably larger and would not qualify under WP:CORP. - Fan1967 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN/vanity —Mets501^talk 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious advertising Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can verify that it actually meets wp:corp. youngamerican (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. DVD+ R/W 00:28, 12 June 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. Petros471 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Paska Ankka

I'm contesting the proposed deletion of this Internet comic. The only reason for its deletion seems to be non-verifiability. It's real, people! As the talk page says, I think I can't provide a direct link, but just go to Google, type "paska ankka", and click on the links on the first page. If you're lucky even the first one might work. That's how I verified it before translating the article to English. The Finnish version was nominated for deletion, for non-notability rather than non-verifiability, and kept. Keep. JIP | Talk 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've tried to source this, and it can't be sourced beyond primary sources, and I can't find enough information to even source this article. I don't dispute that it may be real, but that's not the point of Wikipedia, I'm real. Verifiability policy demands "facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". I can't source these, so I prodded the article as a method of removing unverifiable material. If someone can find a definitive verifiable source which contextualises this phrase in a manner in which an article can be written I'm happy to change my vote, but it isn't enough to say this stuff exists. The whole basis of wikipedia is that the three key policies are non-negotiable. Otherwise, can I please start adding information about my Sunday League Football team, they're real. I can link to them. Notability isn't the issue, it's being able to verify the statements made. This article includes a summary of a statement from the Finnish Aku Ankka (Donald Duck) comic book. If that can't be sourced it has to be removed since I can't quantify that it's not original research. Nothing in this article can be quantified apart from the fact that some people on the internet use the term to describe what they are doing. Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet. Hiding Talk 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Paska Ankka is a real, fan-made, parody comic of Aku Ankka, consisting of a series of scanned Aku Ankka comics, with the dialogue changed to sex- and drug-related discussion, but with the artwork kept intact. That is all the original Finnish article, and the article I wrote in English, ever claimed it was. A series of scanned comics pages on the Internet. I would love to give you a direct link to the scanned comics but IANAL, so I am afraid to give a direct link to what I believe is illegal material. JIP | Talk 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't dispute your point. However, you are using the primary source as your basis for an article. On the English Wikipedia verifiability policy states that If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. If there are no third party sources, it should be deleted. A link to an example of the instance is sadly not enough, given that Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet. We need to discuss and examine such occurrences in an encyclopedic manner, contextualising their impact on society and meaning to the world around them, and we can only do that by summarising third party sources. Wikipedia has no place for original research, which at this moment this article is. I have no problem with helping to clean up this article and contextualising it for a wider audience, but at the moment no-one can provide such sources. Hiding Talk 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a gross violation of WP:V and a possible violation of WP:NOR. Find some reliable sources for verification and I will change my opinion. ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is an internet comic, and therefore should be notable, just like other internet comics and articles about them. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The notability guidelines on internet comics are covered at WP:WEB, and they rely on the verifiability policy. This article fails both, so I'm assuming you will reconsider your vote? Hiding Talk 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is quite ridiculous. An article on a comic that doesn't even have a linkable page? Haze it to the ground. Danny Lilithborne 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cybamall.com/paskafani/. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hiding and J.smith. We need multiple reliable third-party sources to write encyclopedia articles. -- Dragonfiend 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have translated the original Finnish discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paska Ankka/original discussion. JIP | Talk 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I never would have closed that as a keep. Some of the keep arguments are fairly ridiculous, "Wikipedia certainly needs more shit." The standards for writing an encyclopedia appear lower in Finland, although I'm aware I base that view on a small pool. The point of reliable sources and verifiability was never addressed. I've half a mind to learn Finnish and start articles on anything I can think of. Hiding Talk 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. - Hahnchen 03:30, 10 June 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. Sango123 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 500 B.C.

Non notable mod, no unique Google hits.--Zxcvbnm 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Mets501^talk 17:19, 8 June 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 no consensus. Petros471 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitney Young Middle School

Article about a non-notable school. Nothing links to it, is just clutter. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing in the article asserts notability —Mets501^talk 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Notable School Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up a bit. probably rm the statement about it being the shit, and insert some useful info then bobs your uncle. THE KING 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools are not inherently notable, and nothing in the article itself (or the comments above) indicate to me that there is anything notable, distinctive, or encyclopedic about this particular school. Agent 86 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced statements that, even if sourced, would still not make a middle school particularly (or inherently) notable. -- Kicking222 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Decent start on a valid topic. CalJW 21:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Cleveland Municipal School District (Cleveland, Ohio) or weak keep and expand. I would prefer a short paragraph/article with some info on a school than a entry in a list with just the name; however, I think the case for notability of elementary/middle schools is much weaker than that of high schools. Needs refs on the academic assertions regardless, of course. BryanG^(talk) 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Agent 86. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Decent start on a valid topic.--Kev62nesl 06:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. As much as I think school stubs clutter wikipedia, it's pretty much a lost cause, there's already umpteen school stubs to be found on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Schools. Equendil Talk 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad choices in the past are not good reasons for voting keep. I do not oppose merging the content as mentioned above. Vegaswikian 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Well, there's many thousands of similar school stubs on Wikipedia (Category:School stubs), I'm not in favour of Wikipedia listing every single school on the planet, but I'm trying to be consistent. It would be arbitrary of me to call for a delete here while I've left several hundred such stubs go past while on new page patrol. AfDs like this will amount to nothing until such a time the community agrees on criteria for speedy deletion of such entries (Maybe on the 1,000,000th stub ...). Equendil Talk 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and continue to expand. Silensor 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable. bbx 07:06, 15 June 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. Sango123 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Figure League Wrestling

Non-notable website about wrestling action figures. The term "Figure League Wrestling" gets 245 results on Google. Oakster ^(Talk) 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Holy guacamole, that's non-notable. -- Kicking222 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If notability were bricks... this article would have very few bricks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any bricks, just straw. PJM 18:50, 8 June 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 speedy deleted by Lethe (talk · contribs) (Liberatore, 2006). 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinc function (normalized)

we're just trying to reverse a disambiguation that was one editor's idea that was pretty roundly rejected by all of the other concerned editors. i was careful to make sure no other regular articles made links to the two we want deleted. r b-j 17:29, 8 June 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. Sango123 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Webware

Looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable neologism that next to no one uses. I'd suggets a merge with Web Application but reading the article it seems that what the author is going for is more of a replacement of the term 'Web 2.0'. Artw 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: As per nom. Nothing verifiable or significant will be lost. Stephen B Streater 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:48, 9 June 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 no consensus. Exactly what the article covers can be discussed on its talk page. Petros471 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Casual Courier

spam. prod contested by author Bachrach44 17:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. spam. very spam. THE KING 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Casual Courier is NOT spam, any more than FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS or any other unique and innovative technology or industry development. Please voice your actual objections to this entry. The term "casual courier" is a new innovation in package delivery and gaining extroidinary recognition around the world. The term certainly has a valid place on Wikipedia as a developing concept, technology and international phenomena. Further discussion and suggestions would be greatly appreciated to remove this improper and inaccurate flagging. --Jjacobs 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and THE KING. Ad for company that doesn't meet WP:CORP. DVD+ R/W 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback, however, the focus of the listing is NOT for the corporatation, but rather for the term "casual courier." The term is widely used now in the shipping industry, and happens to be a registered trademark of the The Casual Courier, Inc. (that is the only reason why the corporation is listed in the entry). Furthermore, according the the Wiki policies, if a company has had a number of articles published about it from reputable news sources, then it has the right to be included on Wikipedia. Numerous articles have been independantly published about The Casual Courier, Inc. (which again, is NOT the focus of this entry) in Wired News, the front page of the Boston Herald Business section and a number of other publications available here. So, on both grounds, the entry casual courier should remain and the flagging removed please. Looking forward to your continued feedback. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

• Cleanup and disambiguate. The article for the term "casual courier" should be separated from the article for the company called "Casual Courier", which would make this article seem a lot less like advertising. The term appears to be in casual (haha) use by other sources (with or without reference to the trademark) -- try a quick Google and you'll see that it occasionally shows up as usage unrelated to the company name itself (and more related to the concept discussed in the first part of the page). However, there's less than 4,500 hits total (including hits on the company name), so this may well be a neologism. The company is arguably notable : for example, Wired did a story on them, which included discussion of their business model and security issues. On the other hand, I'd feel better about this article if it wasn't written by someone with the same name as the company's founder ("J(ack) Jacobs"). So, any volunteers to clean this one up bigtime? Best, Docether 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, when the separate corporate article is created, I advise culling the most notable writeups and linking to them in the "External Links" section, to preempt AfD'ing. -- Docether 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If the term is trademarked, it cannot be used without being an article about the company, even if it were in common use (or the company explicit waives trademark rights in a manner consistent with the GFDL). And the company is not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate all of your comments and feedback. We took into account all opinions above in the new revision of the entry just posted. Please note that we removed almost all references to the company, without relinquishing our legal rights to the term. In addtion, you'll notice we added a "see also" section that brings together other types of courier delivery, thereby contributing to the overall understanding and knowledge of readers who are genuinely interested in learning about the full spectrum of delivery options that exist in the world, both traditional AND innovative are now represented on Wikipedia! Please feel free offer further comments so that the final entry can be acceptable to all members and offer a quality contribution to Wikipedias extroidinary resource for valid information. --Jjacobs 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the page, but really clean it up, and make it a disambig page (per Docether) —Mets501^talk 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — the inherent problem with this entry is pointed out by Arthur Rubin. With the phrase "casual courier" being the trademarked name of the company, the article is linked to the company. Especially with the title being "Casual Courier" versus "casual courier" (a concept), it is advertising and at this point, there is no article on the company — which might not make it as an article based on WP:CORP. (Even with "cleanup", the article reads completely like an ad.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we may need to pass this on to the lawyers, but it appears to me that the trademark is on "The" followed by the paper airplane followed by "Casual Courier", and may not be a trademark on the name without the symbol. It's still a problem, as they've added the paper airplane to the article.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with ERcheck. Only when this page is broken into separate articles can we determine whether "casual courier" (the concept) and "(The?) Casual Courier" (the company) are each nonnotable and encyclopedic in its own right. Currently, even with the "cleanup," the article does read like an advertisement. With luck, a good disambig and cleanup should take care of Arthur Rubin's concerns, as the trademark will only be included in the article on the -company-. As far as I can tell, trademarks can be part of articles which unambiguously focus on particular companies (for example, UPS and DHL. However, contra Jjacobs's assertion, the article currently combines discussion of the "casual courier" concept and the "(The?) Casual Courier" company in a manner which is likely to confuse readers of Wikipedia. This is unacceptable -- if the article is not cleaned up, it should be deleted without prejudice. Best, Docether 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK. We considered all of the above comments and made some MAJOR changes to the entry in order to seperate out the casual courier concept from the corporation, and thereby reduce confusion to readers. To begin with, we changed the page title from "Casual Courier" to "casual courier", and as a result made a deeper division between the concept and the company. We also added a completely new entry for the corporation The Casual Courier, Inc. which has a number of external links to notable news articles written about the company, and clearly identified the unique innovations introduced to the shipping industry by the company. We sincerely hope that the Wikipedia community will accept these changes. If you have further comments, please feel free to send them along and we will be happy to further edit the entry until it is fully acceptable to all. Thanks for your continued feedback.--Jjacobs 11:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a notable enough concept with a few companies around the world working this way and thousands of volunteers doing this. Ben W Bell talk 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: User Jjacobs has now said several times that they have taken the comments in consideration and changed the article accordingly: however, when I look at AirSitter (referenced from Casual Courier), it is an advertisement for the company: so is Casual Courier, "TCC", and of course The Casual Courier. This doesn't look to me like a honest try to make encyclopedic articles, but more like a large promo action. So I would suggest to just delete the lot. Fram 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree there is a large promotional advertising component here, but casual couriering itself is a large scale concept and is used around the world. I personally have had the oppurtunity to participate in schemes like this, though change of plans forced me to decline. The Casual Courier is a company that is being promoted at the moment I agree, but the concept and action of casual couriering is separate enough from the company that I think it should stay whatever the views on the company are. Just my thoughts. Ben W Bell talk 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but remove the advertising ... I also have some comments - "trademark" is not the same as "copyright". Anyone can put TM by anything they want. That isn't a prohibition against mentioning the word or term they trademarked. If I open a fast food chain called "Great Scott's Dining", I could sue someone who subsequently opened a restaurant called "Great Scott's Kitchen" in the same area where I'm doing business. I would not, however, have cause to stop anyone from using the exclamation "Great Scott". Similarly, if "casual courier" is a commonly used term, (I don't know whether it is - but the article asserts it is, so I'm going from that), then (1) you can't stop people who were already using the term from continuing to do so and (2) you certainly can't stop an encyclopedia from writing about the concept. From g-hits, "casual courier" appears to be used beyond this company. A simple link to the company's website would suffice and maybe a note of disambiguation at the top of the page. The rest can be about the term itself. BigDT 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• One further comment - from g-hits, the term is unquestionably used apart from this company itself. However, this keep should be without prejudice. If users from this company make cleanup impossible and insist on using it for adverstising, deletion should be reconsidered. BigDT 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This item has been listed for deleted for a week's time. However, during that time, it has not been appropriately cleaned up to disambiguate the term "casual courier" from the company "The Casual Courier" (even though its primary editor has posted to this discussion repeatedly). This article continues to read as advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Additionally, as Fram points out, the user creating this article has begun another series of related articles which read as out-and-out promotion and advertising. For the moment, I retain my cleanup (and keep) vote, but if this item survives AfD and is not cleaned up to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, it should be relisted for deletion with prejudice, along with its related items. -- Docether 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've taken a stab at removing the advertising. BigDT 16:05, 15 June 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. SoLando (Talk) 10:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tiki Hut

Vanity Nv8200p talk 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a combination of intense nonsense, vanity, and non-notability. -- Kicking222 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While not meeting criteria for speedy deletion, I encourage this article to be deleted with both speed and authority per Kicking222's argument above. Chet nc 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced and seems like junk. PJM 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Seriously, people. -- Docether 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOAX, WP:NN and WP:NOT FUNNY ~ trialsanderrors 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't really figure out what this article is supposed to be —Mets501^talk 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Is this some kind of joke? OTAKU 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete If you don't think this is patent nonsense, I want some of your drugs. Danny Lilithborne 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Thetruthbelow 00:13, 10 June 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. Petros471 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kun Gao

Contested A7 speedy so listing here for process. I vote delete because his claim to notability is under PROD at the moment. The website doesn't look particularly notable, so it's creator wouldn't be. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Tom -- Gao's co-founder. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Assertion's made, I think. Either the company is notable, in which case Merge or it's not, in which case Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete creator of a non-notable company who created a non-notable web site —Mets501^talk 22:48, 8 June 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 merge. Petros471 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Memons

The Siddique Katiya has created a duplicate article of Memon as Memons. The Memon article deals with Memons and the Memons page was a redirect. Siddique Katiya removed the redirect tag [55] on 18:50, 9 May 2006 and created a duplicate article. I have requested a merge of both articles. But this tag was removed. I want these articles to be merged and make Memons page again a redirect as it was on [56] 7 May 2006 or it should be deleted. Siddiqui 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

The main reasons I have created the new article entitled Memons is because, it seems that Mr. Siddiqui does not like to share certain view of others, some of the comment he made about Memons is not only bias but offensive. For example In culture and history section, he mentioned that “they have retained many cultural traits from their pre-Islamic past” He is also unnecessarily focusing on the Memons the they are belongs to a Sufi order which is not necessarily accurate He also removed one of my comment in section in both articles Memons today Memoni is falling into disuse and the younger generation is unlikely to learn it as their mother tongue for various reasons. Development of inferiority complex about their heritage by many memon Please refer to discussion section As a member of Memon community, I am well informed about this subject than Mr. Siddiqui. The article Memons is more comprehensive than Memon - and this article will continue to grow Also I have created at least 10 new articles related to very subject, and each new article, I have tried to provide link to both articles just to be fair. --Siddique Katiya 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• “they have retained many cultural traits from their pre-Islamic past” I did not write this line. You can remove it.
• Memons todayMemoni is falling into disuse and the younger generation is unlikely to learn it as their mother tongue for various reasons. Development of inferiority complex about their heritage by many memon. I have no objection you can add it.
• If you check the history of [57] page you would note that I did not revert your changes. I reverted changes by Shoaib Siddique, 80.92.54.101, 69.192.32.195, Sajjad S, etc. Can you please show me where did I revert your changes.

