Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 9[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as they were recreations of previously deleted pages.--MONGO 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Jewish conspiracy[edit]

Speedy delete candidate -- this is a recreation of an article deleted a few days ago by Admin MONGO See 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel Both the article and the re-direct should be speedily deleted. Morton devonshire 07:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied these as they were recreations of deleted pages.--MONGO 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. This was a hard one to close and required a LOT of reading. What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective validity of astrology[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete. Marskell 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. Jefffire 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for special pleading. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history of the Astrology page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a scientific POV-fork, which is not what the described issue is. The "fundamental concern" referred to in the opening is a concern only of those editors who oppose the presentation of arguments for the objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an astrological research page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The Astrology and astronomy article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. To think that the complexity of the argument doesn't warrant a separate page is to ignore numerous researchers spending lifetimes on attempting to determine astrology's objective validity, and then leagues of other researchers arguing about the results for decades. I agree that editing the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire, without discussion. Let me also point out that this AfD was also brought about without input from the other editors. Aquirata 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article only got big because there was a drive by proponents of astrology to make special pleading arguments to counter the scientific perspective. This is not what Wikipedia is for. The objective reality section in the main article appears to me to be both balanced and sufficient. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point; however, the implication is hard to accept without specific examples. This is an extremely complex subject as I'm sure you realize, and a few paragraphs cannot do justice to it in my opinion. What's the point of deleting over a year's worth of hard work? If the article doesn't conform to certain policies or guidelines, I invite you and all editors interested in and knowledgeable about this subject to come and join us in our work until it does meet all required standards. Aquirata 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think it is extremely complex. "Objective reality" implies the scientific method, none of the evidence presented here stands up to that. It's a POV title for some special pleading and really has to go. I am sorely tempted to engage in a bit of rouge admin abuse, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it [the objective validity of astrology] is extremely complex: How deeply have you studied astrology to be able to make this statement? It took Geoffrey Dean (PhD DIC ARCS analytical chemist, science writer, astrologer, and also the foremost skeptic on astrology) and company (50 astrologers and scientists) 7 man-years of effort to compile just 77 years of research on natal astrology alone (which is just one branch of astrology). The result was a 600-page, highly condensed, encyclopedic book. They summarized over 300 astrology books, 400 journal articles and 300 scientific works. He writes: "[Astrology] today [in 1977]... has a vast burgeoning literature", and "The subject is very a big one and the result is a very big book... about 250,000 words." Researchers have been arguing about the Mars effect for decades. Simple topic?
None of the evidence presented here stands up to that: To what, the scientific method or objective validity? What are you basing your opinion on? As it stands now, this is a blanket statement without presenting evidence.
POV title: Most astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology - scientists, skeptics and debunkers do, so, if anything, the title is SPOV. Numerous suggestions have been made with respect to the title. What is yours? Aquirata 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That astrologers don't question the objective validity of astrology is completely irrelevant and a poor reason for the title change. A better reason for the title change is that leads the skimmer to assume that objective validity is a fact. The article is about research on the topic. Zeusnoos 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork--Kalsermar 18:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia readers know that astrology is a controversial subject and expect to read details about both sides of the controversy. This article, on who has attempted to validate or invalidate astrology, provides this. In the article readers expect to see names like Gauquelin, Hill, Carlson, Dean, Kelly, Urban-Lurain, Tarnus, and Nanninga. That is what makes any encyclopedia worth reading. Don't take away the knowledge and the views that have been gathered for this article. This information needs to go somewhere. If this article didn't already exist, it would need to be created. Most of the objection here is over sources. Probably the most objected to source is the peer-reviewed British journal Correlation published by the University of Southampton. Although this source is used by both sides pro and con, it has been described (by Jefffire) as no better a source than a tabloid. Ask yourself before you vote if this is reasonable. The anti-validity side has used many questionably sources, such as web articles and blogs. Instead of creating a controversy over sources, the anti-validity side should participate in the examination of the methods and findings, as the validity side has done.Piper Almanac 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are already presented at astrology. The case at issue is whether this very large and strikingly non-neutral article should exist as well. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main astrology article presents opinion but does not explain how those opinions came about. This is an interesting and complex issue that involves many people with strongly held views and half a century of research. The pro-keep editors are strongly in favor of bringing the two sides of this controversy (since they have much to say about each other) closer together, working through POV issues, and merging the information based on consensus. Piper Almanac 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that, per WP:NPOV, the article should reflect orthodox opinion, which is that astrology has no objective scientific validity. That is a very simple conept to get across, and is stated in carefully neutral terms in astrology. I really don't see any need to have a long he-said-she-said ramble which amounts to much the same thing but with all kinds of red herrings trailed across it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see in WP:NPOV that the neutral point of view equals orthodox opinion? I think this is a misinterpretation. Aquirata 12:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, a lot of unverified or unsourced material. Interesting argument that, to be "fair" WP must present POV unverified unsourced material. To think of all the time I've wasted looking at encyclopedias for facts... Tychocat 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title screams "POV" to me and while the content makes a wild stab at neutrality it only arrives at encyclopaedic content by accident. Take what little is useful and merge back into Astrology then delete. David | Talk 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or further fork.... The article, at present, discredits (or deletes) scientific disproofs of the pro-astrology papers, while allowing marginal (at best) astrologer-reviewed articles. (As there are no scientific peer-reviewed journals covering fringe science, allowing astrologer-peer-reviewed articles provides undue weight.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Already covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. -Medtopic 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Aquirata. --JJay 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep except the article should probably be named Empirical validity of Astrology. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wanders dangerously close to POV territory. Thetruthbelow 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is in pretty poor condition and needs to be improved substantially, but there does need to be a centralized page for some of the information and arguments contained in it, regardless of how bogus they may be, and the main astrology article is not the place to do it. There is going to be another page like this one if it is deleted, so I'm not really sure what the point of deleting it would be except to start fresh perhaps. Still doesn't quite seem worth it --Chris Brennan 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the title should definitely change. Perhaps "Attempts to prove or disprove objectively valid in astrology" or "Research into the empirical validity of astrology." The title as it stands appears to set up an expectation that objective validity will be proven in the content. The comments by the editors when they remove or edit sections indicate this expectation - all these calls to 'prove it' and the responses of astrologers who think they are 'proving it'. It strikes me as very odd that people think an online encyclopedia, where contributors are largely anonymous and of any possible educational background, is the place to decide upon the 'objective validity' of a phenomenon. Give only the data that reflects the state of affairs of the astrology world and let people do as they will. The article much needs work to remove exactly what is strikingly POV, but it does reflect attempts to find some type of validity to astrology - some of which appear to be important enough to astrologers and skeptics alike, having a significant contribution to how people think about astrology. Zeusnoos 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I suggested a rename to Astrological research or Research into astrology for similar reasons, so I'd support a title change along these lines. Aquirata 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combining this with a suggestion made a few lines earlier, I'd add empirical to the title Empirical astrological research or Empirical research into astrology. Piper Almanac 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be really honest and call it "Astrology fans' excuses for the lack of scientific verifiability of astrology" ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain constructive. Ridiculing others' work does not facilitate collaboration. Aquirata 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there are two approaches in this controversy, there are the validationists, who claim to have found no positive results, and there are the empiricists, who claim to have found positive results. The validationists want to compare astrology to some authoritative modern standard such as self-reporting questionnaires (personality tests) and the charts or interpretations of the charts are always matched 1:1. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of fixed values with only one necessary outcome and (when questionnaires are used) that people can accurately assess themselves. The empiricists carry on the astrological tradition of collecting exemplary cases and looking for strong chart patterns. The modern approach is to collect a lot of charts and use statistical analysis. The belief here is that a chart at any point in time is a set of variables (because this is what you see in astrology texts), each of which can have numerous related values, but the values approach each other when closer to the most exemplary cases, thus there are patterns. How about structuring the article in this manner, showing the validationists versus the empiricists? Piper Almanac 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to make this distinction. But I think the whole issue over keeping or deleting the contents of this article is the product of a categorical mistake. The title leads editors to believe that the purpose of the article is to give evidence that proves or disproves astrology. I think the content (merged or retitled) should be kept because it reflects the state of affairs on studies of astrology, and that it falls under WP:RS's Popular culture category. The same mistake is being made on articles dealing with topics pertaining to philosophy of science or sociology (such as pathological skepticism) rather than scientific research. Zeusnoos 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right about this being WP:RS Popular culture, with regard to the sources anyway. One study was extremely lucky to get an article published in Nature by some fluke, when the whole controversy was very immature at the beginning. That's not likely to be repeated. Most of this controversy takes place in books, and articles in Skeptical Inquirer or astrological society journals. It rarely goes above this level. A few weeks ago Objective validity of astrology was very POV with 90% arguments against astrology. This has changed now. Piper Almanac 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now instead of being very POV with 90% arguments against astrology, it's very POV with mainly apologia in favour of astrology. It's a POV see-saw, and at root there is a basic problem that there is not that much which can be said about the scientific view of astrology - science views it as bunk. Of course astrologers don't, but that's what the astrology article is about. What's been published is not "research" in the sense it would be understood by any scientist, but opinion; there is no shortage of that but to represent it as research is silly. The two comments below come from two of our longest-serving and most respected editors. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an embarrassment Fred Bauder 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: irredeemably POV, unverifiable, and bloody awful ➥the Epopt 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for just about all the policy reasons given by others above - this is not how we (should) do things here on WP. AvB ÷ talk 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - merge, rename to Attempts to validate astrology, move the content back to Astrology etc. There's enough interesting, referenced material there to make straight out deletion not in the best interests of the project. Stevage 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- we shouldn't have an article at this title. We shouldn't be making POV forks, either. Current content may belong in other articles. Jkelly 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Already covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. -- Drini 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious POV fork. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-title or merge Doovinator
Delete my read is that it contains too much OR and per the Epopt Trödel 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way. -- GWO
Delete POV essay --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly POV at current, but I wouldn't say it's irredeemably so. Would support retitle or merge with substantial rewrites. --Dom 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Very POV and blatantly violates WP:NPOV#pseudoscience. In my opinion, this article is an embarrassment to wikipedia siddharth 15:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutral point of view means we set out fairly all sides and arguments whether we agree with them or not. Possibly rename "Astrology, the case for and against". This article is not a fork it appeared when the section in the main Astrology article became to big and unwieldy. Look at its history. Its just a detailed view of the summary in the main article as happens in all major Wikipedia articles.Lumos3 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Astrology, the case for and against" is precisely what we do NOT need. Marskell 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about "Research into Astrology"? Wikipedia should not try to avoid a topic just because it is controversial or unexplained to everyone's satisfaction. The POV weight of this article has shifted back and forth as weaknesses and sources were examined. The research, like the article, is work in progress and continues to grow as more people get involved and more books and articles are published. This material has to go somewhere. Piper Almanac 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research into astrology is probably the best option. There are tons of material that is still not covered. Dean et al published their Recent advances in natal astrology in 1977 covering research in natal astrology only, and only to 1976. This book is 600 pages referencing 1020 (yes, over one thousand) other works, and it is highly condensed. How could anyone think that this could be described in a couple of paragraphs within the main article? Aquirata 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rather obvious POV fork and a dumping ground for non-notable studies. All in all a terrible idea. Jefffire 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in fact contains studies with evidence both supporting and refuting astrology. There is no definition of what a non notable study is. Any published study could be considered notable, particularly if others have already used it ie noted its existance by citing it. Its clear that many voting delete here are reacting to the title ( which is poorly constructed) rather than what the article says. Lumos3 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The fundamentalists of scientism need to realize the objective consideration of any subject should not be restricted to the narrow dictates of their definition of science. Eclecticology 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which fails to address the fundamental issue: this is a POV fork. Just zis Guy you know? 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Why do you feel a need to push your POV? You have stated your opinion in your first post already. What is the value being added by repeating it over and over? Perhaps you wish to address these questions: How an article existing and supported by consensus opinion for over a year can suddenly be considered a POV-fork? How can an article treating a small subset of the main Astrology article can be considered a POV-fork? In order to help you prepare your brief and to-the-point answer, let me quote the first two sentences from WP:POVFORK: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Aquirata 13:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquirata, at this point, the article is being deliberately used to present a laundry list of any possible study you and Piper can find that astrologers have performed supporting your POV. Because the main Astology could not and should not accomodate the content, this constitutes a fork. It's an indiscriminate collection of info, a soapbox giving undue weight to one POV, reliant on dubious sources, and riddled with OR phrasing. That is, it violates all of NOT, NPOV, V and NOR. We need to it tie up in a sac weighted with rocks and throw it over-board. Perhaps something like it will need re-creating—but this page, with this content, is not going to get us there. Marskell 13:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. "Objective validity" is the language of science, but science pretty much universally rejects the validity of astrology. I see no reason why it can't be treated like other belief systems. We do not have an article on the "objective validity of Christianity" (thankfully), and the ones we have on things like creationism make it perfectly clear that, while proponents may use the language of science, science as a whole rejects the idea. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Objective_validity_of_astrology#research_articles_for_future_work_on_this_topic Please view this list of studies from scientific journals and answer whether you are saying there is no possible dissent among scientific researchers. 'Universally' means each and every research scientist rejects all of it. Zeusnoos 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, how many of those were in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And instead of universally, it would be a majority of the contemporary scientific community. siddharth 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments of Marskell and JzG. Providing a forum for special pleading for one POV is inappropriate; Claims of scientism aren't even worth listening to. And I'm so tired of hearing "this article is here because the main article is too long." Articles get that long because POV pushers won't cooperate. Learn to condense and summarize; an article isn't a list of everything that anyone has ever thought worth discussing about a subject. · rodii · 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Man, what a terrible title. But don't move it, get rid of it. It's a disgraceful POV fork. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. The current article is a POV mess. That should be dealt with by cutting out all the worthless stuff (which would perhaps substantially reduce the article's size), not killing the entire page history. Deleting the article isn't going to make POV-pushers go away, it will just make them create or edit other articles to be sympathetic to their views. The topic itself is certainly large enough to deserve an entire subarticle such as this. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is instrinsically POV pushing. Topic should be covered neutrally in another article such as Astrology. Stephen B Streater 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- are we just going to throw away all of this work built up over many-many months? Let us keep revising until we come upon an agreeable version for both sides. It would be absolute lunacy (and completely idiotic) to delete those references along with all of the discussion on the Talk Page(s) and in the archive(s). --Berlin Stark 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Clarified vote) Delete all trace of the NAME of the article. The content might be merged somewhere if it could be done consistent with the GFDL, provided there's no trace of the name — I recommend against it, but I don't have as strong an objection to the content as to the name and content selection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic POV pushing. --MediaMangler 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumos3 (talk · contribs) has posted a summary on titles suggested for this article. Please let your opinion be known at Talk:Objective_validity_of_astrology#Proposals_for_titles_renaming_this_article, so that we can take this article forward in the event the decision is to keep it. Aquirata 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. Deleuze 08:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth, exposing secret history, or righting an historical record. Whenever an article is written to accomplish one of those goals, it will inevitably fail one of the elements of the deletion policy. In this case, the article violates duplication, as it's a POV fork, violates verifiability, as the sources are unreliable, and violates NPOV, as the article has a fervent desire to see the world proven wrong and the practitioners validated. Geogre 12:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: let's get rid of this disgrace. Pecher ^Talk 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Geogre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Aquirata. Stanfordandson 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanfordansdon (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) registered today seemingly for the sole purpose of disrupting this process. Blocked for 48 hours. Trolling removed. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, Your edit comment was "likely sockpuppet. Aquirata?". Is this how much intelligence you attribute to me? Think about it for a moment. Aquirata 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Thinking about it for a moment it was a hasty, unfair summary and I apologize. It's just this bloody topic... Marskell 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The topic makes your blood boil, doesn't it? :) Aquirata 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The wasted time more than the topic itself. I had big wiki-plans to work on the Maya civilization article tonight but here I am dealing with the fellow above. Marskell 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:V. Bongout 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Check contrib's here too. Grr. Marskell 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre. POV fork and pseudoscientific apologetics. up+land 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it was an attempt over a year ago to either subarticle portions of the Astrology article to reduce size or to POV fork due to arguments then. Regardless, it certainly appears to be a POV fork now. A brief scan of this article also indiactes that there may be issues with WP:V and WP:NOT as well.--MONGO 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is wrong, take a look at the original version of this article [1], which I created and you will see that it had fairly balanced sized sections on the for and against sides. Both sides of the argument were taken here so they could be given the fair treatment to both sides that a controvertial subject deserves without dominating the Astrology article. Lumos3 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so far from balanced it isn't even remotely funny. It violates just about every policy in the book. Undue weight, reliable sources, NPOV...you name it. An utter disgrace. Jefffire 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument for cleanup and balancing not for deletion. Pages exist which describe both sides of an argument, see Existence of God, Arguments for and against drug prohibition. Lumos3 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a comment on the page now. As it stands the only notable part is the Mars effect, which has its own article. Coupled with it having become a POV fork is the main reason for it's deletion. Jefffire 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not an argument for deletion. It once summarised argument for and against under those categories as the two pages above do. It should be returned to that state. Lumos3 11:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather what I had attempted to do, but was prevented at all points by pro-astrology editors. In any case what are the notable points are now found at the main Astrology article, so I see no need to retain this article. Jefffire 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notd aftermath[edit]