Siddiqui 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy revert to #redirect Memon. POV forks are deplorable. Work for a consensus in talk:Memon. -- RHaworth 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to merge I am quite satisfied with the explanation by Siddiqui and I agreed to merge or transfer the contents of Memons article to Memon including restoring the redirect tag of Memons to Memon I hope in the future that any disputed issues will be fully discussed. I also suggest that Siddique will make this changes so there is no misunderstanding.--Siddique Katiya 02:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect

I created the Memon article anonymously in 2004, using the IP Address 168.209.98.35. I tried to be as objective as possible when I created the Memon article, and tried to maintain that until I was rendered unable to edit on Wikipedia for technical reasons. A number of accuracy disputes, which were not resolved have been removed without adequate explanation, and the article still does not cite its sources to a satisfactory extent (the meaning of the word Memon, for example, which was disputed has now been stated as an absolute fact to be derived from Momin - a look at the Sindhi Memon article shows an alternative derivation theory also exists).

I also propose that the article Memon (tribe) also be deleted and merged. Park3r 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Memon and make a redirect per nom —Mets501^talk 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, Memon and Memons deals with the same ethnic-cultural group and should be merged. Memon (tribe) deals with Memon tribe of Sindh. The part of the Memon tribe migrated to Gujarat state in India and slowly changed culturally from their cousins in Sindh. I would rather propose creating category called Memon for these articles. I also have no objection to merging these three articles.

Siddiqui 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nomination - Siddique Katiya is completely in the wrong and I caught them blanking the article discussed. Also, if you feel that there are some biased oppinions in an article, fix them...don't go laying down the law and creating dissorder and confusion as you did. Vaniac 22:48, 9 June 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. Sango123 23:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cymbal Rush

Seemingly just a song... Kurl 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing here worth merging to The Eraser. Looking forward to that album tho'. Ac@osr 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable song. Perhaps a redirect is in order, but there's certainly nothing to merge. -- Kicking222 21:25, 8 June 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 speedy delete (an admin deleted this but the AfD was not closed) —Mets501^talk 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chariot of the Fallen

nn band, but has been prod'd twice, so listing here. Inner Earth 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet WP:BAND. DVD+ R/W 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 18:43, 8 June 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 - Liberatore(T) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambassador_International_Cultural_Foundation

This is an entry that is POV and poorly referenced. Please check the citations, most are non-existant or non-credible. Hopquick 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambassador_International_Cultural_Foundation : Most of the sources do not work, and the article is extremely POV and perhaps not even mostly factual Hopquick 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:39, 8 June 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 no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of the Redeemer (Toronto)

Non-notable church EdJones 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep appears notable to me. - Liberatore(T) 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Small article on a neighborhood church. Completely non-notable. Chet nc
• Weak keep Both the gay tolerance issue/publication and the Four Seasons transaction suggest faint notability to me. What this article really misses is verifiability thru independent sources StuartF 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The sale of air rights to a real estate developer is worth noting. TruthbringerToronto 00:21, 10 June 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. – Will (message me!) 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

John Neff

Speedy deletion was declined; questionable notability. If deleted, closing admin please remove incoming links. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 08:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per failure to assert notability Ydam 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ydam said all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move from mainspace. Page should be moved to userspace. Mostly Rainy 21:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article on John Neff. Wikipedia has a true dirth of articles on finance and business, and someone else is bound to expand upon it with more valuable information. Smeelgova 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be speedy delete. Notability NOT ASSERTED. (Sorry, I had something stuck in my throat.) Colonel Tom 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He has published a book on investing, although the article doesn't include this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no real claim of notability in the article should be deleted unless expanded (that is, deleted as it currently stands). - Liberatore(T) 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Liberatore. -- Kjkolb 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability Bwithh 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep famous fund manager and author. There are hundreds or thousands of articles on this guy, often compared to Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch. Needs an expand tag not deletion--JJay 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person is notable see above Yuckfoo 01:32, 17 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jihad state

Delete - Jihad state seems to be a very poorly written and utterly misguided article. As far as I know, the term is not used anywhere. It seems to be a POV article. MP (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• That only shows how little you know on the subject, even though it includes many of the more important native monarchies of Muslim Africa, another good reason to devote an article to it. A simple google shows over 300 hits, including a few book titles. Fastifex 13:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete. Listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: 0 hits on Google news. A search on Amazon.com shows that 3 different books use the term. (one as part of the title). Doesnt actually seem to be in the same context, but it's hard to tell. It seems like every reference I see for this phrase is referring to the "The Reign of Hisham Ibn'Abd Al-Malik" whoever that is. I'm leaning towards Delete since the phrase seems to be fairly non-notable. I can be convinced otherwise... ---J.S (t|c) 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - non-notable neologism. (I'm sorry, 300 Google hits does not make an article). Madman 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Jihad doesn't even mean holy war, or anything to do with violence. something to do with working to please god. sort of like how the crusades can't be shown as the opinion of all christians. Pure inuyasha 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ahhh, here "jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad or Djehad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist". The term "jihad" is often rendered in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses warfare, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty, or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance. A person who engages in any form of jihad can be called a mujahid (in plural: mujahadin) (Arabic: striver, struggler), a term even more often applied to groups who practice armed struggle in the name of Islam. He might engage in fighting as a military struggle for religious reasons, or for example, struggle to memorize the Qur'an." Pure inuyasha 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Fastifex, if you want to write an article about a book which has the phrase, 'Jihad state' in it's title, then go ahead. I repeat, the term 'Jihad state' is not in popular use, and hence there should not be an article about it. The concept of Jihad is already adequately discussed. The term 'Jihad state' is not worth devoting an article to any more than the phrase 'Beckham Golden Balls' is (and that is a popular term !). MP (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If we were to leave out subjects just because they aren't in popular use, we're not writing an encyclopaedia but a childish rag. Jihad states in the restricted sense (some anonymous reedit extended it dubiously, unsourced, and messed up the jihad use) are a major component of the history of West Africa, certainly more important then anything to do with sports or celebrities (which nevertheless deserve their place to). Resepectable websites on history and dynasties (with vast bibliographies) cerainly know about them and use the (almost self-explicatory) term for whicj I know no alternative in use.

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

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004

David Pearce

The David Pearce page looks like a low-key vanity page to me that must have slipped through when it was first created. David Pearce is the webmaster of BLTC, the hedonistic imperative website. I like the website and support this guy's views, but I hardly think he's notable enough to be listed in wikipedia, unless you want to start listing anyone and everyone who owns a website. The fact that his website is listed too suggests a vanity thing going. I'm not saying this guy can't be notable, maybe in ten years or so he will be, but I don't think he's notable enough now to be listed here, and I don't think his website is notable enough to be included either. Pyramidal 03:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. There seems to be an author or two by that name[58], and a MO House Rep[59] (and less notable professor and businessman), but I don't think any are the guy at www.hedweb.com. Niteowlneils 03:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. His site might possibly be notable, but he doesn't seem to be. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:29, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: nonnotable, personal promotion. He has a nice smile though. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:57, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association. anthony (see warning) 23:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Samrolken 19:35, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I wrote the article. Pearce is notable enough to have been the subject of at least three printed interviews (one of them published in SonntagsZeitung, a mass circulation Swiss newspaper) and several articles. This is not merely a guy who happens to run a website, but one who has gained some notoriety by doing so. Sir Paul 01:11, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks legitimate, disk space is cheap, and his picture totally made my day. -- Wikisux 18:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Petros471 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (person)

So I take it that someone having his name changed to that of a cartoon character is enough criteria for an encyclopedia article to be written about him. Well in that case I think I'll go have my name changed to "Elmer Fudd" tomorrow so that pretty soon someone will be creating an article about me. Seriously now, this is a blatant violation of WP:Vanity and how it has survived two previous deletion nominations I have no earthly idea. Please do Wikipedia a favor and have this article done away with.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous AfD's:

1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Optimus Prime (person) No Consensus
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimus Prime (person) No Consensus

• Delete Insufficient claim to notability. Fan1967 No, make it Rocket J. Squirrel, pending the official name change from the court 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• merge From now on, I shall be know as......Betty. but seriously, should be mentioned on the Optimus_Prime page. antmoney85
• Merge - to Optimus Prime. Has apparently had some limited press coverage, so a mention in the OP article seems like the thing to do. Wickethewok 19:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wickethewok. Agent 86 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Optimus Prime. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If not deleted, merge CalJW 21:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Media exposure is adequate for at least adding a footnote to history about this complete nut. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JFW. jgp 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wickethewok.
• Keep. The Optimus Prime article is already 45 kilobytes long, adding even more peripherally-related material doesn't seem like a good idea. In fact, it's been merged in the past and got split back out again. Bryan 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Optimus Prime article is already 45 kilobytes long, adding even more peripherally-related material doesn't seem like a good idea. In fact, it's been merged in the past and got split back out again. I conclude, therefore, that even hardcore Transformers fans don't think this eejit is important. -- GWO
• Keep Name change is per se notable. Eluchil404 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everything that's notable about him is related to Optimus Prime the cartoon character. Just give him "honourary mention" on that article. Hong Qi Gong 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or at worst, merge.) Just changing your name to a cartoon character doesn't make you notable. It makes you slightly notable in context of the cartoon character. But if they don't want him, delete the article. Ehurtley 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy was a TV news story that became a significant enough internet meme to warrant his place here. I know Google ranking isn't a definitive test, but the WKYC news story and Prime's weblog turn up #2-3 on Google for 'Optimus Prime', this Wikipedia page specifically has recently been linked to by a high-traffic news site (as mentioned in the talk page) and turns up #5 on Google. And this is for a story that first broke in 2003. Wikipedia pages about notable 'unusual names' are explicitly allowed. If you go change your name to Elmer Fudd and manage a TV news story and significant internet publicity out of it, more power to ya. The only issue I had was with a disambiguation link pointing here which I removed (nobody is confusing this person with the cartoon character). radimvice 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. An unusual name change is not notable on its own, but I suppose this fellow deserves a brief mention at the bottom of the cartoon charcter's article.--Pharos 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the OP article itself is too long as is. This person is a different entity, and deserves their own page, albeit necessarily small. Wikipedia is not Paper. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me clarify that IMO the man calling himself "Optimus Prime" deserves not more than one line of the article about the actually notable cartoon character. I'm certainly not proposing to move the whole thing.--Pharos 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your POV is showing: he's not just "calling himself" Optimus Prime, he has legally changed his name. And the Optimus Prime article itself has spun this segment out on its own repeatedly. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I have no POV against legal name-changing. Of course it is perfectly appropriate (and even mildly interesting) for Mr. Prime to have changed his name; I just don't think it's an encyclopedically notable event. Of course a vote for 'merge' implies that there should not be full biographical details of the real-life individual at the Optimus Prime article.--Pharos 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I vote to keep this page; Prime is a significant internet meme and warrants having a small page devoted to him. For whatever reason, one or two of the lines from that news article have lived on in my mind for years, and I know the same is true of several of my friends.70.241.88.187 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I say keep it, how often dose someone change there name to such a strange one, and since he saw the fictional Prime as a father figure, it gives credit and reinforcement to the fictional characters personality, and how his character has impacted so many that grew up in the 80's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.4.167 (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Halloween Man

Self-published comicbook. Official website has an Alexa ranking of over 5 million [60]. The article itself notes that it is pretty much a one man operation. No signs of notability given. IrishGuy talk 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't always been self published. But even then, what's wrong with a self published comic being in Wiki? Lots of comics are self published and underground in nature. That doesn't mean there's no interest in them or that they're undeserving of a "wikiarticle." You have to look at it sort of like an underground band or cult film. I hope you'll reconsidered your stance on the Halloween Man article, because we've put alot of work into it. And hope to have the chance to continue to improve it. Plus the comic itself hasn't just been a self published venture. Though that's been apart of it's history, it's also been published by atleast two small publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)

The amount of work you have put into it is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that this subject isn't notable. Some small press and/or underground comics are. This, unfortunately, isn't one of them. IrishGuy talk 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete comic book published by uber-ultra-micro-indie publisher(s). "Outerspace Spider Comics", for example, has all of 3 Google hits. Poor Alexa rank shows that the ol' "but it's popular on the internet, really" line doesn't apply here. Looks like a genuinely good comic though, and I encourage the creator to keep up the good work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article makes no justification of its notability. The comic may be the best thing since sliced bread but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Yamla 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up Across the Pond studios and you'll find that they've had titles out through Image, Dark Horse, etc. Type in "Halloween Man Comics" into google and you'll that there is a interest out there for this character.Not to mention that one of the artist on the comic has been featured in Wizard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)

If you guys aren't willing to look beyond Alexa, which really isn't the only way to find out about a properties appeal. Then how are you so sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

If you read the above comments, you will see that editors have looked beyond Alexa. The low Alexa ranking is just one factor. IrishGuy talk 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I google "Halloween Man Comics" as you suggest, I get 21 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the following. Without the quotas around it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Halloween+Man+comics

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloweenman+comics

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloweenman+

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Halloween+man+

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Drew+Edwards+comic

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nicola+Scott+comic

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Terry+Parr+comic

http://www.scrypticstudios.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

• What's the point without the quotes? Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but if you're not even going to look at the sites it pulls up. Then you're making a strong case for your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