A warcraft 3 fan-made map, primarily written by User:Azazelena, the map author. Googling "NOTD aftermath" gives 70 links which is less than some deleted webcomics here. I somehow doubt that this fan-map is notable and popular. - Hahnch e n 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GassyGuy 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Damn you, gamecruft! DAMN YOU! -- Kicking222 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MBob 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a lot of fun, but this isn't the place. --Bachrach44 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Thetruthbelow 04:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 62.6.139.11 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable map, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 10:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ydam 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swat: Aftermath[edit]

Another Warcraft 3 custom map, this one by a guy named Redscull. How is this notable outside of the Warcraft fan map community? Googling the term "Swat Aftermath" +warcraft gives 140 links, and if you take a look at them, many of them are irrelevent. - Hahnch e n 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom but put a notice on the page. GassyGuy 00:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity page. Tychocat 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 02:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 62.6.139.11 10:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable map, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Thetruthbelow 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Not in correct place for deletion (meant to be at RfD). Deleted anyway by MONGO as insulting and unlikely google for redirect. DarthVad e r 09:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clueless newbies[edit]

Violates WP:NPA and WP:Don't bite the newbies, as well as being patently offensive. Morton devonshire 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newbie.
DELIST, as this should be at Redirects for Deletion, not AfD. -- Kicking222 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, one way or the other. Tychocat 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist wrong place. Kicking222 is completly right. Yanksox 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-existent term, offensive, a stab at humor. Adambiswanger1 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete / close as improper AFD - redirects get taken to WP:RFD as pointed out above ... but at any rate, it's moot because it can be speedied as {{db-redirtypo}}
Comment Is this a case of WP:SNOW? Yanksox 02:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment surprisingly, it's actually been around for years. --Bachrach44 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not an article, its a redirect, move it to RFD. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianshoper 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Delete[reply]

Comment -- delete it here, delete it there. Es macht nichts! It's still WP:NPA, WP:Don't bite the newbies, and insulting.Morton devonshire 06:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is also Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. -- Kjkolb 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide Kommando[edit]

Bandkrüft -Artw 00:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. —EdGl 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Adambiswanger1 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ed. Yanksox 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure German band. Kruftwerk. -- GWO
Delete, nonnotable. I like the term "Kruftwerk" and will start using it. Maybe interchangeably with "Kruftrock" (cognate with Krautrock, obvs.). -- Docether 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ed. Thetruthbelow 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Walhus[edit]

Person is non-notable. No articles link to the article. Searching for him on Google only results in his user pages on other sites and his homepage, not any articles about him or his work. Davidstrauss 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity; weak attempt at notability. —EdGl 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom MBob 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible vanity, definite nn. Adambiswanger1 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh Good Lord, I know who this is, and yes, "vanity" is the word for it. How did this thing get overlooked since last August? --Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:VAIN, WP:BIO. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and looks like vanity Ydam 10:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure vanity. Thetruthbelow 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio, vanity.--Dakota ~ 06:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals Discovered In 1758[edit]

Obscure, mistitled list with no lists like it ("List of Animals Discovered in <year>"). Delete unless case can be made to merge and/or redirect to 1758 in science. —EdGl 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced...then only weak delete. The year of discovery of any animal is not really a feasible search point. There's no indication of the source of the data, so it fails WP:V. -- Scientizzle 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: article creator, User:Bill Darwin, is actually working on Animals Discovered By Year list, but 1758 seems to be the only one covered so far... -- Scientizzle 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the point brought up by Scientizzle that the year of discovery of any animal is not a feasible search point. MBob 01:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context is given. Discovered by who? What is significant about these animals/the people that discovered them? Seems like an indiscriminate list to me (WP:NOT). Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context. What is important about 1758? Why not 1759? Or, is that the next one in the series? In addition to a list out of context, I'm pretty sure that amphibians had been discovered before 1758. Ted 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, no context, unsourced and unverified. Tychocat 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a bad idea, but the undertaking would be massive, and the list is unhelpful. Adambiswanger1 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. --JChap 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually think this is one of the more interesting lists I've seen, although it certainly needs work. Maybe it would be better as a sub-category (except that the redlinks would be lost). I'm really torn on this one. It's listcruft, but at least it's neat listcruft. Kafziel 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The modern system of taxonomy was created in 1758. It appears that this may be a partial list of the 10,000-ish species that were classified by Linnaeus in that year. It looks like the original author intended to start with Linnaeus's original list, which is composed of animals discovered prior to 1758, and then create lists for each successive year based on what year they were described. See Animals Discovered By Year, which contains a link to this page and redlinks to pages for every year since.-- Vary | Talk 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context, nothing special. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Move. The article is a list of interest, but badly named and certainly needs other articles for other years to accompany it. 62.6.139.11 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. The author is plainly intending to go somewhere with this series of articles and I'd be for giving him six months to see how far his plan gets. I, for one, would be interested in the results, if this series of pages were completed (with accuracy and references). Someone should contact the author to indicate that putting the list in context, per Vary, would increase its general interest, and that references are essential for material of this kind. I'd agree the title should be changed. Espresso Addict 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also the somewhat hopeless article Animals Discovered By Year. There is a horrible confusion here between "discovered" and "(taxonomically) described". For the species on the list, 1758 was the year when their first taxonomic description was published, and not when they were discovered. To the extent something like this is useful, it is better handled with categories. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see my articles are unpopular and I will transpose the data to 1758 in science instead. If that's OK with you guys.(Bill Darwin 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as requested by author. --Elonka 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what's the purose? MaxSem 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems more suited for Wikispecies than Wikipedia. Invitatious 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthbelow (talk • contribs)
Delete I see no point to this article. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Linnaues like category might be a better idea.. Williamb 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Fang Aili as a copyvio (CSD A8). Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mason[edit]

This is an assistant coach for a non-notable minor league baseball team. Managers don't even usually get articles. Nothing seems particularly notable about this pitching coach. Metros232 00:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. MBob 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Wild Things, where it should have been in the first place. Ted 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't even merge; it's a copyvio from the source- the paragraphs are just re-arranged. Te ke 01:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for merge. entirely non-notable. Adambiswanger1 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and copyvio. -- Vary | Talk 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major-league managers should get articles, IMHO; bench coaches on minor-league teams, though, aren't sufficiently notable. --EngineerScotty 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, copyvio. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio - article was created only yesterday. Kimchi.sg 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2213[edit]

Article about a year over 200 years in the future, and the only item listed is a fictional event. Note: prod tag was removed by an anonymous user with the comment, "Wikipedia has articles about many future years, fictional and otherwise". - EurekaLott 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal ball, empty list. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, no context, unsourced, unverified, crystalballism. Fancruft. Tychocat 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the 2210's (and the other decades) redirect to 23rd century. At best, merge it with 23rd century. Ted 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with something Star Trek, look at the link, it's a trekkie thing. Yanksox 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has one fact (which is from the trek universe), so it even counts as an article with essentially no content. Also I can't verify the fact - the memory alpha page on the museumd doesn't mention a founding year. --Bachrach44 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know nothing about the Trek. Yanksox 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know if I'd call it crystal ball, since I don't think anyone believes that's actually going to happen, but it's certainly fancruft. Kafziel 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JChap 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trekcruft. Not really — but it is NN crystal-ballery: I just wanted to say "Trekcruft". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, barely anything in the list. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not think of any reason why this is an article that serves any purposeCanadianshoper 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball and fancruft. Jammo (SM247) 06:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopeless article. The article only says one thing about the year, and even that is fictional. Does not need merging to anything. JIP | Talk 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as fancruft and even if it didn't have that it atill wouldn't warrant an article Ydam 11:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or redirect to the century as I'm led to believe is precedent for stuff like this. Whatever... trekcruft. - Motor (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletecruft! MaxSem 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. The year hasn't come yet, so how could it have been established? Invitatious 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bend, fold, tear, mutilate, shred, stomp, stomp, stomp. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. :-) — RJH (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGlaughlin[edit]

Delete. Vanity page of "a semi professional football player looking to break into the professional game" (according to the article). Speedy delete tag removed. Prod tag removed four times: twice by anon and twice by Bsm72 (the author). So here we are. ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD tag has also been removed by Bsm72. ... discospinster _talk 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is nn according to both WP:BIO and WP:N (athletes). Even though WP:N (athletes) is used very liberally this person does not warrant a page on wikipedia. MBob 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity page. Tychocat 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable bio. Yanksox 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook nn, possible vanity Adambiswanger1 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, but for the record, technically a prod tag should only be removed once - if the tag's removed without the concerns being addressed, it has to come here. -- Vary | Talk 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Another self-promotion. This is not the help wanted ads. Lord Hawk 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, also speedy delete tag keeps being removed, I added it back. DrunkenSmurf 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor John W. Kercheval, III[edit]

Seems to fail WP:PROFTEST, NN. A google search of Professor "John W. Kercheval", III reveals 35 unique hits, most of which have been copy and pasted Amazon book reviews allegedly by this professor on online bookstores. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Severe POV problems, most of article is unverified and undocumented. Claim of authenticity by personal experience of writer suggests is original research, vanity article. Tychocat 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His appointment at Georgetown University is "Adjunct Professorial Lecturer". He may be on his way to notability, but, unfortunately, he is not there just yet. If he is notable outside of academia, then you would expect to see his name every so often in the Wall Street Journal. Ted 02:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely. Kafziel 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--if true, I don't think it fails WP:PROFTEST, but I can say with confidence that everything on that page is crap. Adambiswanger1 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite for NPOV. I would evaluate him as a businessperson rather than as an academic, and on that basis he seems to have done some notable things. Also, he's in Who's Who in America, which is usually fairly selective. TruthbringerToronto 23:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just doens't meet my standards for notability. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Originally listed as {{prod}} with the note, nn website, nn two day old internet meme. Most of the allegations and events in this article, and the website it refers to, are hearsay and unverified. The prod was removed by the original editor, kindly with an explanation on the article's talk page. I disagree with the editor. I read the slashdot entry prior to adding the prod, and all it is is a reposting of a blog entry. The fact remains is that this article is essentially hearsay about a nn event. I leave it up for consensus whether or not the article should stay. Agent 86 01:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by new editors[edit]

Comments listed here are either by IP address, or by editors whose accounts show fewer than ten edits prior to this vote. A large number of "keep" voters have been attracted by website discussing the outside event discussed in the article; that site has run a "keep vote" campaign, or at least participants on its discussion area have.

Strong Keep I agree, let's see what direction this heads in first, obviously a lot of people will be looking for an article on this in a while, so let's wait a bit.
Strong Keep Let's see where it goes first. If it ends up being overblown, THEN we can delete. Deleting now is pulling the trigger far too quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.217.195 (talk • contribs)
Keep. I think the sheer volume of comments in the past hour or so warrants the article a presence, at least for the meantime.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.35.230 (talk • contribs) who has no previous edits.
Keep This phenomenon exists and is somewhat unique. It deserves to be referenced. Maybe not as a meme, but only time will tell.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.234.194.29 (talk • contribs) .

Keep. Its been the first serious example of an Internet rebellion. Where the NYPD wouldn't help, we all did.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superspacejoel (talk • contribs) who has no previous edits.

Users first and currently only edit, hmmm.--Andeh 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The movie Secondhand_Lions has a relevant line in it that goes something to the effect of "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most". “That people are basically good. That honor virtue and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn’t matter if they’re true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing.” Keeping this article doesnt only have to be about how enduring it is, or how rigorously backed up it is. There are sufficient minimums, and there is reasonable argument that they have been met. Mans inhumanity to man is one of the great themes of human history. This article is also about the idea that man should have humanity, and even excellence, toward his fellow man. Engr.student 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: vote is user's second edit.[reply]

Perhaps it is too early to say whether this is worthy or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.178.58 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep I did an initial article for this, but it too was put up for fast deletion. It DOES fit the definition of an internet meme, despite it's short lifespan. I quote from the article on Internet meme - "An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively unknown becomes increasingly popular, often quite suddenly, through the mass propagation of media content made feasible by the Internet; however, the popularity of the phenomenon usually wanes as rapidly as it was acquired" Internet phenomenon Smw1983 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply]
Keep just as this guy over here Amir_Tofangsazan I think there might be a real movement starting. It will be very interessting to see how the different countries (UK/USA) judiciary system handle theses kind of cases. --HamstaHuey 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users second edit.--Andeh 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with the idea that this is a good example of how quickly internet phenomenon can take off and how much of an effect the virtual world can have on the real one. This, when finally resolved, will be an interesting case study in viral marketing and social networking, to say the least. Logick 05:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: this vote is user's first edit.[reply]

Strong Keep From the Wiki entry on Encyclopedia:'Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.' If this is not an excellent example of the power of Internet Vigilantism then what is? The article should be kept and perhaps made a subarticle of I.V., same as 'Dog Poop Girl.' CitizenJ 8:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's first edit.

Users first edit and sounds like he's been here for some time, hmm...--Andeh 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this afd discussion has a lot of keeps from totally new users, how suspicious.--Andeh 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How unusual... Yanksox 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. true_blue2 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note First edit from new user. Fan1967 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was eye witness to 2 of the forum crashes and I felt strongly enough that this article should stay for now, that I joined. true_blue2 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I continue to see posts from people that have absolutely no involvement with what is happening refer to this as a non-event. Well, of course people that are not involved and don't understand technology will say such things. The fact of the matter is this is not a Slashdot-only event. Sure, it gained widespread coverage as a result of postings on Digg and Slashdot, but this is becoming a worldwide event. People from all over the world are taking part in the fight for someone to get stolen property back to its rightful owners. I would suggest that if you do not understand technology, do not understand the Internet and its potential, that you do not post your opinion here. So many opinions are from people that obviously have no idea what they are talking about.--Thenet411 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply]

Comment Yet another example of someone that has no idea what they are talking about. This is my first vote on the matter. Others were simply comments. Learn the difference.--Thenet411 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:What they meant by the note waS That the vote you made was your 3rd edit to wikipedia.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being stupid and ignorant is not the most effective way of pleading your case. Fan1967 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thenet, the comment was not that this was your third vote, but that it was your third edit. It's common policy on high-traffic AFD's to tag votes by very new users. And Lulu, who added that comment, definitely does know what he's talking about. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like Charlie Wenzel and others(such as this sidekick thing) will keep bombarding Wiki, Keep it, make a category for it. Hell, if the ever so important topic of light-saber combat can have a bigger spread than Thermodynamic, I think you can make room for this and Charlie Wenzel. --Brady 07:45 PST, 9 June, 2006
- Comment The above comment was posted by IP 66.245.195.72, the first posting from this IP.--blue520 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not my first posting on a discussion page. I've never felt the need to register as a Wiki-user. My first comments were well over a year ago on a couple of different pages. Thank you. --Brady, 08:40 PST 9 June, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.213.120 (talk • contribs)

Blue said that it was the first edit from the IP you were using, not from you as an individual. If you don't have a user account, the only thing we have to go on is your current IP's contribution history. -- Vary | Talk 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 69.107.125.3 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The abnormal popularity of this event online (with coverage on Slashdot, Digg, CNET's blog, MSNBC's blog, and countless others) and how it is a great example of internet vigilantism should merit a keep for now, espicially now that the article focuses more on the event rather than the website. I agree with RoyBoy's view on the matter as well. Full disclosure: This is my first edit, but I've joined (shortly) before this article was created. AirwalkLogik 06:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Shows the power of the internet and its infancy. Reminds me of mobs justice in the early parts of our country and I am interested if others are about to start up and how this develops further as the internet progresses. --Cowhig 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's (ten) edits are entirely to his/her own userpage- this vote is the first one outside of that. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has created his account well before the creation of the article in dispute and even before the disputed website was created. Give the benefit of doubt? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I cant see anything wrong with the page ie no personal details etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.16.200 (talk • contribs)

Comments by established editors[edit]

Delete per nom. This is a classic example of what I complain about people or incidents that have 15-minutes of fame, momentary notoriety. 70.94.46.69 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oops, the above was by me. I visited the diggs site and it locked up my browser, so I ended up force-quitting. Tychocat 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't think even the strongest supporter of Internet Memes would argue that a two-day-old one has established itself. Fan1967 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a two day meme this[2] is an awful lot of google hits. Yanksox 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I even agreed with this sentiment until today, when I saw that the episode was written up in the New York Times and CNet. With the unprecedented press attention, this is an obvious keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom; I not only believe in the test of Time, I don't think any Internet meme should be put up for an article sooner than a year after its creation; then let people make the argument as to whether anyone still cares enough about it to be encyclopedic. RGTraynor 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original website serves as record enough of this event. Hanako 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move — I've been following this since near the beginning, and I think it's fascinating, but ultimately unencyclopedic. Perhaps better suited to WikiNews — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – June 9, 2006, 02:26 (UTC)

Perhaps Move is what you meant? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Move seem appropos. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – June 9, 2006, 03:45 (UTC)

Would you be changing your vote? -- ^Evanx(tag?) 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Just did.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – June 13, 2006, 23:56 (UTC)

Delete not notable. same sentiments as Fan-1967. Very important now doesn't mean very important 5 days later. Frankchn 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the original editor of the entry and read the incident on Slashdot. I had included it here as documenting a current event. In fact, compared to other internet phenomenons, this has arisen rather quickly and may be the fastest growing meme. Wikipedia also documents several other memes and can be found accordingly, such as Star Wars kid, Amir Massoud Tofangsazan and Leeroy Jenkins. One of the original tenets for deletion was a lack of verification, which I had duly provided. If this is rejected on the same grounds or for lack of substance, the other articles should also be up for deletion, including some rather frivilous ones like Ellen Feiss, Old Grandma Hardcore and Katilce Miranda. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's look quickly: Numa Numa, Star Wars Kid, Lazy Sunday, Tron Guy, William Hung, John Titor, Ellen Feiss, Anton Maiden, Old Grandma Hardcore, Marguerite Perrin, Katilce Miranda, etc. Wikipedia has alot of articles that we can really question notability. I'm not on either side, I'm just putting information up there. Yanksox 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Were any of those articles put up in two days? Seems to me these were things that hung around a bit. Fan1967 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not positive. How many of them will be remembered? I say, at most, 4. Yanksox 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I am rubbing off poorly, I'm not upset or leaning towards deletion or closure. I think it's funny how we define a phemon. Yanksox 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to delete a lot of these examples also, with the obvious exceptions of Lazy Sunday and William Hung. GassyGuy 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably keep the star wars kid, too, but not the rest. That's the problem with these fads. They're mostly going to need cleanup later when they're forgotten. Fan1967 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think something like this needs a bit more time before it can be considered worthy of an article. WarpstarRider 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Naconkantari 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. chocolateboy 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn (for now) Adambiswanger1 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't NYT coverage assert nobility? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the more articles the better and if it bothers you dont go onto the page--The Nation 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That might be notable, except it's not true, or even close to the truth. I can think of two examples off the top of my head that predate this: P-P-P-Powerbook and the ever-in-the-news Perverted Justice. GassyGuy 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This story has gained steam incredibly fast and probably won't be forgotten. Definitely notable.Bp28 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like Fan1967, I also do not remotely believe that it is Wikipedia's task to record every passing fad on the internet. -- or, as it seems here for a two-day-old event -- to help spread it. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we shouldn't keep every little internet fad, it is too early for people to say this won't have staying power. Could any of you said with certainty that the P-P-P-Powerbook would still be remembered? Dgies 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The p-P-P-Powerbook article was created over a year after the incident, when it was clear the story had lasted. Fan1967 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWho cares, there are over a million articles. Behun 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Hardly encyclopedic or newsworthy. We don't put up stories about every single site that gets slashdotted or dug, nor do we have stories about everyday thefts - as much as I admire the guts of the guy who stood up to the thieves, this should not be on Wikipedia. --ElizabethFong 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MSNBC and the NYT consider it newsworthy, though... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article really places us in a VERY deep quagmire. I do think the article was put up a little too quickly by the author. If we delete this page, I honestly believe we have a good chance of this coming back up, since I believe a news source is eventually going to notice this. If we keep this, we would appear to contradict all of our previous debates. I think a delete is the safest decision, while we wait and see what happens of this. Yanksox 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly something needs to be added in WP:MEME asking for a cooling-off period before creating an article? I notice that there is also a standard there: "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture". Fan1967 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's a shame if a major news source's recognition of this event is the main factor in whether this article stays. It can just as easily be deleted later as now, and I don't think failure of a major news source to ever cover the event should be reason enough. true_blue2 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really a very tough call. I read about the incident, and well, I'll say it, an "OWN." I have to admit the google test results are AMAZING. We need to back away from this article it is WAY too soon to make a finial call. BTW, major news source doesn't have to be CNN or BBC. Yanksox 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its just not noteworthy enough. If people still remember this in a month there might be something about it worth having an article for. Shogun 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody said it doesn't fit the definition of an Internet meme. I think everyone agrees that it does (though I must admit, I first heard of it because of the Wikipedia article being put up for deletion.) However, the question here is, does this meet the requirements of WP:MEME? While this one may, at some future date, meet the requirements, at this point it really doesn't seem able to do so, which is why it would be best to delete this now and wait an appropriate amount of time. GassyGuy 05:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is still this huge in a few weeks (particularly after it is resolved), then there is probaby noteworthy.--SirNuke 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted and this does rise up through the ranks, there is a very simple solution: It can be recreated. Obviously, someone will tag it as a repost. But if notability is there, I will defend it. You have my word. Yanksox 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The internet vigilantism article could use some information from this article, but I don't see any value of it being a separate entry. ~~But still, I'm neutral.~~ deadkid_dk 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. updating my vote. deadkid_dk00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