• No offense, but anyone with an iota of Internet experience knows that looking up multiple-word phrases on Google without quotes gets you a whole lot of sites, mostly not related to what you're looking for. Danny Lilithborne 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't know a single person who searches that way. Look at the searches before you write me off why don't you? I'll bet over 99 percent of them relate to the comic Seems to me like you guys have already made up your minds. So why even bother with this discussion? Look I think the fact that there's sereval people debating against you proves that atleast worth a further look before you delete. In the same of fairness, check out those links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

• Who? Even if we assume you're not Bubfan, that's still only 2. And everyone I know, when they need to search for a specific term, uses quotes. As for the discussion, you are only making things more confusing, which doesn't help your "cause" at all. Danny Lilithborne 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. How do I even know you guys aren't the same person? It's an act of trust now isn't it. If you really must now I'm at work otherwise I'd make a profile. And I came across this little debate quite by accident. But that's nether here nor there. You're dancing around the points I've made rather than simply clicking on the links. I doubt you'll find at all to confusing. It's just a list of sites. Make an informed opinion rather than an uninformed one. Seems the logical choice of action to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.0.250 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per User:Starblind. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat offended at the assumption that we only vote Delete because we haven't checked your links. But I'm done here. Danny Lilithborne 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there ANY way to save this? - Russell H

Okay- so what exactly is the basis for wanting to delete this whole article? Because it doesn't hold enough interest between you and your group of friends? I really don't quite understand. Aeveryman 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply (and as has been made clear) because the subject isn't notable per Wikipedia standards. Just because something is interesting to a small group of people, that doesn't make it worth an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy talk 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh- I get it now. I thought the point of the wikipedia was to be able to include a broader range of (legitimate) subjects that wouldn't be in a paper encyclopedia, since the internet is such a huge resource. I didn't realize it was just a digital form of your average, limited encyclopedia. I stand corrected. Aeveryman 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• If by "broader range" you mean "any silly trash me and my friends think it's important" then, yeah, you're right. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "broader range"? A quick perusal over the official message forum shows that most threads are dead and the last posts were by the creater Drew [61]. Obviously, someone on the yahoo group is trying to influence this vote [62] and yet still, all votes by legitimate editors vote deletion. There just isn't any notability here. That doesn't mean Drew isn't talented. It doesn't mean the comic isn't good. It simply means that at this juncture the subject isn't notable. IrishGuy talk 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Legit editors? I thought anyone who signed up is a legit editor? Look just because someone on the yahoo group is being pushy, doesn't mean that's how everyone is going about it. Cleary you've pushed some peoples buttons though. Which means people do care more about this character then you originally suspected. Atleast grant us that. As far as the message forum goes, I think most indie comics would have a similar set-up. Really anything that's not DC or Marvel has to be pushed hard by it's creator. I don't get what you mean by "dead" though. There's topics going on in there from the last week or so. Honestly I think "everyman" makes some valid points. There's some stuff on here that's just as fringy as "Halloween Man." How about this, leave the article up for say...six months to a year. You might be surprised at what happens. I'll continue to improve the article myself. I'm sure the others here will as well. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubfan (talk • contribs)

Yes, legit editors. As in, editors who have worked on articles other than this one. IrishGuy talk 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for among other things, lack of reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've copied it over to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:Halloween Man. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Abe - thanks for copying us over to Comixpedia. Dragonfiend - not sure what you mean by lack of reliable sources. What reliable sources are we lacking? (Not sarcasm - I'm genuinely asking). IrishGuy - is there a way to save this at all? Or perhaps some form of workable compromise? --RussellH 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If you can illustrate notability about this subject. Something verifiable outside of a small sphere of fans. IrishGuy talk 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the compromise option? A vastly reduced entry, for instance (3-4 paragrahps, a couple of external links and a single picture), with the option of expanding later? Or is it an all or nothing situation? --RussellH 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't something that can really be compromised. Otherwise there would be hundreds of stubs that never became notable but people are still patiently waiting just in case they do. If it isn't notable now, it should be deleted. If it becomes notable later, it can be recreated with the new information. IrishGuy talk 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY keep it! You have a link to Madame Razz from the She-Ra cartoon and you are considering deleting THIS? That's more than a little ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs)

While personally I think they should keep it. Anyone who is a fan of this comic should just work on the Comixpedia article. There's already more effort being put into that one that this version. More people working on it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.131.80 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Notability is in question, but also the quality of the article at this point. Delete and re-write; it reads like a promotional website at this point, loaded with POV and non-informative trivia....

• Solomon's main power is often described as the "power of the horror movie sequel." citations or re-write; who says, and where?
• More recently, a major villain in the form of the Phantom Hood has turned up to make Solomon's life hell. Is the whole article written by a comic writer?
• It reads like it's written by a fanboy; Fans of the series often praise the comic's sly nods to pop culture as a strong postmodernist element. or Naysayers tend to note the physical similarties between Solomon and Jonah Hex.

It's basically a fansite on Wikipedia at this point... --Xinit 20:23, 15 June 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. Sango123 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tatooine planet

This article contains no useful information, is purely speculative and has no reliable references. Nick Mks 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The concept may be interesting, but the name is apparently a neologism -- or possibly even a trademark violation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete THis is a fine neologism, but hasn't really caught on at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace of Sevens (talk • contribs) 06:26, June 9, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete using the force. Possibly neologism. --Starionwolf 23:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd delete it because the article on HD 188753 Ab renders it redundant. I agree it's a neologism but this planet does exist and I'd give very good odds that it's a neologism that will catch on.Dave59 16:59, 12 June 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 speedy delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Titran

Nonsense/possibly a prank or insult, whatever it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia Wildthing61476 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 8 June 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. Petros471 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

TV Naie

Delete. Spin-off of a TV.com forum, but not notable in itself as per WP:WEB. Only 63 members as of July 8, 2006. Mostly username-cruft. ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as rapidly as possible An article, written partially in the first person, about a non-notable forum with fewer than 100 members that doesn't even have its own web site, not to mention exactly six unique Google hits for "TV Naie". It doesn't just fail WP:WEB, it fails WP:EVERYTHING. -- Kicking222 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Someone has apparently posted their FAQ as a Wikipedia article. Ace of Sevens
• Keep Many people from Tv.com as well as TV NAIE look at this page in order to see past game stats. It is very popular amongst the reality gaming community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyre X (talk • contribs)
• Keep, but after a bloody good rewrite. Mostly fancruft, this needs a damn good rewrite before it can be considered encyclopaedic. —Spe88 19:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ɸɸɸ

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sango123 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Billy Baldwin

No notability info added since 2004 savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to William Baldwin, the actor. Fan1967 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, etc... Redirect to William Baldwin Wickethewok 19:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Fan. -- Kicking222 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• redirect No evidence of notability. Ace of Sevens 06:31, 9 June 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, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway. – Will (message me!) 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Nominated for CSD on grounds of non-notability. However, ther is a claim of notaiblity within the article. Please decide whether this indivdual is sufficiently important to warrant an article. The Land 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Autobiographical article created to provide an accurate link to his own article from an article in which he was mentioned (see Talk:Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)). The wikilink in the article was directed to an article about a different Fred Wilson, but the link has since been removed...therefore, no need for this article. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bugwit. Non-notable and vanity. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wilson is a 'notable' venture capitalist, at least in the context of New York City's somewhat parochial venture investing community. Along with Jerry Colonna, he represents the United States' main divergence, in the VC industry, from the (useful but tedious) orthodoxies of Silicon Valley and Route 128. While it's likely that NYC will remain focused on the arts, the decision-making industries (consulting, law firms, advertising, investment banking, etc), the existence of a viable VC community in New York is important to balance those industries' narrow focus on human-only capital; Mr. Wilson and Mr. Colonna are indispensable to that cultural diversification. Whether that role is sufficient to merit 'notable' status by Wikipedia standards, I don't know -- but the point is, their roles are a little different, and a little more important, than examples of mere financial success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.87.147 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment The above statement is the first and only edit by 70.19.87.147. See this post on the subject's blog as to why this might be happening. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep him in! Fred is seen as a leader in the online world. He has been one to spur and encourage innovation. His impact to the world has been seen through the ongoing work he does in guiding the web and internet businesses.

Fred has 40,000 visitors to his blog and provides both entertainment and insights to his community of readers.

To compare Fred to many of the currently ‘approved’ individuals in Wikipedia, he dwarfs many in his overall impact and contribution to the internet and the world’s economy.

For example

Rick Griffin was a guy who made posters – he has a listing Ted Johnson- played was a back-up linebacker for the Patriots – he has a listing John Hanna – who designed a sailboat – he has a listing Issac Funk – He was a spelling formatter

I think the measurement system is out of whack. I don’t think these above listed people should be thrown out, but I do think Wiki today does not respect the business world and the contribution people have made to the country. What is the difference between starting a company and writing a book. Or funding a company and editing a book?

Now, I also think we need a place for personal bios on Wiki. There should be a Wikipedia that has everyone possible listed. Image the value in something like that. Now, that is social networking! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.94.82.54 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment The above post is the first edit by this IP user. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete -- Fred's enough of a character in the VC /Web community today that he is prominent enough to be included in Wikipedia. I actually learned something from reading his entry and it was useful to me. I think Bugwit's standard of relevancy is OK, and we certainly shouldn't have pages for all 300 mm Americans or 7 bn people on the globe, but in this case, as an avid Wikipedian, unaffiliated with this person but familiar with his work, I feel he has sufficient prominence and relevance to be included in Wikipedia. I do not believe Bugwit and other commenters are sufficiently familiar with Fred Wilson to make an informed judgment, though their diligence in keeping WP vanity free is certainly appreciated. Mcenedella 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well I've had an account for years and have some editing and adding history. And I personally see no reason at all why Fred should not have a page. I think the arguments about whether he is of big enough stature or not ridiculous and not to the point of Wikipedia. He is referenced within a Wikipedia article, he is part of the story, he is background. An argument not to include him is an argument against completeness. Further, there is really no way to assess that anyone who is part of the story should not have a page. There are probably thousands of pages that have no reason to exist, but are not called to the attention of the editorial classes. I say this is a false discussion and we should let someone/anyone create a page for Fred and be done with it. Ivan007 13:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete -- I think that Fred is worth keeping here, there's so much information on so many minor players here, and Fred is plainly not a minor player. I think it's useful to have a page on Fred and it's not a vanity page Ninefish 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bugwit, why does it matter whether posts are first edits? The top of the page clearly states that the outcome is "primarily determined by the quality of arguments". Whether a poster is someone who has edited on Wikipedia in the past, or whether this debate has spurred them to enter the community doesn't seem to have much bearing on the quality of their arguments. darby 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I mention this only to try to ensure that this isn't happening. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Valid concern, but I think it is mitigated in this case. He never solicited people to comment against deletion, either explicitly or implicitly. Given these circumstances, the quality of the discussion, and nature of his blog, I think it's safe to say that most of the new users are probably people who frequently use Wikipedia but have never felt strongly enough about anything to create an account, and are posting in good faith. darby 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question -- When does this debate end? When does someone make the decision to either off the page or remove the debate tags from the page? Proales 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, notability criteria are not met. Cygri 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be fair, the above edit is Cygri's first and only edit. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- The motivation for the page's creation is irrelevant if the subject matter is notable. Thus grunt's rationale for deletion is flawed. Wilson actaully meets numerous criteria listed in WP:BIO, including

"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" - founding 2 successful venture firms is certainyl a recognized contribution in venture capital."Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field " - ditto. Isarig 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Aside from what he's accomplished he is an important business man who people need to go and meet. A page will be helpful for those people to get some background info. There are already categories like Category:Business_biography_stubs and Venture_capital which he falls in. Although, in fairness, if he is kept in then there should be articles about other prominent venture capitalists and there should be a concious effort to create these articles. --Mika 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Will make Wikipedia a great source for entrepreneurs.

• Keep Fred is one of the most savvy, insightful entrepreneurs in the business and I feel his blog is miles ahead of most other venture capitalists. He constantly writes about new innovations and technologies and is a must read for anyone who is interested in the emerging dynamics of the next generation of the Internet and of digital media. He's been early in catching the popularity of the tagging movement and of social networking (i.e. by investing in del.icio.us and posting frequently about sites like Flickr before they became big) and comes across as amiable and willing to share his ideas. Plus, 40,000 devoted viewers can't be wrong. Steve 204.64.223.35 14:44, 15 June 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. Sango123 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid III: Melody's Story

The article itself notes that this film isn't going to be made. Why have an article on a non-existent film? IrishGuy talk 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as admited hoax. (I can't find a speedy category for it, but that seems appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hoax is not a speedy category, though many have argued it should be. Fan1967 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hoax is not a speedy category, but if the article says it's a hoax, isn't it nonsense? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not non-sense since it is somewhat of a rational thought and it's ridiculous. It would be a speedy if it said, "OMFG! LOL! THE PRIEST HAS ONE IN THE FIRST MOVIE!" That would be {{db-nonsense}}. Yanksox 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Delete I'm pretty sure it's not a speedy, but delete as hoax. Yanksox 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with incredible speed I REALLY despise that being an obvious hoax (but not nonsense) is not criteria for speedy deletion. A blatant hoax should not need to be prodded, it should just be gone. -- Kicking222 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while not a hoax (spec sheets for the upcoming DVD release of the original film mentioned a sneak peek at the music for TLM3), it appears that the film has been shelved by Disney and won't happen anytime soon. Therefore, ditch the, er... you know... TheRealFennShysa 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: While there were seemed to have been plans before, but now that it has been scrapped then there is no longer any use for this page without any reliable source now that Internet Movie Database's page on this movie has been deleted. -Adv193 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and be thankful this movie isn't being made. Ace of Sevens 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. Ðra 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Per original nomination. — Mike •  19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although calling it a hoax is rather overboard. It was one of many films that were slated for Disney released but were cancelled once John Lasseter took over as Chief Creative Officer. That deserves a mention somewhere. Aguerriero (talk) 22:15, 9 June 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. Sango123 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MeahNeah Network

Delete as nn website. No Alexa ranking returned for "www.meahneah.com". Originally {{prod}}ed , but tag was removed with no comment (although some edits were made by the author). --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally nn. BuckRose 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEBJoshuaZ 00:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks suspiciously like vanity. Ace of Sevens 06:33, 9 June 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. User:Ixfd64 speedy deleted first one, other two deleted now. Petros471 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nathan Sandison

These are a group of people Spaingy added to Wikipedia. Apparently they were featured in The Shaken, which is also up for deletion. My vote is delete. Also nominating...