Delete If anyone remembers this two months from now perhaps it can be re-added. It won't be. Artw 06:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sheer interest shown by thousands (or more) of internet denizens make this a noteworthy event. Whether or not it has staying power will be discivered down the road. I strongly suggest Keep for now, at least until its staying power can be determined. It can always be removed later. Therebelcountry 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. I actually read the source page via its slashdot link, before ever knowing it was on WP. But a couple days isn't enough for an internet meme; maybe if it turns into another "all your bases" after a couple months, someone can write a new article with the advantage of hindsight on how it evolves. But for now it's far too flash-in-the-pan. Note, BTW, that it appears that essentally every keep vote is from a brand new user; presumably attracted here via offiste links on the "how not to steal" website. LotLE×talk 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, maybe next time. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now, is not notable according to WP:MEME. SubSeven 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That has since changed, it now would be even under current flawed proposals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiability problems WP:V/WP:RS.--blue520 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability problems have since been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be kept to its respective sites only, and likely verifibiability problems. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It smacks of a money-generating hoax. I can't see one verifiable fact here, either. Its purpose in an encyclopedia is what, exactly. --whqttt
- NYT verified it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little more than a forum in-joke. JIP | Talk 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A forum "in joke" in the NYT, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Inner Earth 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I can't believe that this is something people should remember in the history of the world for years to come! Somebody stole a Sidekick, so what? Thousands of people crashed a few internet forums, so what? I think the world will be the same without this, I really do. Leave the record to remain on personal websites, NOT in an encyclopedia. Hanako 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny site... great fodder for a blog. Still, 2 days does not a meme make. If this is still around and being referenced in 6 months I will probably feel differently. Here's hoping "i got ball this is my adress 108 20 37 av corona come n do it iam give u the sidekick so I can hit you wit it" becomes the new All your base are belong to us.--Isotope23 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and categorize... This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and it won't be the last. Why is each one treated like a--OMG "special case", we're shocked, shocked--why not just create a category for unfolding internet fad stories, nobody will dispute sticking it in that category, and when the dust settles there is a nice--encyclopedic even--record and it can be disposed of. Brassrat
Delete completely non-notable, carnivorous socks aside - Peripitus (Talk) 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe you are right there Peripitus.--Andeh 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, notability first... then create an article -- bloggerel and mindless link propagation can sod off. Never mind arguments like "I think it might be picked up by the papers soon." We are not in the business of predicting notability. If becomes notable outside of a few incestuous gossipy websites... then add it. Until that happens, every time some misguided newbie recreates it, wel'll keep smacking it on the head and dragging it to the exit. Any other choice is just an open door policy for crap. - Motor (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for getting more attention with the help of Wikipedia. --Vlad|-> 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has already gained mention on MSNBC. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not of any enduring significance, i.e. not notable. The role of WP is not to record every interesting thing that happens on Slashdot... that's what Slashdot is for. Do all these Slashdotters think that a WP article is required to give them validation? WP and Slashdot are both valid sites, but they serve different purposes. Why don't people get that? Paddles ^T_C 15:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This is BIGGER than that Star War Kid! Egberts 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so it's become so pervasive of a meme that it has been lampooned on prime time television? Sorry, it's not even clost to Star Wars Kid.--Isotope23 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Wikipedia is not a Slashdot archive. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to this mighty sockflood, and per WP:NOT. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meme or not, this is a man-bites-dog news item and nothing more. Put it on Wikinews if you must. Sandstein 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I said it would be soon for mainstream. This isn't exactly mainstream but it's something, I guess. I'm still sitting on delete for now[3]. Yanksox 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Nonencyclopedic as a (popular, but ultimately) flash-in-the-pan subject. Obviously, not all memes (or pop-culture items) need withstand the hundred-year test, but this is far too short-notice and limited in its scope. Is there a better method, barring a by-year List of popular YouTube videos, for handling these fifteen-minutes-of-fame items? Maybe. But I'm not suggesting anything. Regardless, delete for now. -- Docether 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; if it becomes notable later, it can easily be recreated (possibly including undeletion of the page history). --cesarb 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If it turns out to be verifiably true, it would certainly be notable, although not necessarily significant enough to warrant its own page. If it turns out to be a hoax, I think the Wikipedia would be better served by discouraging hoaxsters from attempting to gain personal notoriety by "attention-whoring" their way into the Wikipedia. Jzerocsk 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. MaxSem 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable, etc... Wickethewok 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability has been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable, nn, lousy name.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability has been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967, Isotope23, Docether and everyone else who made the same point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My original vote seems to have been lost in the moving process... this is a repost of it: *Delete per nom. GassyGuy 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)" GassyGuy 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I must have made an error while moving things around. Please forgive my offense, GassyGuy. LotLE×talk 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it takes a lot more than an organizational oversight to get me upset. Think nothing of it. GassyGuy 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nonencyclopedic and non-notable meme. Voice of Treason 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE (maybe WP:NOT?). -- Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete digg, slashdot, etc. are not verifable sources, and at two days old how "meme" is it really? Hbdragon88 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More like 5 or 6 days now, and if Slashdot isn't, NYT is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, and for the same reason as Lindomar. Invitatious 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agent 86. Not a notable news item. --Starionwolf 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for today. If this is still a big deal six months from now, then it's a different story. Also, pity the poor admin who closes this one. ScottW 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- An internet meme must have already established notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia documents important stuff- it does not document stuff that might become important later. This is especially important for internet phenomena, where any interest often blows over very quickly. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan1967, Paddles and various other delete votes. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thought I already voted delete for this. Its obviously a fast appearing internet meme. Its the kind of thing that rapidly appears, then goes poof when the next one hits. Cannot guarentee that it will stay where it is. Can be recreated if this stays in the mind for a long time a la p-p-p-owerbook!! Kevin_b_er 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, unable to verify, unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ 06:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be smerged with a larger article on internet vigilantism (along with stuff like Dog poop girl, since it's becoming a relatively common occurrance, and there are good sources available on the trend (like this article in the New York Times). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - are we going to add an article for every single website that reaches the front page of Digg or Slashdot? --Boxflux 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~, it is too soon to accurately gauge its notability; which as far as I can tell is going through the roof. CNET.com mention Deleting now is entirely unnecessary and rash. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some might argue that it is too soon to accurately gauge its notability, and creating now is entirely unnecessary and rash. Fan1967 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, for now. That ignores Wikipedia's strengths. Such as our long tail; also Wikipedia is not paper. I can also guarantee the article will be recreated by good faith new users; making this entire exercise ludicrously premature. Changing my vote as a result... a deleted article isn't the best way to introduce new people to Wikipedia. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was sitting on the fence with this one, as it has recieved coverage in not just Slashdot but Cnet and MSNBC. But what pushed me towards delete was that the subject of the article is the website, not the incident itself. And being an encylopedia, we have to look at what's gonna be noteworthy five or ten years from now. And while the incident might merit a stub or at least a mention in another article in five years, there's no reason to believe that the website will even still be online by then. And the whole thing seems to me like it's really just a whole hulla-balu about nothing. Somebody picked up someone's cell-phone - who cares?! ENpeeOHvee 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the article is regarding the website, it was meant to convey the influence of internet vigilantism and present a valid case. Hence, the focus is indeed the incident, but you may have miscontrued it. It may be my fault in phrasing the article, I am continually trying to edit it for acceptable standards. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very strongly. This is all over the internet, apparently. Everyking 05:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the numerous reasons above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe this will be notable under WP:MEME in a year or so, nn at the moment. --Tim1988 ^talk 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually notable under the propsed WP:MEME now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't. "To be considered a classic, a meme must not be relatively new (at least a year old)?" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it will ever be that notable. SYSS Mouse 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable cruft relating to the sort of non-event that some bloggers seem to become obsessed with. Frankly, there are more notable minor shoplifting offences. Whether it's all over the internet or not is irrelevant; huge quantities of rubbish are all over the internet. -- Necrothesp 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable. Not of any relevance now, definitely not of any relevance in a week or a month never mind further in the future. So it's all over the internet, so what? Not even remotely encyclopaedic. As Necrothesp has said there are more notable minor shoplifting offenses and other crimes and they're not here. My home was broken into once but I don't think that deserves a mention on Wikipedia (other than here obviously). Ben W Bell talk 09:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that reported in The New York Times, too? Everyking 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hundreds of thousands of articles are published in newspapers each day. We can't write an article on every little insignificant thing that ever happens. --Cyde↔Weys 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, it's way too new, and secondly, it's not terribly original. It might eventually belong as a section of a larger article on internet vigilantism. Sxeptomaniac 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. --Ragib 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Internet Vigilantism. Just a thought. Elijya 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This was picked up by James Lileks' Daily Bleats on the first day. Whether or not this is "important" five or six years or now is up to people editing this page then - might as well kick it up to them. At any rate the first draft coverage of this "event" will likely have some value in excess of what this was all about. -- Entered by Franny Wentzel at 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Every day various little stupid things on the Internet are becoming "popular" - and then everyone forgets about them just as quickly. We're writing a long-term encyclopedia, not a short-term online meme tracker. --Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - at least until it can be determined the durability of this article. I think it is too early to determine if this is just a flash-in-the-pan. - Tεxτurε 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Merge with Internet vigilantism as suggested above. Internet vigilantism could easily detail much of this event and the others listed there without growing too large. If a better example came along it could replace this one. - Tεx τ urε 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ephemeral news item of limited relevance. FreplySpang 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Internet vigilantism article or keep, so long as the content is retained. Silensor 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Either keep the article as-is, or merge it as a sub-page of the Internet vigilantism page. As it stands, the article in question may be too long to merge with the Internet vigilantism article proper, hence the suggestion of "merge as subpage". --SpecOp Macavity 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would see the merge into Internet vigilantism to also include a reduction in size to something more appropriate for the overall article. A subpage would be ok, though. - Tεx τ urε 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's wait 6 months. If people still remember it, I wouldn't mind it's use as an example in Internet vigilantism, but I can't see how this incident would be worthy of an article itself. ~MDD 46 96 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per most of above. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Discussion[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink monkey[edit]

NN band per WP:MUSIC, probable spam and/or vanity. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -AED 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No links, nothing to show why it should be included. At the very least having the AfD tag up will prompt the author to edit faster ;) jk Lsjzl 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, POV, significant portions are unverifiable. Paddles ^T_C 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity and no notability asserted in article, but this is a nightclub, not a band. --Joelmills 03:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Manolita Stadium[edit]

Can't find anything to suggest that the stadium actually exists. Not linked to, and the page for Real Betis says that they play at Manuel Ruiz de Lopera, as do many other sources I've looked at. fuzzy510 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Doña Manolita Stadium says that the stadium is "is the home ground of Real Betis football club". Real Betis says that its home stadium is the 52,700 seater Manuel Ruiz de Lopera Stadium. Unless those two are one in the same (ala Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Doak Campbell Stadium/Bobby Bowden Field, etc), this would seem to be a hoax. BigDT 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pages from google quotes Wikipedia as source. Can't find any independent proof. Maybe some Real Betis fan can tell us? :P Frankchn 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Adambiswanger1 04:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original page was in Spanish, and an automatic translation gives it as: "Place of cult where the followers of the Betis reunen themselves. to these to them usually it also is called lambs to follow exactly what her master says." Punkmorten 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 15:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to have been intended as a joke/insult originally. Doña Manolita is the Spanish lottery - nothing to do with football. Dlyons493 Talk 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There is already a debate about keep, merge, or redirect, and that can be continued outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zorn's Law[edit]

There has been a discussion as to whether to merge, keep, or delete this. The discussion revealed a few things. This "law" was made up by Eric Zorn and he mentioned it in his blog. It has not been used widely elsewhere. He himself then created the page here in order to publicize it, and even referred to his use of wikipedia for publicity purposes a "whim and a stunt" [4]. I think based on the fact that it is a neologism that has yet to catch on, combined with the fact that it appears to violate WP:NOT, and evidence that the originator is trying to use wikipedia to publicise his own work, I do not even think it is worth a merge - just delete it. Bachrach44 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether or not the 'law' is mentioned on the Eric Zorn page this one should be deleted, i.e. not redirected. Eluchil404 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rob 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's a reason I read his column in the Trib and never go near his blog. Fan1967 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "whim and a stunt." Now if Kass came up with a law, maybe... --JChap 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Eric Zorn. Is there no room for this bit of trivia on his page? Adambiswanger1 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheesy attempt at self-promotion. · rodii · 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the law ever becomes widely used (and this can be verified), then I have no problem bringing the law back to life. But at this point, it's a neologism, and not encyclopedic. --EngineerScotty 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get a life - oh, didn't work, so delete. Jammo (SM247) 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eric Zorn. I prefer John Zorn, myself. -- GWO
Merge to Eric Zorn. JIP | Talk 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "made up and posted on his blog"... goodbye. Someone AFD Eric Zorn as well, while you are at it.... and let me know so I can show up and vote delete on that too. - Motor (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'd like to, I suspect a daily column in the Chicago Tribune makes you notable, like John Kass. His blog, however, is not notable. Fan1967 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think just having a column in a newspaper makes you notable. If it's widely referenced by others (not bloggers)... that does make you notable. - Motor (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eric Zorn. Also, a note: it is self-promotion and all of those things, but he obviously didn't know the rules. No need for the snark. -- Superdosh 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and rodii. Paddles ^T_C 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Joyous! | Talk 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. -- Docether 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eric Zorn per Adambiswanger1. --Zoz (t) 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Get a life (which has to be distinguished from Get a Life for it to make sense. . Never mind, Delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zorn's Lemma. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Never been that clear on the difference between a lemma and a law or theorem anyway. And Eric can't complain if it's redirecting to his grandfather's work. Fan1967 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. --JJay 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zorn's Lemma per Zetawoof. Much more valuable to Wikipedia as a redirect to something that actually matters, than the rubbish that's there now. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think the redirect makes much sense. There is a real difference between laws and lemmas. I think a delete makes more sense if the merge doesn't work out. -- Superdosh 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the non-mathematician, the distinction is pretty subtle. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roster McCabe[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and blatant, blatant, blatant advertising. Only 222 total and 38 unique G-hits for "Roster McCabe". -- Kicking222 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kicking222. --JChap 03:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn, reads like an ad. Adambiswanger1 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sickening as is, not notable otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strewth. If you're going to write an article about your own band, you could at least get hold of some semi-competent live photography. -- GWO
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ohhhhh my... I know these guys very, very well. They are not notable per WP:MUSIC yet... Sorry. Grand master ka 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Snyder[edit]

I nominate this article for AFD as non-notable. If we aren't going to have an article on Bond's 715th HR, then why would we have one on his 714th?? OSU80 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --WillMak050389 03:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the homerun, it's about the person whom caught it, which probably results in finicial gain. I say we Delete this, but mention that he caught the ball in the Bond's article. Yanksox 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His name is already mentioned in Barry Bond's article. OSU80 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by all means, bombs away. Yanksox 04:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete If he had done something newsworth with the ball, or added notability to himself somehow, I would vote keep
Delete Normally I do not like to delete wiki pages, but this was obviously created by the guy who caught the ball to make himself look better, but it has the opposite reaction. Lord_Hawk 04:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 - catching a home run ball is not an assertion of notability. Paddles ^T_C 15:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedily if possible. There's no real assertion of notability here. ScottW 01:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. <sarcasm>Or create an article on the ball. I mean, if catching it is notable, certainly the ball is, too</sarcasm> TerraFrost 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MFD is over there. Kotepho 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andy5190[edit]

Delete this request was closed long ago. Andy Blak 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it was never properly opened by being transcluded to the main WP:RFA page. This belongs on the Miscellany for deletion page instead of WP:AFD, but I'll submit a nomination for it there. --Metropolitan90 05:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Washington[edit]

The fact that these bands are from Washington is not notable because none is famous for being from Washington. Also this article should be 'artists' from Washington, bands are just a fraction of performers from the state. See Talk:List of bands from Washington

Question Is there any particular reason for only nominating the Washington list, or would you propose deletion for every list at [[Category:Lists of bands by US state]]? GassyGuy 05:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Of all the state-band lists you picked the one from Washington? The only problem I see is that they overlap with Category:List of bands from XY, but the lists are well kept, contain additional information (city) seem to be in a better shape than the categories. If someone is willing to put in the effort to categorize them all they could be considered for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete listcruft, wherever it comes from. Tychocat 08:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I'm from Washington, and enjoy having the links to all the local bands or "artists" on that page. Most bands are only "famous" for being from Seattle, but this page shows that talent comes from all over Washington. KEEP THE PAGE PLEASE!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.149.104 (talk • contribs)
Delete, listcruft... although maybe it might make for a rich source of gathered together future AFD targets of bedrooms bands who have been busy on Wikipedia. Probably worth making a copy of it in user space first, just in case. Use cats for this stuff. - Motor (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lists of musicians from most states in the U.S....why should this one be randomly chosen for deletion? Amazinglarry 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of bands by state Stephen 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though it might function be better as a category than a list. ENpeeOHvee 05:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is the type of information I'd like to be able to look up, although it'd be fine as a merge into a category. — RJH (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of car-free people[edit]

WP:NOT Listcruft John Nagle 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator's position statement can be found at Talk:List of car-free people.

Delete as listcruft/trivia, per WP:NOT. --John Nagle 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by looking at Google, carfree seems to be a legitimate movement. Other lists exist of notable people that fit into similar categories (vegetarians and vegans for example). Ckessler 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be useful, as it is a relatively rare thing based on the criterion it seems - the title probably needs work though. RN 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that rare; a significant fraction of the population of New York City does not drive. --John Nagle 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That may be true, but how many of those people are choosing not to drive, and how many don't drive for economic or practical reasons? Ckessler 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the title, I looked to the existing articles Car-free movement and List of car-free places as a guideline for my choice of wording. thoreaubred 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People on the list would be making the same choice as New Yorkers, they just have different motivations. It's also easier for famous people, as they are often wealthy enough to fly, be driven around or rent cars for short-term use, so they are not giving up much. Both groups have circumstances that allow them to not own a car, which is impossible or at least an enormous burden in many areas. Also, while most New Yorkers, and other people without cars, probably don't have a car for practical or economic reasons, it is likely that a significant percentage do not own a car for ethical reasons. It's also strange to pick a single issue like this. I don't see how it is much different from a list of people who recycle or compost, except that they are more widespread. -- Kjkolb 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not at all analagous to people who recycle, as recycling is not a deliberate departure from an ingrained social norm, whereas veganism is much more analagous (which is why I keep citing it) because, like choosing to live car-free, it is a lifestyle change that departs from a very dominant, entrenched culture and is arguably difficult (and therefore notable when accomplished) for that very reason. I believe List of vegans is a directly analagous precedent and if it is allowed to stay then List of car-free people should also be allowed. thoreaubred 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a lifestyle choice movement relevant to major current issues such as climate change, and lists of other lifestyle choices such as vegans have not been deleted. thoreaubred 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge While the Car-free movement article is notable enough for a keep, this list is too small to justify its existence. Perhaps merge it with the aforementioned article. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that. There were only three people in the list, and I didn't see how it was going to grow much, given the need for verifiability. --John Nagle 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is small because it was just added today. I started with the two very notable figures I knew for sure and had time to find sources for, and hoped that other people would expand the list in the future, as I would as well. I'm adding people as we speak. The List of vegans requires verifiability yet has steadily grown over time. It's not unusual for such a list to start small, and its current size after only a few hours should not be a factor in its deletion. thoreaubred 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cruft and original research. It is unlikely that a reliable source has compiled a substantial list of this type, so editors will try to interpret who is car-free by statements that the people make or other clues. -- Kjkolb 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when are articles deleted based on empty speculation about whether they will be verifiable? Leave verification to the editors of the article. So far I've added five names to this list and used a solid source for each one, and held off adding any I'm pretty sure of but haven't yet found a source for. There are many articles about which one could make the speculation you're making, but that bridge should be crossed when it is come to, it should not be the basis for deleting an article. thoreaubred 06:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are articles deleted based on empty speculation about whether they will be verifiable? No, it's more like articles are deleted because verification will be based on empty speculation. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that is bad-faith rhetoric. How can you proclaim that an article's verifications will be based on empty speculation when every name added to the list so far has cited a reputable source, and when so many other lists of this kind exist and also contain verification by reputable sources? What is the point of making such slanderous declarations, such as that an article's verification "will be based on empty speculation", an empty statement that could be said about any and every article? Come on, stop being disingenuous and insulting anyone reading this discussion with such hollow rhetoric. thoreaubred 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You first: stop insulting my (and everyone's) intelligence with the tendentious browbeating and content-free use of "bad faith", "slandering", and "disingenuous". --Calton | Talk 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete potentially large and seemingly indiscriminate. Jammo (SM247) 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article/chart, it's a political movement's celebrity endorsement list. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the list in question is a list of people making a lifestyle choice, not a political one, there are lists on Wikipedia of notable people in countless political parties, philosophies, or movements, from Democrats to Fascists to Pacifists. See List of people by belief and the category Lists of People By Ideology which includes lists ranging from Neo-Nazis to Transhumanists to Ethcisits to Conscienscious Objectors. If these arguments being made against List of car-free people are in good faith, are those making them also going to propose deletion of every list of people by ideology, belief, political philosophy, lifestyle, and so on? thoreaubred 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "bad faith" would be misusing terms like "bad faith", divorcing it from its real meaning in an attempt to use it as a content-free insult. Bad faith would be the annoyingly common logical fallacy of taking legitimate but vaguely related articles -- lists regarding deep personal beliefs, philosophical underpinnings, and reasons for historical importance important to understanding the life stories of individuals -- and attempting to compare and align one's personal pet cause with them, a form of intellectual-burnishment-by-association (or perhaps cargo-cultism). Bad faith would be asking ludicrously broad and essentially unanswerable rhetorical questions to avoid confronting the obvious flaws raised by debate. Bad faith would be the general trend of trying to justify what amounts to propaganda with endless browbeating of anyone who opposes you. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your dishonest, hypocritical rhetoric is exasperating. People like you are the reason that serious people are abandoning Wikipedia every day, because they're tired of having to defend every new article against an onslaught of overzealous rule-fetishists wielding empty, shamelessly dishonest rhetoric and talking points like that which you have displayed. I give up, because trying to maintain a debate in the face of such dishonesty is too exhausting. I was wondering at what point I would finally give up on Wikipedia (like so many others) and I think this is it. (Not that your comments make up the bulk of those on this page, but they sum up the worst it, and the worst of the level of debate on Wikipedia in general.) thoreaubred 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and the bad-faith hits just keep on coming! Bad faith would be the use of empty and hyperbolic adjectives to add meaning where there is none ("dishonest"? What have I lied about? "hypocritical"? Which of my principles -- stated or otherwise -- have I violated?). Bad faith would be making apocalyptic and unprovable statements about the consequences of, well, telling you that you're wrong. Bad faith would be ham-handed attempts at guilt-tripping. Bad faith would be the temper-tantruming of "do what I say or I'll take my ball and go home!" If the list in question demonstrates the level of contribution you'd bring to Wikipedia and if this AfD demonstrates the level of discourse you'd bring to discussions of edits -- well, Sunny Jim, I'd say, "Sorry, and don't let the doorknob bang you on the ass on the way out." --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unmaintainable. -AED 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yawn. I think this about sums up this "discussion" so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_wikipedia#Level_of_Debate "The standard of debate has also been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely by the community." No kidding. This once-interesting site is becoming more and more over-moderated and ruled by mobs of groupthinkers who can't be bothered to actually listen to a logical argument if it conflicts with their preconceived fetish for misguided, bad-faith deletions and edits and any other applicable acts of belligerence based on misinterpretations of already inconsistent and contradictory policies and guidelines and other such rule-porn for failed librarians. It's gonna come to point where everyone who once took a serious interest in Wikipedia regards it as a joke and the only people left participating in it are the same gangs of heavy-handed overmoderators who dominate "discussions" like this one with blind regurgitations of weak, rhetorical wikilogisms like "listcruft" and "unmaintainable" and all the other fun little phrases with which you decorate this formidable e-fortress, all the while warning, in one of your many guidelines and policies, against neologisms. thoreaubred 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I'm a groupthinking overmoderator. ~ trialsanderrors 06:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with car-free movement. Just a little note...as someone who is carfree (though currently reconsidering it), I have no anti-carfree biases that would influence my decision to vote delete. jgp 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs on a pressure group's site, not on Wikipedia. Chicheley 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list, and I say this as a car-free person myself. JIP | Talk 10:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't even learn to drive till I was 30, and this page is still a pointless waste of everyone's time. Two members of an obscure folk band, Ralph Nader and Nabokov? That's the best you can do? Incredible. Maybe we should add Jesus, who prefered motorcycles. -- GWO
Delete. There are over 6 billion people in the world, most of whom do not own a car. By definition, therefore, this list will always be incomplete (as people die, are born or even acquire a car) and therefore a useless article. Markb 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Car-free movement, until the verified list becomes long enough to merit hiving off. The car-free movement is well known, at least in the UK. The list inclusion criteria, referencing notable people who elect for ethical reasons to avoid car ownership, seem reasonable and comparable, as the creator points out, to vegans or pacifists. Espresso Addict 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, silly.--Andeh 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Car-free movement, which is a fairly sparse article at the moment. I'm agreeing with Espresso Addict's reasoning. The list of carfree individuals should probably stress that they are car-free as an active ethical choice, rather than by random circumstance. This would take care of the argument that most of the world's population should be included on the list. Joyous! | Talk 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Espresso Addict. Kafziel 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not contain things you thought up one day at school. I agree with the argument that most (all) lists should go. We'll do it one at a time. Consider categories. Ted 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A short list of prominent "car-freers" might be worthwhile at Car-free movement, but a list such as this one serves no encyclopedic purpose. —C uivi é nen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:28 UTC
Keep. Fascinating and important information in our car-dominated society. Also, no valid reason given for deletion. --JJay 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which car-dominated society would that be? --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most places in the world where people have access to this reference work, but perhaps not the bucolic backwater where you live. For more information see google [5]. --JJay 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the bucolic backwater of Tokyo, Japan: is that a "car-dominated society"? More to the point, however, is your telling use of the adjective "our": so which car-dominated society would that be, and why does your particular brand of provincialism trump the international focus of this encyclopedia? And where is the rationale for Wikipedia being some sort of engine of social change for "our" "car-dominated" society (however you're defining those two terms)? --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's far too many philosophical questions beyond the scope of this debate and my obviously limited intelligence (although the layers of meaning interwoven with your always delightful dissection of most of the comments on this page will, I'm sure, continue to amuse your fans). However, now that you've shared with us your home base, you might perhaps want to use Toyota, Nissan or Mitsubishi as the starting point for an examination of Japan's role in the global auto industry. --JJay 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; funny, I thought I saw WP:NOT at the top of the page. For my part, I am desperately unimpressed with the impassioned speeches about how we're a bunch of deletionist fascists for failing to see encyclopedic merit in a list that, as has accurately been pointed out, includes most of the people in the world, for reasons as disparate as economic, lifestyle choice, moral or simply that they're underage - Dakota Fanning must be car-free, if you think about it. RGTraynor 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an enormous amount of bla bla at WP:Not. Strangely enough, though, "listcruft" and "trivia" are not present in the policy. The least the nom could do is devote a few more seconds of his time to explain the reasoning behind the nom. Perhaps even write a whole sentence. I'm sure even "deletionist fascists" can do that. --JJay 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, WP:NOT doesn't mention my mobile phone, my desk calendar, or the can of Café Du Monde Original French Market Coffee Stand Coffee and Chicory in front of me, and yet somehow they're not getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to add the items to WP:Not. While you're at it, please add listcruft and trivia as well. At that point, I will most happily rescind my comment above. --JJay 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I'm unimpressed (though perhaps not desperately) by people who put words in others' mouths, as you are the first person to mention "fascists". Perhaps you should look that word up. What I called people was heavy-handed overmoderators, mobs, gangs, groupthinkers, belligerent, misguided, failed librarians, rule-fetishists, and so on, as well as implying either illiteracy or simply a conscious choice not to bother reading the logical arguments that have already precluded many of their fallacious, disingenuous points. I never called anyone a fascist. thoreaubred 07:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and are you seeking praise for not using the term "fascist" among your many other insults against those who disagree with you? Possibly a spoonful of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA would go down a bit tastier while you wait. That being said, you make a common error in presuming that those who disagree with you do so only because they do not understand your position or aren't bothering to address it. RGTraynor 08:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and in fact, they are among the very few policies on Wikipedia that actually make sense. Therefore, being fed up and just about done with Wikipedia, I would rather have the satisfaction of violating its two reasonable policies than its 50 ridiculous ones (the latter is done effortlessly be being a serious, sincere user of the site; only the former can be done deliberately). As for your second comment, I don't make any "common error" (I'm so impressed with all the wikimavens around here talking about the "common errors" and "common fallacies" that must plague anyone who dares to disagree with them.) Actually, I base the observation (not presumption) that people aren't listening to my arguments on the fact that every so-called argument they offer up has already been precluded by mine. It's not that they're disagreeing with me--actually it's exactly that they're not disagreeing with me, as they are mindlessly repeating reasons that I have already demonstrated to be invalid. Disagreeing with me would require rebutting even one of the several strong arguments I've made for my case, and no one here has done that. Oh wait, why did I type all that, it's not like you're gonna bother reading it or giving it the slightest bit of thought, as I'm just making the common error of disagreeing with you. thoreaubred 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So calling people mobs and gangs is civil? I guess WP:CIVIL only makes sense to you when it's someone else who is being incivil (uncivil?). Since you are the creator of the article being discussed, I highly doubt your objectivity. You are simply doing whatever you can to save your "baby", including smearing other editors to do so. There's nothing wrong with defending your creation, but you've gone way too far. jgp 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indesciminate collection of information. Hmmmm. Here's a large set of things. Here's a trivial and unrelated criterion. Put them together and... hey presto! LISTCRUFT!!!! Reyk _YO! 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I recommend bike-riding to everyone. Seriously, your life will be so much better. However, this article is vague and unencyclopedic. ScottW 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossible list. I think just about everybody born before 1850 probably qualifies. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the first line in the article where it said the list was only open to people who lived "much or all of their lives after the invention of cars". --JJay 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which still means the vast majority of the current 6.5 billion people should be on this list. Markb 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the time, please see the first line in the article where it is made clear that: "this is a list of noteworthy people". To my knowledge, we do not yet have articles on the "vast majority of the current 6.5 billion people". Hence, your statement is erroneous. --JJay 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there are 6 'noteworthy people', out of the 6.5 billion in the world , who don't drive cars? Utter tosh! Even more laughable, out of this 6, 17% don't have an entry in Wikipedia, so are hardly 'noteworthy'. I rather suspect this article is trying to make a political point (& a very parochial one at that, I note the 5 people with their own entries are all assocaited with the USA). Markb 07:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should realize that anyone can edit articles at wikipedia. Therefore, in answer to your questions: (i) add more people to the list if you feel that six is not enough; (ii) remove entries for people you do not consider "noteworthy"; (iii) add non-American names in order to fight the cultural bias that you seem to sense in this list. I hope this helps. --JJay 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure anyone can edit the thing or add more names. Screenwriter William Goldman, however, had an term for the constant rewriting and polishing of bad and essentially unsalvageble screenplays, a term that seems apt here: "washing garbage." --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really fascinating, and would even be meaningful, except this list, at present, has little relationship to screenwriting. As always, though, thanks for the comment. --JJay 02:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of those quirky little Wikipedia things, but as long as they're all verified then I don't see any problem with it. And it was notable enough for all those media organizations to discuss it. ENpeeOHvee 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Car-free movement --Gherald 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete , pointless obscure listcuft. - Motor (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are lists of notable people belonging to various movementgs, why not this one? And to echo another user...Yes, people ARE leaving Wiki every day due to the 'delete everything' fanaticism that has unfortunately seeped into the site. TruthCrusader 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'delete everything' fanaticism That's right! Those people who want to delete everything, leaving behind nothing but a blank website! They must be stopped. <Pause. Looks around.> Psst, can you tell me where these crazy people are? Are they hiding under the bed somewhere? --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to belabor the point but this should've started out as a section under the Car-free movement entry in the first place and then maybe graduate into a full-blown list after gathering enough credible entries, and if Tbred wasn't so enarmored with putting the hate on other people this could've been resolved a long time ago. ~ trialsanderrors 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, well, listcruft. Sandstein 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I wish right now I could add all Italian inhabitants of Berne to that list, as they've all been driving around my house, honking and yelling, for one hour now. I understand Italy won their first World cup game against some push-over team. Porca miseria. Sandstein 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult the great nation of Ghana. --JJay 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting the the great nation of Ghana. I'm insulting their football team, and also the the great but loud nation of Italy. I understand this is acceptable in a sporting context. And yes, the above comment was not intended to be taken completely seriously, and neither is this one. Sandstein 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this topic is not noteworthy.JB196 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would put this under the category of 'indiscriminate collection of information' in WP:NOT. David | Talk 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Arthur Donoho[edit]