• Darren Burns
• Ciara McCormack

Wickethewok 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. No IMDB, not even the famously flattering GHits help. - Motor (talk) 21:10, 8 June 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. Sango123 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

SeahawksHuddle.com

nn fansite. Alexa rank of 630,857, and a forum with only 673 users. Fails to meet WP:WEB -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not notable. Yanksox 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, author of page attacked Yanksox in revision 57594235. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I didn't notice that. One, I'm a dude and two, I have a girlfriend. I attract alot of vandalism hate considering I try to be pretty civil. Yanksox 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How is deleting people's article's "civil"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 17:41, June 8, 2006

Articles that have no meaningful content or are non-notable are deleted. See Template:Nn-warn for more info. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil being that I try to act in a peaceful manner since it really is what every person on earth deserves. However, Wikipedia has rules to follow. The page you listed fails WP:WEB and under WP:NOT, it's promotion. Don't worry about this AfD, if you spend your time towards promoting your site and make it like this a Wikipedia article is the last think you'll care about. Yanksox 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all the above. Kukini 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not my site. Don't own, don't have really anything to do but post there. Not for promotion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 June 2006

Well, you can take the glory. It doesn't matter if it's yours or not. If I wore Pepsi everything and talked about how awesome Pepsi was and how it cured cancer, I would be promoting. Even if that wasn't my intent. Yanksox 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Also, Seattlehawk94, this may come as a huge shock to you, but when you call other users "dumb skank whores", that doesn't actually make anyone more sympathetic to your plight. Amazing, I know, but that's just one more way the world is unfair. -- Captain Disdain 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How do luminaries such as Paula Marshall get pages? Is she "meaningful content or notable?" Hell, half the pages on here are about no name actors. How the hell are they "notable"?promotion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 June 2006

True, there are some actors that aren't notable, recently we had a massive purging of ALOT of non-notable actors. But the reason for notability is sometimes judged upon coverage. Aslo, Paula Marshall has stories on her and has been on many TV shows. That sort of makes you notable. Yanksox 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to take a look at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, Seattlehawk94? It explains the reasoning behind a the way we do things. Also, please sign your messages by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ -- that makes it easier to see who said what and when. -- Captain Disdain 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete why isn't Seattlehawk94 banned for WP:PA? Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and sanction Someone just isn't in the Wikipedia spirit. Ace of Sevens 06:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly not notable enough DrunkenSmurf 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Go Eagles! Oh wait, the game is over. Cheers --Starionwolf 23:26, 11 June 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. There were a number of "keep" comments, but it is a general policy to assign a heavier weight to editors who have been around for a while. I'm not discounting the votes of others simply because they are new, but because new editors may not have a grasp on guidelines such as WP:EL and WP:NOT. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of unofficial GURPS books

Recreated after deletion via WP:PROD, so contested prod and not a WP:CSD#G4 repost. However, the page should be deleted as a list of external links per WP:NOT a web directory. Kusma (討論) 20:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, and for being completely unmanageable in terms of core policies. Jkelly 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a link suppository repository. -- Kicking222 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a list of articles, it would be different, but I don't think any unofficial GURPS books are notable enough. Ace of Sevens 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete this page has been around for a long time and only just recently did it suddenly become a problem. It is the Unofficial mirror to the List of official GURPS books page. It is more than just a collection of links. It is a list of Unofficial Netbooks, and as such it is just as valid as the numerous other lists of official books. I willing to do whatever work to the article is needed to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy so that it doesn't have to be deleted. Perhaps if someone could suggest what changes I should make... Seanr451 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete - the purpose of wikipedia is to act as a conduit of information. If it's worth putting in links to published, paid-for books - which wikipedia already does - then it's also worth putting in links to free netbooks and webpages... Hanley Tucks
  • User has only edited this page. Kusma (討論) 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom if an exlink can be found for GURPS with the same content. Percy Snoodle 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT, useless list of non-notable items, gah. Sandstein 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete Clean up instead. Many of these works are longtime mainstays on P2P networks AND as parts of widely-distributed GURPS packages. Many of the works are definitely used in many gaming circles, and there are things in the Netbooks that have, without a doubt, made their way into GURPS 4th. Asdfff 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and as unencyclopedic fan, er, stuff. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, recommend authors convert to an article under a different name about the phenomenon of unofficial GURPS books, which is notable (as GURPS has famously spawned so many high quality unofficial supplements). Such an article could contain an external link to a webiste containing this list. Let me know on my talk page if you need any more advice about that. — Estarriol ^talk 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete - As said before, a list of fan-created books is just as valid information as a list of officially published books. More-so in some cases, as its information that might not be readily available elsewhere in one place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterNLST (talk • contribs)
  • Comment -- user's second edit. Jkelly 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete -- Instead, add more information to the page so as to evolve it from a mere link list to an actual document containing information about the various netbooks. Otherwise, devoted fans might just conclude that they have to do one page for each of the netbooks in that way (that is, with a text about the specific netbook and a link), which is not really all that different from one large document containing the info, but not as usable as the current version. (Also note that the current version does indeed already attempt to follow this proposal to some extent and is thus different from the version that was originally deleted.) DrTemp 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- user's fifth edit. All other edits are to article in question and article's Talk page. Jkelly 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on Comments -- Why are the number of edits or articles contributors have created relevant to the discussion? Is this wikipedia's version of the pissing competition? "I have more edits than you, therefore respect mah authoritah!"? Everyone has to start somewhere, and many useful articles and edits made in wikipedia are the single act of a contributor. Of course, people's opinions being less valued due to their low number of contributions could be a cause of their not making further contributions, thus continuing the tradition of wikipedia's "truth" being determined simply by the most energetic contributors. Hanley Tucks
      • It's a metric that we use as a convenience instead of digging into logs to determine whether the account was created simply to add the impression of broader support from Wikipedia editors than actually exists. Jkelly 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • So, was it? :-S Furthermore, do you have anything to say about the arguments presented by my fifth edit in English-language wikipedia? DrTemp 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
          • The problem is that you, and others above, are arguing along the lines of "This is useful information" and "Better a list than a separate article on each website", neither of which I really dispute. But we have some basic criteria for including material in Wikipedia. If you follow the link WP:NOT you'll see that a collection of external links is one thing we exclude. The commentary on the links fails our verifiability policy and our No Original Research policy. We shouldn't ever be the first place something is published. I suggest that the best solution here is that this work is moved offsite. Then, in our article about GURPS, a sentence like "Fans have produced unofficial books" might appear, and use the list as a reference to that statement. That may be questionable from a reliable sources standpoint, if the list is just on somebody's website, but it is a lot better than Wikipedia editors choosing what fansites to list, writing brand new commentary on those websites, and presenting it as an encyclopedia article. Jkelly 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Okay, let's delete this article, and then wonder why all those links will be introduced step by step into the main article, or each netbooks gets its own brief page, or countless other things that might be done to avoid repeated deletion. Would that be any better? Remember, Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. DrTemp 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
              • • Individual articles on these websites would be deleted for failing WP:WEB (or if they don't fail WP:WEB, they should have articles!). I agree with you that we write for our readers, but we write encyclopedic articles that are verifiably not original research for our readers. If you want to write up a list of GURPS fansites complete with reviews, that's great, but Wikipedia isn't the publisher for that. Jkelly 21:02, 16 June 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 no consensus/keep. – Will (message me!) 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Badboy Lifestyle

In hindsight, the grouped nomination was rash and I sincerely apologize that I stepped on toes. I will be more careful. Chaser T

This page and others is part of the "Seduction Community" (that article left during AfD, but came back via undeletion). Though some of them make assertions to notability, I'm skeptical that any of these people or companies are leaders in their "industry". The non-notability and the slim likelihood that anyone will ever search for these pages leads me to assert that they are advertisements masquerading as articles. *Owen Cook Real Social Dynamics David DeAngelo Ross Jeffries List of commercial seduction teachers Juggler (Seduction Community). Finally, the template on all the pages could probably go if this AfD ends in delete. Erik Von Markovik and Mystery Method might be more appropriately merged into seduction community, if they're really that notable. Indeed, Mystery Method was subject to a prior AfD. --Chaser T 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Modified Nomination In light of the overwhelming response, I am modifying the nomination to include only Badboy Lifestyle. I can't see how it meets either WP:BIO or WP:CORP. As the notability guidelines are structured, proving someone is not notable is proving a negative, so I'm not going to attempt an offer of proof there.--Chaser T 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of Owen Cook, which should be merged in to Real Social Dynamics, almost all of these pages list mainstream media recognition. Further more, within the community all are exceptionally well known. You've added a bunch of erroneous AFD notices (all of which point to the same AFD notice, annoyingly enough) and copy and pasted your message on to all of these, creating a lot of trouble for other Wikipedians. Your 'vague skepticism' translates to a lot of work for a bunch of Wikipedians trying their best to keep this corner of Wikipedia non-biased and spam-free. Please try nominating just one page next time, and do your research.

WoodenBuddha 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Be more respectful before nominating entire communities for deletion. Just take for example these references for Mysterymethod- [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

He is also doing a series on VH1 starting next fall. You will find similar media for the other PUAs.

STONEDMIT 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this somebody's sockpuppet for working just on these articles? This was the first edit. --Chaser T 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:WoodenBuddha. Why is deletion being proposed on articles which cite mainstream news sources documenting notability? Furthermore, I object to the fact that the AFDs were put up without any warning or suggestions on how to improve the articles, and that all the AFDs were put up simultaneously, which makes them very hard to defend at the same time. This is an abuse of the deletion process. Merging Erik von Markovik and Mystery Method into Seduction Community makes zero sense, because all three are already long. User:Chaser claims that these pages are not notable, but provides no actual argument why this is the case. He claims that there is a slim likelihood that anyone will search for them, but if he had taken a brief glance at google, he would have found that:

• • "Mystery Method" has 74,200 results
  • "David DeAngelo" has 98,700 while his product "Double your dating" has 553,000
  • "Ross Jeffries" has 53,400 while his product "Speed Seduction" has 58,100
  • "Real Social Dynamics" has 32,700
  • (Juggler and Badboy can't get any revealing results from google because the names are too generic)

Hence, it's just not true that nobody is going to searching for these pages. Skepticism that these people are really leaders of their industry simply demonstrates a lack of research and knowledge of this subject; it's like saying, "I'm skeptical that Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan were leaders of the feminist movement." --SecondSight 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaser, thanks for waiting on the other AfDs for now. --SecondSight 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The list contains many notable members of the seduction community. Many of whom offer free content which would be off use to the readers. What this list needs now is a description and an evaluation of the individual teachers to reach neutrality.--Seductionreport - Vote put in correct place and formatted correctly, see history--Andeh 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
• Delete -999 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As Chaser points out, the burden of proof is on the article to assert its own notability. Yet the article does so, and it has references from Loaded (UK) magazine, and The West Australian. Now the burden is on those proposing deletion to show that these sources are somehow inadequate. This has not been done; Chaser has not even acknowledged that these citations exist. I think it passes WP:CORP. There are two non-trivial sources cited that are independent of the company itself. There are also more references to the company, but they tend to in European languages I don't speak, so I can't go find them. For example, there was an article in Playboy (Germany). --SecondSight 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for continuing to dialogue, SecondSight. You seem to be referencing CORP criteria one, which for both companies and services references "multiple non-trivial published works". Loaded (UK) and The West Australian might qualify for a company, but I don't think that's helpful for a company (the article actually indicates it's a trademark) run by a single "seduction guru" (as he's called at Seduction Community). As the deletion precedent indicates, "Small companies are not generally notable." What's more google only gives 4,100 results for someone whose website is inactive. As to WP-BIO, the only argument I could see is from the last criteria, with identical language about published works, but judging from the titles only, they don't help. Loaded's "I Can Make You A Stud!" possibly has the person as the "primary subject" (quoting from the WP-BIO), but "Some Secrets You Should Never Share" indicates nothing of the sort.--Chaser T 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  And now his website is up again. --Chaser T 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The Seduction Community is unquestionably notable, but not every member and associated thing merits its own article. GassyGuy 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as GassyGuy, only with "unquestionably" replaced by "questionably" -- GWO
• Delete In agreeance with GassyGuy, not every member/thing associated with a more notable entity needs a page. This can be mentioned on a more main page. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GWO's argument seems to be about the seduction community as a whole - the seduction community is worth documenting, as other wikipedia pages have shown, therefore no matter how 'questionable' it is to GWO, it is notable enough to be documented. Gassyguy's argument that 'not every member/thing associated with a more notable entity needs a page', is fine, but precedent in wikipedia shows exactly that - there are 1000's of porn stars with independent pages on wikipedia, the majority of them stubs, but I see no attempt by users to delete these, as well as pages for individual band members of smaller bands, individual pages for a large majority of internet memes, etc. Badboy's products are becoming increasingly popular in the UK, as well as the US. I also agree with Secondsight, that 'the burden is on those proposing deletion to show that these sources are somehow inadequate'. So far I have not seen this.--Ooblyboo 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  User's first edit, registered two minutes before voting.--Chaser T 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  'registered two minutes before voting' - Me? Firstly, I have been registered with Wikipedia since 18 May - I'm pretty sure that you can see that from my profile. Secondly, how does that remotely matter? Be bold and assume goodwill, isn't that the Wikipedia way? That you felt it necessary to raise a (blatantly incorrect) fact about my registration as a response to a fair point damages your argument, not mine. Whether this page is deleted or not, I have added my comment in goodwill.--Ooblyboo 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I misspoke. The first edit (part of the comment) was two minutes before voting. This account, in fact, has been registered since 18 May: [76]. As to why it matters, see here. It's up to the closing admin.--Chaser T 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the porn articles on here are for nn people, as well as with other examples you offer to some degree, but I draw a different conclusion. I vote delete on everything that doesn't deserve to be here (in my opinion, of course) and hope it goes away. What you're suggesting is, because some of the stuff that isn't notable on its own survives deletion nominations, we should just give up and vote to keep all of it, and with that I cannot agree. GassyGuy 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SecondSight. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-16 09:33Z
• Keep per SecondSight. --Zoz (t) 12:33, 17 June 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 keep. Sango123 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Logan Park High School

Is not suitable for Wikipedia Griggonator 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Griggonator