nn, only claim to fame is that he is the son of a celebrity. Ckessler 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is considerably less famous than some of the other children of celebrities who have been discussed on AfD recently. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barney, my Pebbles!, I mean Delete. Danny Lilithborne 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn actor. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some children of celebs are faous and or notable simply for being children of celebs but this one is not Ydam 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being related to someone notable doesn't make you notable. Paddles ^T_C 15:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After hearing all the arguments, I remain unconvinced that any living person younger than my baby cousin can be notable (barring some sort of major scientific breakthrough associated with them.) Metropolitan90 is right as well. Grand master ka 07:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlindRaven Network[edit]

Non-notable webiste, probably a vanity page. Artw 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; does not fulfillWP:WEB criteria. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn website. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ohno. Paddles ^T_C 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocracy[edit]

Non-notable neologism with NPOV problems. Artw 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, OR, WP:NOT. Yanksox 05:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, doesn't even mean anything cool like hologram MPs. Jammo (SM247) 06:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a personal essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 10:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Yanksox. Inner Earth 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Rob 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. "Holocracy" is a neologism that has been used by a variety of authors to mean quite different things, very different to the contents of this article. Paddles ^T_C 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yanksox and WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Has 404 Ghits, with several apparent meanings.--Nydas 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly biased, soapbox even. Also, the word seems to mean whatever the author wants it to mean, Ive seen different definitions before. --Ushionna 16:34, 8 June 2006 (PST)
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Emanuel Schell[edit]

As with Andrew J. Armstrong, although interesting, this is an ancient obituary about a non-notable person. Medtopic 05:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Appears to be the results of someone's genealogy research. None of them meet WP:BIO criteria as far as I can tell. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn bio. Kafziel 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per all above; speedy because article does not contain any assertion of notability. Paddles ^T_C 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom--Nobunaga24 01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Smith[edit]

As with Andrew J. Armstrong and Abram Emanuel Schell, although interesting, this is an ancient obituary about a non-notable person. Medtopic 05:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article doesn't assert much in terms of noatability and wikipedia is not a place for memorials or obituaries Ydam 11:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn bio. Kafziel 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under A7. Prodego ^talk 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.W. Smith[edit]

As with Andrew J. Armstrong, Abram Emanuel Schell, and James H. Smith, although interesting, this is an ancient obituary about a non-notable person. Medtopic 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn bio. Kafziel 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Paddles ^T_C 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no vote yet the name rings a bell. he may have done something significant but im not sure. if the creator of the page can tell me what the R. W. stands for, i could probably find out. antmoney85

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Fang Aili as "no context". Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commit This To Memory (Re-Release)[edit]

An article for a re-release??? Artw 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm a fan of the album, I don't see that a re-release merits a new article. Any information relating to it can and should be integrated into the article for Commit This to Memory. GassyGuy 06:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Editor couldn't even be bothered to name the band. ~ trialsanderrors 07:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really any content to merge (aside from mentioning that there was, in fact, a re-release), and no need to make it into a redirect since nothing links to it and it's an unlikely search term. Kafziel 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 - no context, and all reasons given above. Paddles ^T_C 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 W. E. Johns. – [ælfəks] 11:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.E. Johns[edit]

~~As above, non-notable person.~~ Redirect per Capitalistroadster's comments below. Medtopic 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)edited 07:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to W. E. Johns, the author of Biggles. That is who I was expecting the article on. This article provides no information on anything notable that the subject did in the Mexican American War or subsequently. Capitalistroadster 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. -- GWO
Redirect per Capitalistroadster. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per Capitalistroadster; speedy because it would be an A7 (no assertion of notability) candidate for deletion. Paddles ^T_C 15:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalistroadster--Nobunaga24 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. - Motor (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deauxma[edit]

Pr0n spam Artw 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet any of the Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) criteria. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I would say that she is borderline notable. Also, there should be a law about working in pornography after 40. -- Kjkolb 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just another porn actor. Peripitus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - original author (and only substantial contributor) added a speedy request. --Golbez 07:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F (Grade)[edit]

DeleteThis article is useless (in my opinion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant Blue Anteater (talk • contribs)
Delete Better content already exists at Grade_(education)#United_States. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GassyGuy 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artw 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
F per nom Jammo (SM247) 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per itsJamie. Rather difficult to end up here, and it is beter described where jamie pointed out, no need to make a whole article. As its difficult to get here, there's no need for a redirect. Disambiguation to Grade_(education)#United_States already exists in each letter's disambiguation pages. There are no articles for the other major letter grades used like this either. Kevin_b_er 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless, redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
F- per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. (insulting also) Rob 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it did give me a chuckle. It's already covered at Grading in the United States and in the article for the letter F itself. Kafziel 14:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article gets an F- from me. :) Paddles ^T_C 15:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D- not an "F" or a good article. Either way it doesn't make the grade. Voice of Treason 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of this article. I nominated it for deletion. So far, I've been getting Delete. 90% chance of being deleted. This is the first article I have nominated for deletion. How many votes should an article have before it gets deleted? GBA 00:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the article's creator and wanted it deleted there's no reason for us to need to vote on this, you could have speedied it yourself. Voice of Treason 00:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grade (education). Lbbzman 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grade (education) seems reasonable, though the "(Grade)" disambiguation would make this a fairly uncommon search term. — TKD::Talk 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lbbzman and TKD. --Allen 01:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reason for not redirecting is that users will rarely enter "F (Grade)" when they are searching for information on the grade. Grades themselves can be better covered by an article on grade (education) than individual enteries. Cedars 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi, I concur that a user is unlikely to enter "F (Grade)" when searching for this information. However, I'd think it would be plausible that someone would enter F Grade into the Wikipedia search or Google when looking for this information. Having a redirect would allow for more relevant search results. Cheers, Lbbzman 02:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Also, redirects are cheap and help to prevent the same article from being created again (if it was created once...) — TKD::Talk 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was deleted earlier, but now it's been un-deleted. I think it should stay deleted. I agree that not too many people would type F (Grade) in the Wiki search. Giant Blue Anteater 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think a Wikipedian might be reasonably likely to type in "F (Grade)", knowing that "F" would take them to the article on the letter itself. And as more readers get used to Wikipedia conventions, they might type it in too. Not that this particular redirect is exactly crucial; I'm just discussing for the sake of the principle. (I'm kind of a redirect fan.) --Allen 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that the earlier deletion of this article was a clerical error. The AfD had not had time to run its course. Cheers, Lbbzman 04:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal parade[edit]