• Strong Keep This is perfectly fine for Wikipedia, per the terms of listing higher-education schools. The page seems to have been the source of numerous vandalism attack however. Wildthing61476 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wildthing61476. I'm going to clean this article up now. Yanksox 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. High Schools meet the requirements. Kafziel 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep High schools are kept. CalJW 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Unfortunately, the policy is to keep any high school that is created. This one is no different than the 10 million other high schools, so should be kept. Ted 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep I don't see a volation here, but it does seem like there would be one... OTAKU 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Enough with the non notable schools already.JoshuaZ 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nom needs to do way, way better than "is not suitable". --JJay 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep very notable high school, much more so than many others kept here. article needs improving tho. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That others were not deleted does not mean we should keep this one. In any case, the only claim of notability made in the entry is that it had a student who was finalist of a reality tv show. That doesn't seem notable to me. JoshuaZ 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough for mine especially given the established concensus on schools. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunate, unwilling keep - until the policy changes and we can get rid of all the non-notable high schools, we have to keep this. But as soon as the policy changes, I will be more than happy to write "delete" in instead. The policy must change. --Midnighttonight 03:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Delete then (for reason below) --Midnighttonight 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOL was rejected. It is not policy. See the top of the page. JoshuaZ 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Enough with dogmatic deletionism, particulary regarding high schools. The article can certainly use work, but there's no justification for deletion. Let's come up with mutually-agreeable school deletion criteria before any more AfD's are submitted. Alansohn 03:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. One of NZ-SI's more prominent and important high schools. I've added a bit and cleaned the article up. If this needs deletion I can easily find some 100,000 - 200,000 articles which should also be deletion as being far less worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Grutness.-gadfium 09:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. High schools are usually notable. TruthbringerToronto 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What is it that people have against schools? This one is clearly notable. -- Avenue 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough with the pointless high school nominations already. Silensor 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 18:02, 13 June 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. Sango123 23:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination of Russia in the EU

• del. Original research: a random collection of facts supposedly to prove the paranoic title, but even half of them are not directly relevant. `'mikka (t) 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Michael Z. 2006-06-08 20:51 Z
• delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania's potential --Irpen 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above abakharev 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Propaganda piece. CalJW 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some of the links are interesting and bring up some good points. But they should not be kept under this title if at all. Lsjzl 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Russian nationalist propaganda.--Molobo 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherrantly PoV. Perhaps it could be merged into some sort of article about criticisms of the EU. Ace of Sevens 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article speaks about things that many of us feel by no one can prove :), so it really looks like a POV. KNewman 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article doesn't even make sense, as Russia isn't in the EU. Aguerriero (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Starionwolf 23:27, 11 June 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, fails to establish notability. – Will (message me!) 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lost Boys (demogroup)

This article fails to establish notability. It is just a group of guys who do some programming. A simple Google query fails to return sufficient results. Delete as per nn. Tony Bruguier 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, "a group of guys who do some programming" is a pretty dismissive descriptor of demogroups. Usually notable demo folks go into the video game industry, and the article does assert the founders to be working in games right now. As for Google hits, since The Lost Boys are a historical entity (broken up in 1991), I don't believe the Google test is a good indicator of notability, still I could find a few old demos for TLB which means someone out there remembered them well enough to post info about them well after their breakup. hateless 00:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It might be different if some of the projects had articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As User:hateless above pointed out, 1991 was pre World Wide Web era, yet I can dig plenty of relevant google hits mixing such keywords as "TLB", "The Lost Boys", "Atari", "demo", "Spaz" (one of the members), etc [77]. As far as groups found in Category:Demo groups go, TLB seems to fit. Equendil Talk 19:17, 10 June 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 and redirect. Raul654 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality

• Delete. This page is a POV fork of homophobia where the same material is covered. Pelease Delete. The Land 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Homophobia, original thought, probably just want it to redirect it to homophobia. Yanksox 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Exploding Boy 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. —Mira 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all above. Ardenn 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all the above. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The phrase "opposition to homosexuality" is not in common use and the article offers nothing that isn't available anywhere else in Wikipedia. Swpmre 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge. Some of the content here may be salveagable and useful; but we don't need two articles on the subject. --EngineerScotty 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as above CyntWorkStuff 02:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• No opinion but want to express concern. homophobia is a POV term with negative connotations. Arguably, not all opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia" per se. JoshuaZ 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is homophobia by definition. Some people don't think their hatred of/discrimination against/beliefs in the inferiority of others based on skin colour is racism; it still is. Exploding Boy 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  This is not a thoughtful position, but a "kneejerk" reaction. Whether or not you want to admit it, there are those who oppose homosexuality for reasons other than fear or distaste. DavidBailey 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Nonsense. I'm sick of arguing with people who don't understand the definition of the word "homophobia," or who are trying to redefine it to suit their own political ends. Exploding Boy 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect — Nathan ^(talk) 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. useless search term - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 04:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse redirect - Move "Homophobia" to "Opposition to homosexuality" and redirect "Homophobia" to "Opposition to homosexuality". This uses the more neutral term for the main article. --John Nagle 05:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Not true. "Homophobia," while it includes plain and simple "opposition to homosexuality," includes a hell of a lot more. Homopbobia is no more "POV" than "racism." Exploding Boy 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect Agree with above. Homophobia is PoV and doesn't apply in all cases, but no reason to have two articles. Ace of Sevens
• Reverse redirect per John Nagle and Ace of Sevens or Keep since both Pro-life and anti-abortion movement articles exist. --Facto 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Don't want to get too involved in discussion about article I have started, but I think there is room for both. Clearly homophobia exists as a serious psychiatric disorder, but it is separate matter from opposition to homosexuality. Ros Power 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as clinical homophobia. Have you even read the article you're so urgently opposing? Exploding Boy 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect per John Nagle. 'Opposition to homosexuality' is certainly a less derogatory and inflammatory term than 'homophobia'. Tevildo 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Policy normally states we should use the most common term (and the term used by people who actually use the term). I do not feel it is our place to soften the term homophobia.--Andrew c 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think an article with this title could exist, but it seems that this material is already covered in many other places. I don't think it should redirect to Homophobia, and I don't think Homophobia should redirect here. The current article is poorly written, very POV, and uncited. In its current form I see little worth keeping. If it were a well researched and cited article on opposition to homosexuality, it would not be found offensive by LGBT activists (or by fundamentalists). That is not the case now. As much as I personnally find the discussion about opposition to homosexuality to be offensive, I could imagine benefitting from reading a well written article that outlines the position in an NPOV way. This would require making statements that only cite the postions of others. Thus, there would be aritcles on both homophobia and opposition to homosexuality and they would reference each other as articles about two different points of view on the same or similar phenomena. This is similar to how there is the article racism and an article on supremacism. The point of Wikipedia is to educate, and not to settle debates. -- Samuel Wantman 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We are not editors of a dictionary, but editors of an encylopedia. It is not up to us to redefine words because some people find them more or less POV. Opposition To Homosexuality is a poor search term, the article is original research and over-loaded with POV. 83.217.190.69 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article, as it stands now, is a soap-box piece, with an alterior motive (see the article's talk page). If any of this information can be referenced and presented in a NPOV manner, then I'm sure some of it would be fitting to add to Homophobia. But for now, the contents are simply not encyclopedic. romarin[talk to her ] 13:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, it's not a soap box piece, it's an attempt, albeit in its infancy, and incomplete, to present the many reasons why many people oppose homosexuality. Ros Power 13:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is a useless search term - who would ever look it up? - and is covered on other pages. POV may just about be able to be brought into the fold, but the article is currently propagandist not encyclopaedic. Very much agree with comment about being interested in an educative piece, but this article is not it. Fiddle Faddle 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Societal attitudes towards homosexuality has some content overlap with Opposition to homosexuality. Maybe moving some content from the opposition article to the society attitudes article would help. --John Nagle 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A huge thumbs up for Samuel Wantman's quote: this is an educative space, not a soapbox. Article offers no insight, no balance: it's a rant. A nasty pice of work all told. BrainGuy 18:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Assuming I can source the article, which particular aspects or statements do people consider biased and non-neutral. The article, not the author, please. Ros Power 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  The entire article, not a passage of it, is tagged as POV: that's a clue. It's also tagged as unbalanced. Provide alternaitve views (for every quote given, most likely someone will have disputed it.) In all honesty, is it worth it? It's still going to contain a large chunk of original research and there seems a very good chance that it'll be wiped for many of the reasons listed by others above. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably be thinking 'stuff it, life is too short' - but I'm a lazy sod and happy to let our gay friends live in peace, so I guess we're unlikely to agree. BrainGuy 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I know it's been tagged POV. I just want to know why. Wikipedia, surely is about ascertaining the facts, not presenting a world view that some people find comfortable.

  Will you please sign your comments? It is tagged POV because all it presents is a bunch of POV comments, representing only one side of an argument that frankly has been better made elsewhere. Hence also the Unbalanced tag and the Original Research Tag. From the comments offered so far, the only thing the majority of us here seem to be uncomfortable with is the author's unwillingness to adhere to WP protocol. BrainGuy 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which comments are POV? Ros Power 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Ros, you are not that dumb. Nor am I. BrainGuy 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad search term, information covered in other articles, particularly Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, Gay rights opposition, and a host of articles on specific issues (e.g., Same-sex marriage in the United States). This article seems to be a soapbox. Fireplace 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for sure, POV fork. That being said, the creator's WP:POINT is somewhat valid, as the original article is somewhat POV in the other direction. That being said, this is clearly not the correct solution. -- Deville (Talk) 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article needs a lot of work, but to call all opposition to homosexuality "homophobia" is overly simplistic. Since the root of homophobia is phobia or fear, it assumes that those who oppose homosexuality do it out of fear, as opposed to those who do it out of intellectual or religious argument, or out of a concern/love for those whom they feel are doing themselves a disservice or hurting themselves by continuing down that path. DavidBailey 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good grief. If you can't be bothered to read and understand the definition of the word, you really shouldn't be voting here. Exploding Boy 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good grief. If you can't accept that there are other views than yours of what the world is and should be, you shouldn't be voting here. DavidBailey 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Very funny. The point is, you cannot base your vote on disputing the accepted dictionary definition of a word. See Wikipedia:No original research. Exploding Boy 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: And this "concern/love" comes from you being afraid of what will happen to them if they "continue down that path", no? How is this any different? Being against someone who identifies as homosexual, or being against homosexuality in general, is homophobia. Sure, it's not a simple issue, and no one is trying to say that it should be. But adding an article that details a particular POV is not the answer. romarin [talk ] 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Your statement "being afraid" is inaccurate. It may be inconceivable to you that people oppose homosexuality on intellectual, moral, or ethical grounds, but it is true. DavidBailey 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I'm not saying that if the content exists elsewhere, we have to rehash it here. A summary article would be fine with pointers to the relevant content. The article only needs to cover what hasn't been covered elsewhere. DavidBailey 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  You're right, it is completely inconceivable to me that a human being can oppose another human being for something as personal as sexual orientation. But this isn't the subject at hand. The point I was trying to make is that even your own language, "concern", relates directly to fear. romarin [talk ] 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  "You're right, it is completely inconceivable to me that a human being can oppose another human being for something as personal as sexual orientation." The article points out that objection rarely concerns orientation, it concerns behaviour, which is rarely purely "personal". And whether you can conceive it or not, it is true. Ros Power 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the talk page explicitely shows that this article was not created for the right reasons (to balance "homosexual activists and militants "owning" all the material on homosexuality on WikiPedia"). As original research, unsourced, biased POV and POV fork it shouldn't be kept. IronChris | (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did not create the article because such material exists, (though quite why an encyclopaedia would have what amounts to an "LGBT" subculture is beyond my understanding), but because the article, which could/would summarise a huge body of thought and understanding, is conspicuous by its absence. Ros Power 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this article fails every one of our three main principles regarding suitability of articles: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Voting to "keep" is not a valid option in this discussion; the only question is whether to just delete the article or to delete and redirect. Exploding Boy 01:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, POV, unbalanced and the few good bits are covered elsewhere. It's a soap-box article. And worst of all, but not, alas, a standard criterion for deletion, is that the article is so mean-spirited. ReformedCharacter 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Above user is likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet see his user contributions, the first edit is to this Afd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ReformedCharacter --Facto 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or at least redirect to a suitably neutral article on moral and religious aspects of homosexuality. I'm satisfied that this article was created with the primary intention of using Wikipedia to advance and advertise anti-homosexual views. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that homophobia begins The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry. Given that definition, it's not the appropriate place to put opposition to homosexuality. The reverse, however, is workable; "homophobia" could be a section in "opposition to homosexuality". --John Nagle 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It just seems by doing that we would be softening up the term Homophobia, also, I think a note in Homophobia about a person having a consious choice. But I don't think it is in line to just completely alter a term. Prehaps we could alter the term homophobia, but not eliminate it. Yanksox 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment To take a well-written artcle and make it a sub-section in this deservedly tag-laden nonsense is illogical. Mercifully, the consensus seems to be that sanity shall prevail. ReformedCharacter 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect Delete per Exploding Boy's persuasive argument above and redirect to homophobia. If the creator and primary contributors to this article think that homophobia is unbalanced, they can discuss it on that article's talk page.--Chaser T 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not mentioned above is that there's also Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which is more balanced than either Opposition to homosexuality or homophobia. Is there salvageable content from Opposition to homosexuality that could be merged into Societal attitudes towards homosexuality? --John Nagle 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Turn into a disambiguation page I think both sides of this debate have reasonable concerns. A possible solution is to turn Opposition to homosexuality into a disambiguation page. It could read something like this:

Opposition to homosexuality can take a number of forms. Discussions about the reasons individual or groups object to homosexuality may be found in the following articles:

• Homophobia
• Homosexuality and religion
• Sexual orientation
• Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

This can be fleshed out a bit, and there is probably some other articles that could be linked, but you get the idea... -- Samuel Wantman 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary, a lot of work to go through just to make a couple of people happy. As a few of editors have mentioned, there already exists Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Opposition to homosexuality is one side of this, no? What does the author of this article think about developing her points in a neutral manner and adding them there, instead of pursuing her fork? She has so far been silent on this particular issue, but it seems to me (as well as to several others, apparently) the most logical things to do at this point. romarin [talk ] 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per listing. Redirect to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. -Smahoney 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV Spam created by a probable POV vandal. Davodd 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality; good find Nagle. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork William Avery 07:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment When does the keep/delete decision get made? We've been talking since 8 June. I only ask out of curiosity. ReformedCharacter 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  The debate process will proceed for up to five days (or sometimes longer - basically as long as there is active debate) and then the article will be deleted or kept. -Smahoney 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  After 5 days, it's just a question of an uninvolved admin deciding to close it. If I hadn't commented above, I would do it right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for letting me know. So much to learn! I'm sure a passing admin will put it out of its misery sooner or later. ReformedCharacter 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Happy to have it deleted. I should not have started the article without the time to flesh it and substantiate it, although it would be a fairly straightforward task. I will gladly take it offline, work on it and repost at a later date when I have the time. I do however think that there is a perfectly valid place for it.Ros Power 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, there's at least a valid place for you to work on it, and I took the liberty of copying it there. User:Ros Power/Opposition to homosexuality It would be prudent to get input from others before reposting it in any form in the mainspace, lest it be deleted again.--Chaser T 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Splendid idea. ReformedCharacter 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't evaluated the content of this page, but if it isn't meant to be why not copy the content from Homophobia to Opposition to Homosexuality and redirect the former? I believe the second title is better, because Homophobia or Homophobe is often used to insult anyone with a moral back bone. It is impossible to use the word Homophobe in a good way. Chooserr 23:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  You can't use racism or puppy mill or spousal abuse in a good way either; we still have articles on them. Exploding Boy 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's just a suggestion, but I still would favour it over putting all the content about oppositions to homosexuality on a page title Homophobia. Really it is about opposition to homosexuality not about true homophobes. Chooserr 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Chooserr was specifically directed by Ros Power to Opposition to homosexuality[78] based on content Chooserr had created[79]. CovenantD 00:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is good to know. Actually, Ros has been trying to recruit others as well. See User talk:Pollinator. Exploding Boy 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  And everyone would also like to know how you got here. Seriously now, I don't know Ros. All I said is I'd give the article a look, and I made a comment here that has little to do with whatever the current content is. I didn't even vote save or delete - so please please leave me alone. Chooserr 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board if you want to know where the votes are coming from. --Facto 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI The Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board is for the benefit of ANYONE who wants to be informed about what is happening to articles related to LGBT topics. -- Samuel Wantman 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reverse redirect:I hadn't seen this option when I posted my comment so I will vote for it now. Chooserr 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• redirect POV fork Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect; no one will search for this term - redirection will be pointless. --Strothra 03:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirection defers recreation. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:23, 17 June 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. Sango123 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthew James Jones

Hoax article. The style and content is very similar to the usual attack articles, including a mention that his underage girlfriend is related to Josef Mengele. Ted 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax, probable attack. BuckRose 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete, Not for deletion.
  Matthew Jones is a well known local character.
  Its widely held that distant links to Dr Mengele exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialNeeds (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete via {{db-attack}}. And, of course, if that doesn't work, it's also a blatant hoax. So, you know, it's gone either way, but I think it can be speedied. -- Kicking222 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes please get rid of this! ugh Lsjzl 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy. Hoax articles are inherently nonsense. -- GWO
• If real, Speedy delete via {{db-attack}}. Unfortunately, hoaxes aren't speedy material, but Delete, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 04:57, 14 June 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 to speedily keep, bad faith nomination. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

VG Cats

Is not suitable for Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotsomeapples (talk • contribs)

• Keep - 673,000 Google hits for "VG Cats", popularity in the video gaming community, Scott Ramsoomair's been featured in a column on CBS.com [80]... lots of notability here. Tony Fox 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Long running comic that has been regularily updated for the last 4 1/2 years, definitely worthy of an article. -- VederJuda 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Nominator does not provide reason why this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. While the article itself didn't assure me of its notability, the info provided by Tony Fox and VederJuda convinces me otherwise. Agent 86 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, immensely popular webcomic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Nom has not asserted any valid reason for deletion. As stated by others, VG Cats is an immensely popular webcomic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very popular webcomic. Nom has given no good reason for deletion. jgp 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nomination of VG Cats is Igotsomeapples (talk · contribs) 15^th edit. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Well known webcomic. Deathawk 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep User AFDed in bad faith/insufficient reasons to delete. User is newish to wikipedia.--Andeh 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known, established webcomic with large fan base. Substaintual article. --Monotonehell 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I've never read it and yet I've heard of it. I suggest bad faith nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is on the front page of Google when searching for vg cats. DJSnuggles 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bad faith nom, user is uncivil and has vandalized, claiming "Fixing typo" while actually inserting in links to youtube and newgrounds. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:35, 9 June 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. Robert 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

List of IC objects

Does this page serve any purpose of value? Although there are a small scattering of data within the massive list, over 98% of the list is blank -- and with links to pages that don't exist. If there is a legitimate purpose for this list, fine, but until data is added, I think it should be deleted. Any astronomers have an opinion? CPAScott 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just a numbered list of redlinks —Mets501^talk 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete THis should be a category, if it existed at all and I believe this is already covered by existing categories. Ace of Sevens 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There already is a category Category:IC objects and this article does nothing at present that categories can't do. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is what categories are for--Kalsermar 01:57, 10 June 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. – Robert 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

VoicInt

According to the deletion policy, this is simply an advert, no editing has been done in months and nothing links there. This is my first time applying one of these tags. If an error has been made please take no offense. Lsjzl 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable & spam. Weird that this article made it for so long. Good job, Lsjzl. Kafziel 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Yanksox 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lsjzl, you pretty much did everything you could possibly do to say, "This article should be deleted." You even checked out the "What links here," which almost nobody (including myself) ever does. Well done. -- Kicking222 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom this is just an advert. DrunkenSmurf 19:53, 13 June 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 no consensus to delete, so defaulting to keep. There were several suggestions to merge with Green Party of Canada. Joyous! | Talk 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace and Ecology Party of Canada

Nothing even verifying this so-called party's existance. WP:NOR. Reads like an ad. Delete Ardenn 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: [81] slightly notable. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nom. Google search reveals mostly mirror sites. Does not appear to be registered with Elections Canada. Appears to not yet have participated in any election of any sort. Agent 86 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. They never registered as a federal party, and don't seem to be in operation anymore. Their website is gone (including the ip link that Google turns up[82]), the one public email list I could find for them has almost no traffic, the only media mentions I could find were kind of obscure ones from last year. If some evidence of the party existing and actually doing something could be cited, I could be persuaded to shift to a keep vote. —GrantNeufeld 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only reference is a Yahoo group and that doesn't even seem to be active. Ace of Sevens 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that it is no longer active is not relevant. This is not an encyclopedia of things current, but of things current and historical. The article has probelms, which I will try to address in the coming days. It was a serious attempt to organize an alternative to the Green Party of Canada, but one that failed. Failure is not a criterion for deletion. Ground Zero | t 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor is failure a criteria for inclusion. Ardenn 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the focus of this short-lived organization seems to have been to serve as a counter to the Green Party of Canada, and since they don't seem to have actually done much of anything (I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, but would be willing to reconsider if such can be provided), perhaps a paragraph on the Peace and Ecology Party would be appropriate to include in the GPC article as a merge instead of just a delete here? —GrantNeufeld 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a reasonable solution, although the GPC article is fiarly large already. It is unlikely that there is much more to be said about the PEP. Ground Zero | t 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Green Party of Canada (if the information can be sourced)Homey 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Green Party of Canada per above comments. —GrantNeufeld 06:32, 14 June 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. Sango123 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine No Limits

Originally {{prodded}} with reason, “Original Research, appears to be something made up in school one day, unverifiable". Removed without explanation by original editor, so here it is. Agent 86 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up after consuming too many mushrooms. Fan1967 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete After reading that article, I couldn't possibly say it better than Fan. -- Kicking222 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this article doesn't actually refer to anything. There is no reason this would be in an encyclopedia. It isn't even referenced! Now, I did search on Google and did find the phrase all over the place. But that isn't enough to keep an article seemingly that is just another's thoughts. Lsjzl 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to be gussied-up Solipsism. It also seems to be OR, if you can call it research. Ace of Sevens 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• Deletion Agreed I suggest that users Agent 86, Fan1967, Kicking222, and Danny Lilithborne read Jimbo's Statement of Principles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales#Statement_of_principles. Wikipedia was established partly to promote respectful cooperative behavior but rather than sticking to specific issues in a constructive manner, Agent 86 begins with “something made up in school one day” and Fan1967 follows up with “Wikipedia is not for something made up after consuming too many mushrooms” with Danny Lilithborne simply calling it "trash". This discussion has prompted me to further review Wikipedia and I found that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability It was my misunderstanding to think that Wikipedia was an attempt to consolidate in one place what can be thought of as a factual clearinghouse, which would also include clarification of points that form a logical basis for factual understanding. What I have said is not original research, nor is it something made up in school one day, but part of a 51 years of personal experience and study, nor is it unverifiable except to those who would rather have an opinion than actually see what is indeed available for review. You are each obviously unfamiliar with Einstein's interest in the nature of reality and his involvement in things such as the book "Mental Radio". But I suppose that Einstein understood the weakness inherent in how people view the world which is what freed him to think so differently and go beyond all the best minds of his time and prevailing concepts of physics. That is precisely why he made the comment I quoted in my original article. I am new to Wikipedia and due to the nature of your comments, I find this environment isn’t conducive the sharing of meaningfully valid information, nor discussing with civility what is appropriately includable or where. I would have expected more intelligent comments in this discussion, like "please give more specific references to" with a reason as to what it is that you don't understand or which you feel needs clarification or referencing. I appreciate the comments of Lsjzl and Ace of Sevens who made meaningful comments that might have made for an enjoyable discussion. But that will be unnecessary because I'm not interested in affiliating myself with a system where the system’s own guidelines for discussion aren’t adhered to by people who lack maturity, mutual respect, and the ability to communicate meaningfully. Please leave this posting on display for the full 5 days so that I may share the kind of review that went into our discussion. If there is a moderator outside of the above respondents, I would appreciate your observations. Thank you, Duane Young 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Not buying it. You don't get to ride Einstein to validate your own made-up philosophies, and I'm quite offended at the suggestion that we're "obviously unfamiliar" simply because we see this for what it is - unencyclopedic trash. If anything, Lsjzl and Ace of Sevens were even harder on you than I was, Ao7 calling it "[original research], if you can call it research". I'm personally sick of wannabe Hegels and Schopenhauers trying to pass their trendy mish-mash of tenets, then getting mad at the Wikipedia concept and calling us "communists" and whatnot when they get rightfully erased as unprofessional hodgepodge. This AfD process was created for a reason, and it's not for the vacuous pastime of critical debates on Postexistiphililennonarxism. We're trying to create an encyclopedia, not indulge in a jolly old bipartisan romp around the park. Do what you have to to get your article kept, but don't guise personal attacks in intelligent-sounding words again. Danny Lilithborne 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Ditto. There's nothing remotely encyclopedic or salvageable here. Fan1967 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed. -Wikipedia Civility Quote 24.180.12.206 07:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "[I]f the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less." - WP:EQ See? Two people can play the wikilawyering game. It's fun! =) But seriously, just a suggestion - this is a deletion debate about the article. If anything, we're insulting the article. We don't usually have problems with users who create the ocassional bad articles... everyone's probably guilty of that at some point. So please cool down before accusing other people of etiquette breaches - this debate isn't even moderately warm yet, and you don't want to see the worst flamewars I've seen. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We're not out here to publish Random Thoughts. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:35, 11 June 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 speedy delete by User:MacGyverMagic --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Ray Hiltner

Delete, contested prod, article claims notability, but this person seems to be non-notable. Prodego ^talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this "internationally renowned artist" - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  As long as the article claims he is notable, it can't be speedy deleted. And being a "internationally renowned artist", would make a person notable. :-) Prodego ^talk 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for internationally well known, he's awfully underground[83]. Yanksox 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article itself makes it abundently clear that this is a person who is studying to be a possible internationally known artist...but hasn't really acheived anything of note just yet. If and when he does, then he might deserve an article. At this point, less so. IrishGuy talk 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete Those of us familiar with the art world know how remarkable the students of Jacob Collins are, and Nicholas is considered among his finest.Steveh1023 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment But, he's a student that has yet to attain notability. I guess this is all in the eye of the beholder. Let's give Nick the chance to become notable before we sing his praises. Yanksox 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I guess I find that to be a strange way of looking at things. After all, doesn't one become notable, in part, by others singing one's praise? And is it fair to label someone as not having attained notibility in a field with which you may not be familiar?Steveh1023 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I should clarify. A better saying would be don't count your chickens till they hatch...or something like that. Yanksox 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" may be a fine saying, but not entirely applicable here, as I can assure you that Nicholas' chickens have already begun to hatch.Steveh1023 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If they did, he would have at least one google hit, or a hit on any search engine, or be mentioned by some sort of information. So far, the signs point to the fact that this has yet to occur. Yanksox 22:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Try "Nicholas Hiltner" and you may be pleasantly, or perhaps unpleasantly in your case, surprised.Steveh1023 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete Please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.69.126 (talk • contribs)
• Comment No offense, but it's Hiltner's personal website, and a few other links describing how he is "(good at) navigating the web comes naturally to a new generation of artists—like himself. Hiltner participates in online art forums, posting images and receiving feedback."[84]. None of those articles show Hiltner is above and beyond the rest of his field. All, I know is that he is a sculptor. Ok, anything to tell me that he's notable? Nope. Sorry, let's not worry about Wikipedia but actually worry about the subject. I don't understand how having a wikipedia article suddenly makes you great. If you garner a wikipedia article, chances are Wikipedia is something you're not going to care terribly about. Yanksox 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment None taken, don't worry, but understand that my previous comment was simply negating yours, and showing that he did indeed have "at least one google hit, or a hit on any search engine, or be mentioned by some sort of information," no more, no less. And what, may I ask, prompted the rant on wikipedia making someone great? Certainly it was not something to be inferred from my simple comments.Steveh1023 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You're right it was a little bit of an unprokoed rant, you can post messages on my talk page btw just to keep this article short, of something that I've been noticing. My little term that I call a Wikidream, in which people will post what they wish to do or overexagerate what they have done. I feel like I'm crushing dreams. But that's aside the point. I just really have to question Hiltner's notability. Yanksox 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notability whatsoever asserted for this artist in his early 20s. Five unique (seven total) Google hits for "Nicholas Hiltner". -- Kicking222 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Steve, welcome to Wikipedia. Can you please sign your comments and posts with 4 tilde's please ~, thanks.--Andeh 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems that if this guy was "internationally renowned" and prestigious enough to warrant a Wikipedia definition, he would have maybe won some sort of award or gotten some other recognition. If there was a link showing something like that, then the article would have some validity. Plus, he does have very few Google hits, and most if not all of them are stuff he probably put out there himself. Fisheromen 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Gentlemen, there comes a time when even the most dedicated of brothers must admit the failure of his ploys. I accept your gracious judgments, and I thank you for your undying dedication to purging wikipedia of non-notable articles, however curious it is that you've responded within a few minutes of the article's creation. Good day, and may the force be with you.Steveh1023 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You know you don't have to leave right? I think your dedication to knowledge could be very valuable to Wikipedia. Yanksox 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, but I believe my work here is complete. And so I thank you for your good counsel. Come, my coach! Steveh1023 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete All it says right now is his birth date. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keen observation, Mr. Lefty; indeed, I have committed Wikipedia suicide! Steveh1023 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This should just be deleted and got over with, then. Fisheromen 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Author conceded, so i think this qualifies for speedy now. Ace of Sevens 06:51, 9 June 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. Sango123 23:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mud-blood.net