Non-notable band. Artw 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete bandcruft. Computerjoe 's talk 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete possible case for A7, and as per WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above. Clearly a vanity article. Paddles ^T_C 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubm[edit]

Self describes as non-notable. Artw 06:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN slang, if sufficiently notable merge to New_Zealand_English#New_Zealand_English_vocabulary, but does not seem to be. Jammo (SM247) 07:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth a merge. It's some people actually phoenetically announciating a mistyping of dumb. Self-description also noted. Kevin_b_er 07:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 08:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDJ Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

Spam. Artw 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP Jammo (SM247) 06:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. -AED
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Fl owerparty☀ 01:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Seconds[edit]

This was created in late May, and was deprodded. I do not believe this to, at all, be meeting WP:BAND. No major public releasing hitting any charts or anything. The 3rd result in the search for their publisher is the publisher's myspace page. Can't find major radio networks nor a unique style notable to north california. They are just an little band someone formed. Not yet notable at all. The following articles are also included in this AfD, as they are ancillary additions added recently to what would already be a non-notable band:
Lily Faden
Sierra Frost
To Pass The Time

// Kevin_b_er 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Good luck to the band, though. -AED 08:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--blue520 10:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Paddles ^T_C 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a friend of the band I attempted to bring their pages up to Wikipedia standards. If I can offer any defense on their behalf: Two Seconds is a signed band in the San Francisco Bay Area, receiving airplay on major radio Live 105; they are playing a radio festival tomorrow sponsored by the radio station, sharing the bill with acts such as AFI, The Strokes, Franz Ferdinand and Echo & The Bunnymen (see information [here], with the band's name listed). They played the Noise Pop 2006 festival with Smoosh, a band signed to Barsuk Records. They are making an impact on the local scene; however, if Wikipedia only desires to feature articles about nationally charting rock bands, then it is understandable that this article would be deleted. I have only contributed to this article as an attempt to help Wikipedia, not to violate WP:BAND. - Slagkick 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'd like to say that I looked throught the article's history, and I think you did a nice job improving this article. I hope you decide to stay and contribute to other articles. However, from what I've seen so far, this band appears to be strictly local at this point, and does not qualify for an article at this time under WP:BAND. If they should ever meet the notability guidelines, then I think you'd find more support for their inclusion. ScottW 02:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I wasn't aware of the guidlines of WP:BAND. Ultimately it has no bearing on me...I just couldn't stand how unorganized it used to be. Slagkick 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting Sierra and Lily with the notability criteria to see if they can offer any support to meet the criteria, I know they have a second album in the works, though I don't know if PopSmear Records counts as a "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)". (and sorry about the disorganization, I'm new to editing the wiki and it was my first article) Rudd103 18:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not so bad, its just that they don't meet WP:BAND. That sounds harsh, but there's a de facto level of inclusion as a sort of bar to keep to keep wikipedia about stuff that would warrent an entry in an encyclopedia. There's nothing keeping them from eventually gaining enough notability to warrent an article. Who knows, one of the articles on band that is deleted off of wikipedia could become big one day. Its impossible to tell right now, so rather than guessing, they don't get an article yet... Kevin_b_er 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't heard back from them. I'll keep a copy of the article on my computer, is there an accepted or best way to re-post the article if I get new information that meets the notability requirements? Rudd103 17:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the general procedure is to go through the deletion review process at WP:DRV. If the article is deleted and you recreate it with similar content without undergoing the review, it will be subject to speedy deletion. ScottW 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Save it as a subpage of your userspace until such time that it meets WP:BAND. - Keith D. Tyler
      - Done, thanks for the idea. - Rudd103 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¶ (AMA) 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pe nom. --MaNeMeBasat 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Phl3djo 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by MONGO as recreation of previously deleted page. DarthVad e r 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Jewish conspiracy theory[edit]

This page was improperly recreated after it was deleted by Admin MONGO two days ago See 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel Both the article and the redirect need to be speed deleted. Morton devonshire 07:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the link is attempting to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel. GassyGuy 07:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre S Rosen[edit]

This page was nominated for AfD by Coil00 who placed the reasons for the deletion on the Talk page of the article. I am completing this AfD process. Coil00's nominating statement was that the article was written by subject. I agree with this statement and suggest that this is non-notable vanity. MLA 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Rosen seems like a fine fellow, both for his litigation work and his Wikipedia work. He does deserve a site where he can show off his accomplishments, but WP isn't that site at this stage in his career. GassyGuy 08:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. -AED 08:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, vanity and self promotion. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 03:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (politician)[edit]

Self promotion, unsourced. Lid 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom lack of sources. OSU80 12:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, per nom and OSU80. The council (local government area) he is deputy mayor in is next to mine, and I'd never heard of him before. Over time he may become notable, but I don't think he's there yet - and if/when he becomes notable, it should be someone independent of him that writes the article. Paddles ^T_C 16:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown outside of ashfield therefore not notable. deputy mayors of sydney are rarely listed in its own articles let alone most mayors. Steven Fitter 04:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, per above. enochlau (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Last Words (shot)[edit]

Own creation by author (only reference to this drink is on a Norwegian (?) forum, created by a certain Henrix (same name as author of this article): [6]: so non notable, vanity, or whetever you want to call it (cocktailcruft?) Fram 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT. Afonso Silva 09:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If sufficient references can be found, it could be transwikked here. But that doesn't look likely. Kafziel 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. How does "cruftail" sound? -- Docether 14:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed AL-blushi[edit]

despite link to IMDB is uncredited actor - not noteworthy enough at the moment? Steve-Ho 08:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Rob 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, notability not asserted. -- Koffieyahoo 02:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hammond[edit]

Subject does not appear sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. Delete.TheMadBaron 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only G-hit for '"Paul Hammond" musician' was back here. At best, merge additional info into relevant para of Get the Led Out. StuartF 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a few marbles more[edit]

Non notable (only 6 Dutch websites show up on a Google link: short movie, self produced, no awards or box office or reviews) Fram 09:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to assert notability Ydam 11:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this short actually has 2 major Dutch actors attached; Jack Wouterse is one of the most sought after actors in the Netherlands the last ten years. (And he was the favorite leading man of shot Dutch director Theo van Gogh.) Bracha van Doesburgh is one of the fresh faces in Dutch cinema. Also actor Edo Brunner is pretty well known in Holland. --Goonie12 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Followed the 'official website' link (in the history tab) and went to their website; actually this doesn't look like a home made movie. It’s obviously shot on film (hence expensive), and everything looks really professional. Further I have to agree with Goonie12, it has some pretty big names attached. --Camelz 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Non Notable Neologism--++Lar: t/c 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infatuationship[edit]

Protologism. Just one hit on Google (a blog post from 2003). Anirvan 09:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (& WP:NEO).--blue520 10:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 11:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. One Google hit - come on! Ydam 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Voice of Treason 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BGFMSM 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not transwiki. TheProject 02:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilug[edit]

Non-notable, possibly self promotion. Robertsteadman 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Robertsteadman 09:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 11:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some user groups are notable. See List of users' groups. TruthbringerToronto 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some may be.... but!! Robertsteadman 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Some, but not this one. - Motor (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly, highly non-notable. And how about a shout-out for an Alexa ranking below five million? -- Kicking222 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa rank ignores Unix users and this is Linux UG website. See Alexa internet and Alexa toolbar if you don't know this. lilug.org exists since 1999 and google returns 14000 hits on its name. Alex Kosorukoff 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national in import .... see how the article develops Joan-of-arc 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB Joan-of-arc is a new user with only 16 edits to his/her name. Robertsteadman 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:CSD#A7. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mohi Uddin[edit]

shameless self promotion - not wikipedia type info Steve-Ho 08:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A7.--blue520 10:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolSClub.net[edit]

Non-notable fansite of a minor pop band, with little useful information. --David Edgar 10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nn-club of a mediumly significant pop band. MLA 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, advertising. Website also isn't english.--Andeh 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Amalas =^_^= 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habibollah Allahdad[edit]

the references cited don't seem to back any of the claims and I've never heard about him in the architectural press --Mcginnly 09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No references are cited. I've invited references, and an IP has ignored the invitation while adding yet more headings for the manifold accomplishments of this person. Google doesn't seem to show anything (at least for the romanized version of his name). Userfy to User:Habibpc (contributions) or delete. -- Hoary 10:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 11:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator put the AfD template on the Talk page of the article - now fixed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, thanks--Mcginnly 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - Peripitus (Talk) 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userify or Delete .Creator and subject appear to be one and the same. Reads as the start of a CV/Vanity article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userify or Delete, echoing above comments, and adding that many of the links and wikilinks to ostensible alternate versions of this article in other Wikipedias led to either blind alleys or unrelated content. Pinkville 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

google search most of the results are in german, but for example the web site of vienna university has an english version.
changes in last week: being unfamiliar with wikipedia!
what is the solution? ...comment added at 13:47, 9 June 2006 by User:Habibpc

Yes, but following the Vienna link, for example, there's no information there, just an address. On this German-language link I find a mention of Habibollah Allahdad in a supporting role on an architectural project by Armin Mohsen Daneshgar. In fact, I followed all the Google hits for "Habibollah Allahdad" and found a review of a watch, membership in an online photo-sharing site, and some message board entries. Nothing to justify an article. However, if, as Hoary suggested, you were to provide references with real content to support the article that would be fine, but there doesn't appear to be any content to refer to. Pinkville 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify, Maybe it needs time to update their web sites, and if you search the name in farsi, you find many websites and weblogs writen about him. 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ... posted 14:09-14:13, 9 June 2006 by User:Habibpc
- Then please specify the URLs of the pages in Farsi that describe his accomplishments. (The pages should not be written by Habibollah Allahdad or his associates.) -- Hoary 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify, Vienna University Userfy to User:Hoary (contributions) ... posted 14:09-14:13, 9 June 2006 by User:Habibpc
- First, yes, I have visited h1arch.tuwien.ac.at/v2.0/team.htm. It says that this person is a "stud. assistent" (sic). It says nothing about his architectural achievements. It also links to his own page, and this also says nothing about his architectural achievements. Secondly, thank you for the offer to userfy the page to my user page, but I think you either don't understand the idea or are making some sort of joke that I don't quite understand. I'll assume for a moment that it's the former. It appears that you, User:Habibpc, are Habibollah Allahdad. (If I'm wrong, correct me.) If you are, then several people here are suggesting that we move the content of Habibollah Allahdad to User:Habibpc (now empty), and then delete Habibollah Allahdad. -- Hoary 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete per nom and Hoary. Paddles ^T_C 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete per nom and Hoary. SteveHopson 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete. H. Allahdad is a student of architecture at Vienna University of Technology; "stud. assistent" ("Studienassistent") is essentially a Teaching assistant. No evidence of notability to be found on the Web (at least in English and German). Poxy 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Zine Symposium[edit]

Not notable abakharev 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 11:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StuartF 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Amalas =^_^= 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been going on for several years, seems notable enough to me. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mohawk[edit]

non notable webcomic Fram 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kafziel 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete The comic is only a month old. The content is more appropriate for Comixpedia, and I have placed a copy of the article at Comixpedia:Mr. Mohawk. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, nor reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energizing America[edit]

Can anyone find notability for this blog? Google gets ~110 hits for "Energizing America" blog[7], claims notable readership but no sources (tagged {{unsourced}}{{notability}} three times, all removed by anon). Weregerbil 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Energizing America" (without the "blog" keyword) doesn't turn it up at all on the first couple of pages. NN. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Fixation World Tour[edit]

Absolutely useless list, and no other content ^Рэд _хот 11:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of tour dates with no sources or encyclopedic value. Junk. PJM 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless and unencyclopedic. Not even clear whether this refers to the album by Shakira or the album byLydia Lunch (unlikely, I agree!) StuartF 12:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PS: One gig in Toronto doesn't turn your US Tour into a World Tour -- GWO
delete as per everything up there^ antmoney85
Comment Under what links here this page is linked to by the Shakira page in a section discussing her current tours. This page however is not wikified at all in that, there is no info on the artist, no links, nothing to show you what it is talking about nor why wikipedia should serve as a host for this. I bet that in the Shakira article someone could link to her tour page on her website or something like that. oh yeah Delete Lsjzl 13:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Paddles ^T_C 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto the above. Punt it. KriZe 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this list would only be useful until the end of the tour and following that, it would be non-notable, not that it is notable at the present time anyway. Most artists (including Shakira) have a backlog of tour dates on their website, which is where it would be appropriate to look up past tour dates if that were what someone were looking for. I added a link to the tour dates on shakira's article page and unlinked to the article Oral Fixation World Tour in anticipation of this article being deleted. MBob 23:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List not useful in an encyclopædia. Cheers --Starionwolf 01:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wain[edit]

The headmaster of a school. Do principals/headmasters generally have enough notability to have their own articles? ~~Most of this article is a copyvio of [8]~~. Page was edited out of copyvio version. Metros232 12:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVad e r 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Phl3djo 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really disagree. You're biting the newbies, in this case me! I'm new and unfamiliar to Wikipedia and I am working as hard as I can to get this article up to the standards. Mr Greg Wain complies to the following:

"If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). The person has published a significant or well-known academic work. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."