Fansite, fails WP:WEB. Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I fix it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ2 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Is most def WP:NOT also not NPOV nor sourced esp since written by "I" and references his friends. Nothing rude meant at all just not wiki I think? Lsjzl 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lsjzl.--Andeh 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deleate it. I don't get it. Is thier no way to fix it. I can get someone else to write an article for it if you wish. Any straight answer Typ2 (talk · contribs)
  • On the deletion notice on your page is this line "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, join the discussion and consider editing the article so that the deletion policy does not apply." You may discuss here why it is suitable for this site or should remain even before a clean up begins. You can always voice your opinion here I have found! Hope this helps. Lsjzl 22:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I just don't see what is wrong with the article about the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ2 (talk • contribs)
  • Nothing wrong with the site, and even the article can be improved, but Wikipedia does not need articles on every webpage. Please read WP:WEB. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Lsjzl. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you do not need an article on every webpage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ2 (talk • contribs)

How can I edit the article so that the deleation policy does not apply to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ2 (talk • contribs)

You have to read WP:WEB like Jfdwolff said, and in a sense show how the site fits with what websites are suitable for wikification. (ok ok not a real word) Lsjzl 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would recieving the badge of Honor from the Potter police which is a well known Harry Potter webmaster help center be classifed as an award. I also put on thier that they have won awards from Spinnerend.Com for other things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ2 (talk • contribs)

So is anyone can answer if the site awrds from potter poilce and spinnerend are acceptable. (Typ2 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Can I ask why everyoen is saying delete and not comemnting to what I have said and asked please.{Typ2 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)}

• Comment The Potter Police (who don't look notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article themselves) give their badge of honor to anyone who basically passes their standards. [85] It's not like an award where only one wins, and there's nothing in their standards about "unique and orignal conent". I can't find any record of any site called "spinnerend.com". Fan1967 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, i found spinnersend.com (helps if you get the name right) and it looks so unnoteable as to barely exist. Barely a few dozen google hits. Fan1967 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect, just in case. Wikipedia is not advertising space. Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Typ2: No, they would not qualify as they are from fansites. In order to qualify it needs to be from a notable and reputable source, such as from a newspaper (National Newspaper, not the local paper) or maybe some kind of national association or something of that nature. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:40, 9 June 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. Sango123 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Basic wiki info

Could not quite find a Speedy criteria that fit. Wikipedia already has a Help page. This article, which seems to pass itself off as wiki policy, is almost a duplicate of the original editor's user page. Agent 86 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This was made by a new user it seems (not that being a new user qualifies your pages for deletion) and doesn't have much info on it... ? Lsjzl 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure exactly who this guy thinks he is or what he thinks he's doing. He listed his own article (which is just copied from numerous WP guidelines) as a good article. He claims that he's not a new user, but he also claims to be the "owner" of an article. He changed the article Help (not help on WP, just the article on the word "help") and linked it to his own userpage (edit summary regarding Mr. Mod). Seriously, does he think he's the Wikipedia god? -- Kicking222 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm not trying to WP:BITE or anything like that... I'm honestly amazingly confused about whether or not this guy thinks he has some sort of power. At one point, he even states on the talk page for this article, "Thanks, WIKIPEDIA." Either this guy is Jimbo Wales on a bender, or he's got some amazing illusions of grandeur. -- Kicking222 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP already has plenty of help pages —Mets501^talk 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing on this page or Mr. Mod's user page to make this article better or more useful than Help. And I seriously doubt that anyone other than him labeled it as a good article. BuckRose 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course nobody else labeled it as such. Nobody else has even edited the talk page for this article. -- Kicking222 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the owner of Basic wiki info

I do not mean this to be a duplicate. I am Mr. Mod. Before you want to delist an arcticle, check who created this one and who created Mr. Mod. They are the same.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mod (talk • contribs)

• • What?! Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there are already plenty of help pages for Wikipedia, seems a bit silly a newbie making a page to help other users.--Andeh 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gently and kindly, as I suspect this user of being fairly youthful, but delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Daniel PB Smith, only with extra kittens and loveliness. -- GWO
• Delete per above. What's the point of duplicating the help pages?
• Delete redundant, in the wrong namespace Gnewf 09:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. From the article: "If you want to fool around and test things out, use the Sandbox." User should take his own advice. Also, Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by their creator. Barno 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gnewf --Zoz (t) 17:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds of redundancy... if I'm to understate a bit. This sort of articles belong to Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces, which already happen to be chock full of basic editing help. I suggest the author to improve existing articles before undertaking the ardourous task of creating some new article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a how-to, but someone perhaps should contact him and let him know why this is on AfD and explain the lack of "ownership" here. WP:AGF, his heart is in the right place.--Isotope23 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That was done - I didn't want to bite. If you followed the previous version of the link in the "unsigned" entry above, it took you to a non-existent user. I've fixed the link and you now can see the conversation there. Agent 86 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, I see that now. Thanks!--Isotope23 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 'nuff said. --Ixfd64 20:33, 13 June 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. Sango123 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Intel Central Processing Units

Completely redundant with all other Intel processor list pages, including List of Intel microprocessors, Comparison of Intel processors, List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Celeron microprocessors, List of Intel Core microprocessors, List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium M microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors, List of Intel Xeon microprocessors. With all these other pages covering the same information in more detail, this one is just listcruft and needs to go. jgp 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate information exists. Intel ® inside? --Starionwolf 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the the same reasons I opined delete for the AMD processor comparison... Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports.--Isotope23 20:11, 13 June 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. Sango123 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of AMD Central Processing Units

Completely redundant with all other AMD processor list pages, including List of AMD microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon XP microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, List of AMD Duron microprocessors, List of AMD Sempron microprocessors, and List of AMD Opteron microprocessors. The other pages cover the same information, but in more detail. This page is just listcruft and needs to go. jgp 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate information. As much as I like Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the list needs to go. --Starionwolf 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I even tried to add some info on it - but that was before I found more complete lists. Genius82 00:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks encyclopedic value. DVD+ R/W 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User:210.84.36.36 has attempted to remove the AfD notice from the page. jgp 07:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I love AMD processors, but this is not consumer reports. Comparison articles are not suitable for Wikipedia IMO, and are arbitrary by nature.--Isotope23 20:10, 13 June 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 Merge with Metroidvania. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Castleroid

The page Castleroid has been re-created over an article that was originally called "Non-linear exploration". Speedy delete?

• Delete Not a speedy candidate, but definitely a non-notable neologism. Less than 600 total Google hits (about 130 unique) for "castleroid". The original AfD was quite a long time ago, but I doubt that the article is considerably different from what it was then. -- Kicking222 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the 1st AfD.--blue520 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• And here is the AfD for Non-linear exploration the originating article for this current version.--blue520 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Metroid-style game, along with Metroidvania. Looks like one of them silly disputes over which game should be put in the title... I say go with the first game that implemented it and mention all other names people commonly use. (Okay, I'm a Metroid fan, but I'm not taking sides here. Just a suggestion.) But that's a cleanup issue, not deletion issue. Thus, merge. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge There's no reason to have two articles discussing the exact same thing, especially when the only key difference appears to be whether or not the game is a Castlevania game. Google shows more hits for Metroidvania, so I thing there should be a merger to that article. 151.151.73.170 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Just as a note, this vote was mine. Lankybugger 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment They should be left distinct. The term castleroid is a description that should be left around much like Leet speak is kept as it's own topic. Pointers from catleroid to metroidvania and non-linear exploration should be considered (if not already there). But it's nice to have it separated from a particular game since it describes a lot of castlevania games (which is the implication of castleroid, a castlevania game that mimics metroid like play)

While I can agree with the point that a Castleroid differs from a Metroidvania in that a Castleroid is, by definition, a Castlevania game I'd like to hear your reasoning for keeping the article seperate? The only difference is the fact that one is a Castlevania game by definition while the other is not. Couldn't that be covered by a section in the proposed Metroidvania article without defining the same sort of genre twice? 151.151.21.104 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, rename Metroid-style game to Metroidvania, and add a note that fans specifically call "Metroid-style Castlevania games" "Castleroids". For the sake of "full disclosure" I should note that I'm the person who wrote the article Metroid-style game as a compromise after my attempts to make Metroidvania an article about "Metroid-style games" were reverted to a simple redirect to Castleroid. Luvcraft 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; ditto to the above, with a qualifier: some fans. "Metroidvania" is a widely-used and easily-understood bit of jargon for all games in this model (and was, indeed, created within the Castlevania fandom). For practical purposes, it makes the most sense as an umbrella entry. The term "Castleroid" is a specialized, rarely-used (and semantically inaccurate) description, that seems only noteworthy as an niche attempt to reverse a common term to suit a certain agenda, like "herstory" or what-have-you. If any of these three terms are encyclopedic, then that would be "Metroidvania", simply again on the basis of common use and therefore likelihood of a specific search.--71.139.19.107 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - I have heard of people describing this a number of times, including in at least one gaming magazine (Unfortunatley, i can't remember whether it was GMR, EGM or Nintendo Power. I just haven't heard of this by these names! If not mergeing Castleroid and Metroidvania, i'd say make them part of the Metroid and Castlevania articles.

• Merge with Castlevania and Metroid-style game as appropriate. SAMAS 19:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Metroid-style game and Metroidvania. These can't be lumped into the main Castlevania or Metroid articles because they are used to describe non-franchise games such as Cave Story and Eternal Daughter, and it would be silly to have two identical sections in two separate game articles. Kil ^(talk) 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Castlevania#Evolution of the games. Guermantes 20:19, 16 June 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulldyke

Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete More like a definition anyway. Definately not like the fuck article. Lsjzl 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Butch and femme. Yanksox 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if anything, it's a dicdef —Mets501^talk 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's also purposely offensive. - Zepheus 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mets501^talk.--Andeh 23:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Yanksox. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Re-direct to Bull dyke. Ace of Sevens 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect both bulldyke and bull dyke to Butch and femme ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mets501. Tevildo 22:28, 10 June 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 The result of the debate was speedy delete under G1. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Caitlin J. Shields

Vandalism/practical joke/humorous intent/ Not a serious article at all Fisheromen 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G1; tagged as such. -Whomp 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense —Mets501^talk 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom.--Andeh 23:06, 8 June 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Tom

Fails WP:BIO. Co-created a NN company that created a NN website, both of which are being PRODded. His co-founder is under AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kun Gao). Delete The JPS^{talk to me} 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN bio —Mets501^talk 23:02, 8 June 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. Sango123 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Leah Gloria

Child actor no more credits other than Barney & Friends. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Barney, my Pebbles! Delete all. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I missed this one, thanks for watching my back, Cambridge! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:53, 9 June 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. Sango123 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Eppes

Child actor no more credits other than Barney & Friends. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Including all of the following: Jessica Zucha, Susannah Wetzel, Hayden Tweedie, Becky Swonke, Katherine Pully, Fernando Moguel, Pia Manalo, Demi Lovato, Corey Lopez, Kayla S. Levels, Marisa Kuers, Lauren King, Adrienne Kangas, Alexander Jhin, Jeffrey Hood, Hayley Greenbauer, Trent Gentry, Blake Garrett, Alyssa Franks, Dylan Crowley, John David Bennett plus two that were missed from the original Leah Gloria, Brian Eppes CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Again, thanks for watching my back! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:53, 9 June 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 Keep - Richardcavell 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NAET

AfD: WP:SPAM / WP:VAIN / WP:CITE

I am also nominating the following related page: Devi Nambudripad --Monotonehell 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete The technique turns up many google hits, but they have a wiff of self-promotion and I can't find any mention outside the alt medicine community. JoshuaZ 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a real treatment and there are many mainstream press accounts available, both pro and con. It is essential that a reference work contain information on medical treatments, even when they are "alternative". --JJay 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Devi Nambudripad if there is no notable information about her aside from her invention of NAET. As for NAET itself, keep and improve. From reading on the subject [86], it seems that this alergy treatment is regarded as quack medicine ... but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. BigDT 03:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have heard fabulous things about this treatment. It falls under the naturopathy techniques of addressing allergies. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.243.47 (talk • contribs)

But are there any scholarly references that can be cited for it? WP:CITE --Monotonehell 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many. This might be a good start [87]. Google scholar gives roughly 35 hits with a restricted search [88]. Google books maybe 40 [89]. As I previously mentioned, there are also tons of accounts in newspapers and the mainstream press. --JJay 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd support a merge and rewite if any sources can be found. (But I won't vote since I raised the AfD) --Monotonehell 14:42, 9 June 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 Keep - extraordinarily well-known poem, taught in US literature classes for generations. Xoloz 16:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

Transwiki to Wikisource, then remove the poem from the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The poem is already on Wikisource, so transwiki-ing is obviously unnecessary. Otherwise, the poem isn't popular enough (and the criticism isn't sufficiently well-written or important) to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd suggest just getting rid of the whole thing. -- Kicking222 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep subject to removal of the actual poem from the article. The poem popularized (or originated?) the phrase "Good fences make good neighbors" which gets 137,000 Google hits. It's a very well-known poem. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is no need for a serparate article just for the phrase. It can be a sub section about the poet. Notability questions. Copyvio. Robertsteadman 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to see the copyright issues straightened out. Wikipedia:Public domain states quite clearly that everything written prior to January 1, 1923 is in the public domain; if that page is incorrect, we need to know about it. (The rule of 70 years + life of author appears to have come into effect starting with publications in 1978, from what I can read of the copyright code.) In fact, the poem is already on WikiSource in its entirety, so apparently someone there believes it is not under copyright. -- SCZenz 07:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  That WP Public Domain policy is wrong - copyrigth remains for 70 years after teh death of an author or composer. If someone wrote something in 1900 aged 10, then lived to see in their 100th birthday then died, Copyright wouldn't expire until 2060. Yes, it is slightly different in some countries but most have the same rules.Robertsteadman 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  You've said this before, but I wish you'd do something other than argue about it in relationship to this one article. Do you have the source for this? Have you considered fixing Wikipedia:Public domain...? -- SCZenz 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is the only article I have come across where it has been a major issue (thankfully now corrected) - yes I will consider correcting the WP policy - the problem there comes from the complex nature of that article that doesn't make it clear that artistic works are different from, say, recordings. Robertsteadman 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  As was pointed out on Talk:Mending Wall today, Project Gutenburg has this poem and they also claim it's in the public domain. -- SCZenz 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  By US law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, without regard to the life of the author. The poem in question was published in 1914 in the USA. It is indeed public domain. Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I suspect that prior opinions may be about a different article; only excerpts are there now, and those excerpts are surely fair use. AAR, this is a canonical poem in the USA, and at least as worthy of an article as aught else in Category:Poems or its subcategories. Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• NB. The page has been hugely altered since the AfD was put up but, to my mind, still doesn't warrant a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsteadman (talk • contribs)
• Keep as a good article stub to reference when people come looking for "Good fences...", like I was earlier today. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do please read this from WP. I am not convinced that the poem is public domain - I think the WP public domain policy is being misinterprted. Robertsteadman 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• And this is the act itself. Robertsteadman 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article seems to state quite clearly that all works published prior to 1923 remain in the public domain. What makes you think otherwise? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • No it doesn't - it refers to works which have come out of copyright from prior to 1923 - Frost died in 1963 - this poem (and ALL his other works) do not come out of copyright until 2033 - 70 years after his death. Robertsteadman 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The article on the Sonny Bono act says that it freezes the public domain at the date of 1923. This poem was published in 1914. Its public domain status was not affected by extension, because it was already in the public domain when the act became law, and the act does not retroactively revive expired copyrights. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delete this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 13 June 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Awesome

Newgroundscruft. nn flash animation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fancruft Artw 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hbdragon88 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No article on "A New Bunny", which is much more popular. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's definitely not more popular. MGA has over a million views, Daily Featured, Review Crew pick, other awards. ANB only has over 500K views and just Daily 2nd Place. It only has 22K votes versus MGA's 76K votes. So no, ANB is not more popular than MGA. Hbdragon88 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this was dominating the top (blah I forget the number, I left when Stampler faded) it would be notable. But...it's not. Yanksox 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been highly ranked on newgrounds. As for "A New Bunny" that only has 18,000 search results while "Metal Gear Awesome" has 25,000. --Stripedtiger 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:46, 9 June 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. Metamagician3000 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All In Poker

It's like an amalgamation of a vanity article and a cautionary tale. Regardless, the site in question has an Alexa in the 4 millions. Crystallina 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Kicking222 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteGoogle the names of the two "creators"...one hit between them. This is totally a hoax. -- Scientizzle 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What exactly is a WSOP, anyhow? Yamaguchi先生 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WSOP is the World Series of Poker. This is just another gambling site, and not even a prominent one. Fan1967 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am personally an All-In Poker user and I have made millions. Even though they have taken my mother and my two daughters hostage, I'm still making profit from the last tournament I won. It's a great servie, I say anyone who knows anything about poker should definately sign up, now! beboponfriday

• Well, that makes me comfortable with the article, right there. Delete Tony Fox 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this is a worthwhile article to keep, it really does describe All-In Poker GodOfWikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beboponfriday (talk • contribs)
• I'm all in... for keeping it. Bob Sacamano— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.209.124 (talk • contribs)
• Delete and perhaps WP:BJ the How To Play section: "to help the beginner poker player learn how to lose their money". --Zoz (t) 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete this is a joke right?Antmoney85 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. King Bee 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Deleuze 14:38, 16 June 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. - brenneman ^{L} 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day(Third nomination)

First AfD was full of sock/meat puppets and led to a no consensus. Same basic problem still stands. A day made up by one radio guy is not notable.JoshuaZ 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not at all notable GassyGuy 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Noteable by Radio Licence.Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete talk page reads like a frat party. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the content of a talk page were one of the criteria for deletion, Wikipedia would be far, far smaller than it is today. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. BuckRose 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Post afdanons now or wait? Fan1967 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as recreated content per this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day BigDT 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• The argument on the talk page is that the last AfD was closed early. Let's give this thing the full debate (puppets and all) so there will be no debate next time. Fan1967 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable made up holiday Wikipedia has an article for Talk like a pirate day, so why not this? I acnowledge that this was a recreated article. but I have to wonder why it was deleted in the first place.Deathawk 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then read the earlier AfD. It's pretty clear. Fan1967 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The holiday is 4 years old now, I personally celebrated it this year with a friend despite not living in Boston and having never heard of this DJ, and the article is currently the #1 result on Google for "steak and a bj day". I just looked it up randomly tonight when a friend questioned the date, leading me to this discussion. In short, the subject of this article is considerably more notable now than when it was deleted last year. Raindog469 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Comments on this AFD are essentially the only edits Raindog469 has ever made (contribs). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - having the article being #1 Google result for a search of the actual term is not much of an argument for keeping the article - if I made up a hoax article on "Give Confusing Manifestation Money Day" it would be number 1 in its search. More important would be things like - is it being covered in major media? Is there a chance of it getting included in some kind of official calendar? Does anyone notable publicly endorse it? If you can give strong positive answers to those, then you can put them in the article, and maybe make it saveable. Confusing Manifestation 13:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• According to Precedence, Radio Stations with a license are noteable, and can then also (in a weak fashion) be a major media outlet. Its not solid, of course, but it helps the articles case. Google Trends[90] show that it gets the same, if not more, hits than other 'similar' holidays. The chance of it showing on a calander is completely objective too, and shouldnt really be considered as an against point. Many day-to-day calanders have many random, interesting or inane facts on them, all produced by major print companies, and a day like this would fit right into one of those forms. The calander I use is made by a major publisher, and it doesnt have Hanaka listed, or many other major holidays, nor does it have many minor holidays. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trjn, while I'm a pretty strong supporter of this new holiday, the pirate one is called Talk like a pirate day and not "speak like a pirate day". The former dwarfs the various permutations of Steak and Blowjob Day on Google Trends, likely due to the necessity among those promoting Steak and Blowjob Day in the mainstream media of referring to it as "Steak and _______ Day" where "_______" is some euphemism. To Confusing Manifestation, however, I would point out that this article is not a hoax; the holiday does exist and the Google search I previously mentioned [91] shows many other hits including the 4-year-old "steakandbjday.com" domain, which comes in at #3. Given the subject matter it's not that surprising that people might feel it was an offhanded radio joke, but as also previously mentioned, some of us who don't live in New England or listen to that sort of radio show do celebrate it. Novelty does not equal lack of notability, nor does an uncomfortable concept. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is clearly a very important holiday of note in New England, every male in New England celebrates this holiday--Kev62nesl 06:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Made up. Not notable. Previously deleted. Not terriby funny. -- GWO

• Comment Of course this is a made up holiday, No Holiday ever made itself. Someone one had to make them, usually hallmark. How are we deleting this and keeping talk like a pirate day or secretaries day.--Kev62nesl 06:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Publication by a licensed radio station makes the event noteable. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until it becomes a national holiday. ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• There arent very many national holidays around the world. I assume you mean a public/bank/free-day-off holiday. Fathers day is not, infact, most 'holidays' are not national holidays, I know this is a pretty bad argument against, but its not a very strong argument for, either. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I've heard it mentioned in multiple places, and had no idea it was created by a guy on the radio. jgp 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Chicheley 09:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit to its growth. Not to mention the very word 'encyclopedic' means encompassing and embracing all fields. The argument is flawed, could you elaborate? Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• No indication of significance whatsoever. Delete.--Sean Black 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I really think that over 40,000 Google hits (on the quoted phrases "steak and bj day" and "steak and blowjob day") ought to be considered proof of significance, not to mention notability. People are plainly looking for information on the holiday, no matter what the deleters' personal feelings on the matter may be. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - While I love this holiday, it is hardly notable. When we start seeing holiday cards for this, then sure, we can have an article on it. Hong Qi Gong 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sadie Hawkins Day is a holiday made up in a comic strip, with a similar level of interest as Steak and Blowjob Day, and no officially recognized observances, yet is not marked as an AfD. As for SaBJD greeting cards.... well, they're not pretty, but they do exist. [www.cafepress.com/buy/steak/-/pv_design_prod/p_texasbigbird.43375193/pNo_43375193/id_10522426/fpt_________ar__gQ_DA____a___H/opt_/c_59/pg_] Part of the whole idea of SaBJD is "no cards, no flowers, no nights on the town, just...." well, you know the rest. So greeting cards really shouldn't exist, even though they do. Raindog469 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Would it make the deleters happy if the article were renamed to not include the word "blowjob", and a redirect left in place the way "blowjob" currently redirects to "oral sex"? I really get the impression that the lack of notability people are citing is actually squeamishness, as there are certainly less notable topics on Wikipedia. Raindog469 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored; the use of offensive language, even in the title, should not be an issue. The fundamental issue here is whether every idiotic idea some DJ proposes on the radio deserves an encyclopedia article. The goal of wikipedia is to document significant things and events, not to provide a forum for popularizing insignificant cruft. That's what the debate should focus on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I assume that by your use of the term "idiotic idea" and other deleters' use of the term "bad joke" that many of you have some personal problem with the subject matter. What makes the aforementioned Sadie Hawkins Day, with a similar originally-joking origin and current level of popularity, notable that doesn't also apply to Steak and Blowjob Day? Raindog469 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes Sadie Hawkins Day notable is that it's been around since 1937. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This pales in comparison to relatively important world celebrations like International Talk Like a Pirate Day. There is no evidence this holiday actually exists, other than as a radio and internet joke. Small holidays do deserve articles, but bad jokes do not.--Pharos 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not good enough for Bad Jokes.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Too well known, too much press coverage, too many nominations. --JJay 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE, salt, and damn the sockpuppets from the first nom. Its a a neologism crated by a disc jockey, nothing more. Kevin_b_er 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Isn't notable and this is an encyclopaedia. Being 4 years old or being celebrated by someone participating in this AfD doesn't make it notable. No reason to keep this. --Rory096 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think 45,000 google hits demonstrates its notability. If it doesn't, and if Trjn's referenced "licensed radio station" argument holds no water, I think the criteria for notability needs to be made a little more concrete. Raindog469 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Licensed radio stations are automatically notable. A single meme one creates isn't automatically notable. 40,000 Ghits isn't very much for a meme. --Rory096 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, nn Jaranda ^{wats sup} 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would anyone who has no new argument to this please refrain from just voting 'per nom' or via a previous complaint, especially considering the nomination only mentioned noteability and it was shown that Precedence gave this holiday noteability. AfD is NOT a voting system, it is NOT a democracy, it doesnt really matter if you agree with someone but cant bring anything new to the table. Trjn 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the above. While you are correct that this is not a vote, the whole point is to reach a consensus. Consensus means general agreement or unanimity. What better way to form consensus than to have people say they agree with the original proposition? Are you suggesting that if people agree completely with the nomination that they just don't add their voice at all? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is not a vote, then why would you want people to come into the talk and then vote and add nothing new? The decision should be heavily influenced by the argument within the topic itself, if someone wishes to counterargue any point then that is fantastic and is heavily encouraged. Voting, and 'reaching a consensus' is foolish, you cannot reach a consensus with only the parties who are interested to vote, or the odd person who stumbles across the VfD to vote. The only way to reach one would be to poll a large group outside the influence of Wikipedia after they read the article. The point of this is to see if the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, if it meets the standards or notability, not if people think it should be in or not. -Trjn 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Per nom" means that they agree with the nom, so it is expressing their opinion, not just voting. --Rory096 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth clarifying what not voting means. In a vote, there are strict rules about who is eligible to vote, and if you meet those eligibility requirements, your vote gets counted. Add up all the votes, and whichever side comes out with a bigger sum wins. With the system we have here, whoever closes the discussion has a lot of flexibility to decide which votes count and which don't (i.e. sockpuppets), and then apply some judgement as to whether consensus has been reached without being bound by some strict and exact numerical threshold. If twenty people write nothing more than Delete per nom and two people write long cogent essays on why the article should be keep, that's still a consensus to delete (assuming no sockpuppetry or the like). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, everyone is agreeing to a nomination that has been shown to be in-large false. There have been plenty of arguments that the article is notable, and the Precedence/Radio Stations with a license are noteable is almost definitive combined with the addition of other articles and agurments, so their votes are more or less void of substance, and there are a large number of votes based from an invalid argument. Trjn 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed that the nom itself contains what I consider to be an inaccurate statement, to wit, "A day made up by one radio guy is not notable." Well, Administrative Professionals' Day was made up by one advertising guy, and rather than try to get it deleted, people who disagree the holiday exists have put in a reference to it being a Hallmark holiday. Since a holiday that discourages the use of greeting cards can't be a Hallmark holiday, maybe the deleters would be better served by adding a section like "Some feel this holiday doesn't actually exist and was only meant as a joke." So far the arguments against notability are: (a) coined by one guy for self-promotion (countered by Sadie Hawkins Day and Administrative Professionals Day, each of which was coined by one guy), (b) not actually celebrated by anyone (a trap, really, because celebrating it apparently makes me ineligible to oppose its deletion according to one deleter), (c) intended as a joke (again, Sadie Hawkins Day was plainly meant as a joke originally, as is Talk like a Pirate Day.) Any other arguments? Raindog469 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ill say it again, there is a clear Precedence that Radio Stations with a license are noteable, which heavily supports the case that a large radio event by a noteable radio station should be noteable by inheritence and consumer/community celebration, which of course there is. Trjn 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That the station itself is notable doesn't imply everything done by every employee of that station is notable as well. As for Administrative Professionals' Day, it at least has going for it in the notability department that it's been around in one form or another since 1952, and was proclaimed by U.S. Secretary of Commerce. When the Secretary of Commerce proclaims Steak and Blowjob Day is a national holiday, I'll stand up and salute. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Clear delete. The article is citing *dead links* - that was a red flag for me right away. And then looking at the Google hits, there's just over five hundred unique non-Wikipedia hits [92], and they look to be just blogs and forum posts and stuch. ENpeeOHvee 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.please keeep this page!!!. I wan't S 'n' BJ day to become a custom in other coutrie - we have to spread the word. if you still want to delete it you should delete the page about valentines day as well (Vote placed at 21:22, 11 June 2006 by 83.18.169.203. The vote was in mistake added to the first nomination during the third one)

It is explicitly NOT Wikipedia's place to spread the word. Our job is to document, not promote. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I used to vote keep on this article, but I'm getting tired. I've lost my will to edit this article and also to vote for keep. I count myself as an inclusionist, but on this front I publicly give up. Just go ahead and place the article in AFD until it gets deleted. --Easyas12c 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, it does look like even if the article is kept this time, someone else will just nominate it for AFD again in a couple weeks. Shame that its deletion will set a precedent so that when its popularity continues to grow the deleters can then cite "recreation of deleted page" as a reason for continued deletion. Raindog469 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Does this film count as a minor proof of notability? http://foundrymusic.inadult.com/details.link/tid/870053/dvd/Steak-and-Blowjob-Day.htm --Easyas12c 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I get the impression you'd need to create an entry for that film itself first (not so many porno compilations on WP that I've noticed) and defend its notability. Raindog469 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the are selling merchandise for this day www.cafepress.com/steakandbjday and with all of the hits. I think it has to stay for notability. --Kev62nesl 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As for saying that the event is notable because it was a major event created by a radio station and radio stations are notable, that could easily become the beginning of a slippery slope of similar arguments - association with notability is not enough to create notability in itself, and even then doesn't necessarily imply enough notability to have its own article. Confusing Manifestation 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly not notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by something "notable =/= something notable. And if this article is the #1 hit on Google, then that's a bad sign -- it means other sites (i.e., independent and reliable sources) are lacking, allowing this article to bubble to the top of the results list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)
• Delete, imaginary holiday made up by a radio personality. Conferred notability is a non-existent concept in my opinion and looking at this on its own merits it simply is not well known enough to merit an article.--Isotope23 20:08, 13 June 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.