I understand you may disagree, but please I'm trying as hard as I can to compile all the information to stop this article being deleted. Please, please I beg of you, don't delete the article. It hurts me that all these administrators seem to enjoy using their power to burn the little guy. Like I said before, I'm new and I do not possess the expertise or understanding that you have of Wikipedia. I just hope you guys understand... Regards JonoL 12:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I've also posted some further justification on the Greg Wain talk page.

- Please note what you're quoting, WP:PROFTEST is not a guideline, only a proposal. I don't see anything that asserts the importance of his research. Google hits of 18 for "Greg Wain" + "Emotional intelligence" most of which are from the school's website. No results on Google Scholar for it. Metros232 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to help avoid confusion User:JonoL is also User:Gw06 the creator of the article, as explained here. - Motor (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete JonoL, you quote the correct Wikipedia guidelines above. However I don't see how Mr. Wain meets these. A fundamental policy of Wikipedia is verifiability which states that the ultimate criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. In other words we need reliable sources that provide evidence for your claims of notability. In particular, the notability claims seem to be around the "Wain-Mayer" model of emotional intelligence. Has this work been peer reviewed? It appears from the article that it has just been distributed around a set of schools. That alone would not meet the professor test. However, if this work has been published in a reputable scientific journal, Mr. Wain would meet the notability test. In that case I'll happily change my vote here to Keep. Good luck, Gw e rnol 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Incidentally, I do not see any "biting" taking place in this discussion, JonoL. That term should not be thorwn around so lightly. PJM 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry JonoL but, although he reads as a fine and laudable person, the he does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. If he had been published ( per Gwernol ) or had significant things written about him in say newspapers or scholarly works then the article would have a better chance. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable evidence can be produced of notability. JonoL, I can see you're trying to write a good article, but Mr Wain just isn't the right subject. This isn't "biting", this is just how Wikipedia works. Good luck with your next article! StuartF 13:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is some reason for independent notability, involving significant outside attention, I can't see any way a secondary-school teacher, principal or headmaster passes notability. Fan1967 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not really notable. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wanted to Keep, but I couldn't scare up anything on Google Scholar. Alternatively, if the papers he has published can be verified to have had a significant effect on educational policy on Australia, I would argue that makes him notable. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge unless verification can be provided. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nicely written, well structured, well formatted, properly Wiki-linked article. I hope the editor will create similar articles on more-encyclopedic topics. The only cited source is a one-paragraph biographical sketch from a school website. He has no hits in Google Books, a personal touchstone of mine. Greg Wain does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable. My bias towards the School is quite irrelevant as a) he clearly fails WP:NOT as this is a vanity page for a non-notable pedagogue and b) he became headmaster after I departed and I thus have no relations or personal acquaintance with him. We do not have pages for the headmasters of every school in Australia just because they are well-known in their field. Jammo (SM247) 06:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups) ; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. Thanks 144.133.216.231 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no-one is proposing that it be speedy deleted. This is an Article for Deletion discussion, not a speedy deletion proposal. You are correct that this does not fall under the A7 speedy deletion criterion, but those are not the criteria used in AfD discussions. There is (so far) no evience that Greg Wain meets any of the notability guidelines and if he does not then the article is subject to debate and potential deletion. Gwernol 02:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. I googled Wain Meyer and emotional intelligence and could not find our boy. It sounds as though he's about to become notable, but it seems not yet. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be considered a vanity page. Greg Wain is a figurehead, headmaster, and currenlty holds a position of authority. He should be considered relevant. Note: for further information on Mr. Wain, Google 'Greg Wain'.

According to Wikipedia: "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)"

Greg Wain is well known amongst the private school and Gold Coast community (this community exceeds 200,000 persons). This article is an expansion of the The Southport School 'wikipage', and hopefully the discussion here establishes his importance.

I look forward to any feedback.

Regards JonoL 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of the frying pan, and into the fire" -Brookie

As much as I don't wish for this statement to be true, it may be. Some administrators have proposed Greg Wain's deletion. I'm hurt and when I look at articles like the zero movement, which is one of Coca's Cola's thousands of marketing campaings I wonder why Greg Wain must be constantly scrutinised. I fail to see how a marketing campain which showed a few ads of some guy on a bus ARE MORE significant the Greg Wain, but who am I to decide?

I'd like to thank all the administrators who posted comments on this page. I appreciate the time you have taken to help a new Wikiuser. I have learnt some valuable lessons.

Once again thanks to everyone for reviewing the Greg Wain article and leaving their comments. Best wishes JonoL 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Wain doesn't seem notable now. However, as a recent newbie myself, I'd suggest we give the creator at least a few more days to work on the article and get it past the notability criteria. Perhaps he could list books or articles published by Wain (that would prove he's an expert) Dweller 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider merging parts of this article under Headmasters at the article The Southport School. GWatson  ^TALK 10:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore D. Karantsalis[edit]

So because he is the friend of a U.S. casualty he should get his own page? I don't think the fact that he is a reference librarian should warrant a page. Delete as nn. OSU80 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads as a clear Speedy A7 . Mr. Karantsalis has no impact significant enough to meet wikipedia bio standards for living people. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is getting attention for what he is doing. See this[9], this[10], and this[11]. It's an AP story that's being run by numerous papers. That establishes notability. Yanksox 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an interesting test case. Do those articles constitute wide acclaim and newsworthiness for the man himself, or simply for his cause? Can this article ever be more than a stub? If his website is notable enough for inclusion here, I would recommend changing this article to redirect to a more comprehensive article about the cause, the website, and its efforts. It's a lot easier to demonstrate notability of an organization than it is to demonstrate the notability of a single person. Kafziel 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that was a single mention, as a syndicated AP piece. But in any case, it's a space filler not a mainstream news story. Think of Gary Powers: in this case only one man appears to be making a noise about the case, and that is being run as a human-interest piece in the slow season by some papers. Not really a claim to notability for the pilot and undobtedly not for Karantsalis, who warrants at best a footnote in the parent article. Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has no objective claim to notability, according to this article. Is this just spam to get more sigs on the petition? That link should go anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads more like a human interest story than a story about a notable event. Still NN in my opinion. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete per WP:BIO, "(To be notable 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.)" Considering it's one story and I don't see anything else, I'm changing to delete. Yanksox 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't a single piece; those stories are months apart. Kafziel 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While somewhat interesting, one-trick ponies aren't notable. Ted 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who has been campaigning for the past twenty years for recognition of Paul F. Lorence's bravery and who tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to have Lorence's remains returned to the US before the 20th anniversary on April 15, 2006 of his death in Operation El Dorado Canyon? You spineless, pathetic non-notables!Phase4 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I'm afraid, completely irrelevant to whether this is actually a notable campaign, and if it is, whether its originator is notable outside the context of Paul Lorence. As for non-notable, I entirely agree. I am completely non-notable. And I score around 50 times more Google hits than Theodore D. Karantsalis. WP:BIO applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Press coverage. --JJay 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage. 132.241.246.111 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagart Transdimensional Inc.[edit]

A corporation from EVE Online. No evidence of notability and not written as an encyclopedia article. Delete, possibly candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know EVE Online but would expect that the corp is a transient thing. Cannot see how this can meet WP:RS WP:V - unencyclopedic - Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporation for online game = definitely non-notable. —C uivi é nen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:31 UTC
Abstain. While the article certainly needs improvement, I should note that some corporations/alliances in EVE Online have existed for over 2 years and are somewhat notable. Perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) may be of some help, and we should be aware the increasingly we will have to deal with articles about virtual organizations like this - in essence, Clan (computer gaming). Consider some related articles: an existing clan article (Ninjas in Pyjamas - should we delete it?), a game-specific clan list (EverQuest player guilds) and AfD clan (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominus Nihil). Some guideline for clan notability would be nice. See also Category:Electronic sports teams.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Delete. The Eve Online game (launched in 2003) has a base of over 200,000. The game mechanics encourage creation of distinct communities, called corporations. Through the years as the game has functioned, these corporations have created a virtual history.

Over time the histories of the corporations become intertwined with within the context of the game. Understanding the nature and history of these corporations becomes integral to understanding the Eve Online game.

In the instance of this specific corporation, Taggart Transdimensional (TTI). The corp was founded as an experimental operation within the concept of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The players within TTI role-play as Objectivists. As such TTI becomes a type of laboratory for the investigation and extension of Objectivist philosophy. The current and past members of TTI are from most European countries, USA Canada, and Asia (excepting China – Eve is blocked in China).

The key word is "Tagart" and should be edited to "Taggart". The best way to accomplish this is to delete this page, and re-enter it under the correct spelling, while revising content to better reflect notability standards. Sorry to all for the confusion. Primary Author - Musashi Myomoto 2:19:34, 10 June 2006 (GMT)

Speedy Delete unencyclopedic --Sindri 10:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Apprentice Academy[edit]

This article seriously does not appear to be encyclopedic in any way. It seems more like it's a clan web site which the clan are "hosting" via wikipedia. Plasma 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I seem a bit angry here but its NOT a website, we have our own website which is clearly stated in the external links, its encyclopedic in the fact that it states information about the clans past and present. --Zementh 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if you already have a site? It doesn't change what is present here. To put it this way, would you expect the Encyclopedia Britannica to contain this kind of content under any conceivable circumstances? You may find places like Everything2 to be more appropriate for this kind of material, and even then I'm not sure. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, for encyclopedic material, not for writing about your personal gaming clan. Plasma 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gaming clans aren't notable. -- GWO

- Re In your opinion. --Zementh 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes. But also by long standing precedent. I usually defer to precedent: I've given up arguing about Jefferson High School, Tinyville, Ohio. -- GWO
    - You what now? --Zementh 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think High Schools are intrinsically notable. Wikipedia policy seems to think they are. I've stopped arguing about it. --- GWO

Delete per WP:NOT a free web host and precedent for gaming clans like these. This article is also not encylopedic in so many ways. Ydam 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Re Like I said, we already have a website. --Zementh 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how that has a bearing on the arguments I've made Ydam 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I'm not using it as a web server, and it would help if you actually put a reason to why you think its not encyclopedic. --Zementh 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DAA Wiki/site News is the best example. It's not in an encylopedic tone. The stuff in that section is not suitable material for an encyclopedia and it's self referential.

Delete per nom and Ydam.--Andeh 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable by the consensus opinion of Wikipedia's editors. Gw e rnol 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well its obvious I've lost this battle, go ahead and delete it. --Zementh 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be speeded now per WP:CSD G7 Ydam 13:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like we're dealing with this. Yanksox 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. If the user wants the contents for their userpage and doesn't have a copy then message me on my talk I'd be happy to userfy. Petros471 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Curcio[edit]

Uncited and unverifiable autobiographical page created by subject [12] of the article. -999 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. -999 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ... looks like he is trying to use WP as part of his viral marketing strategy. Paddles ^T_C 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator points out all the points quite well at this one, its a simple decision. Kevin_b_er 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This wasn't done as some sort of 'trick,' a number of pages were directing to "James Curcio" and there was no article there. My suggested solution: Truncate and merge information with Join My Cult entry. Redirect "James Curcio" to that page; delete this entry. Agent139 01:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was basically only related to two articles, Join My Cult and Bard College. Stuff related to the Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders is not the same guy [13], and you yourself added him and a new section to Babalon and created the article Chasing the wish. So really, he was only on two articles, of which one of them, Bard College could be contestable as to how important he is to be mentioned that article. Kevin_b_er 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a google search of "james curcio" and the list of publications makes the bard college entry clear enough. The earlier suggestion that anyone with any marketing sense would use a wikipost as 'viral advertising' is a little silly since the amount of traffic that comes off wiki is negligiable at best. The join my cult entry appears to contain most of the relevant information that this entry contains however so deleting it makes sense.68.37.90.124 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the wish[edit]

non-notable. -999 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. -999 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how this achieves notability. The game only ran for a few months and the comic doesn't seem to have much popularity. Gw e rnol 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kafziel 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also possible vanity/advertising, see James Curcio. Paddles ^T_C 16:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Really, shouldn't this just be moved and appended to the alternate reality game page? It was equally as 'notable' as many of the games listed there. Agent139 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect MTV article and BBC article mentioning the game in the forefront of the topic. 141.151.89.223 19:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G1. Roy A.A. 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Dog[edit]

Not even a hoax - not sufficiently believable. Mildly amusing, but not encyclopedic, entry about made up animal that eats people in foggy weather. Inner Earth 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible speedy as non-sense. Yanksox 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added Speedy nonsense tag--Andeh 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it doesn't get speedied. Clearly un-verifiable. Gw e rnol 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Roy A.A. 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh[edit]

Nonencyclopedic, seems to be a vanity page at this date. Kf4bdy 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the trash from history, then return the page to the soft Wikictionary redirect - see this version [14] BigDT 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: see also first AFD - the above was copied from the first AFD as this second AFD was improperly created)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Dunc|☺ 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Rampersad[edit]

Delete non notable individual who clearly fails to meet standards of WP:BIO. Recieved only very brief media attention. non encyclopedic material. Article isn't specific enough about his activities to even begin to assert notability. His online bio states that he has worked pumping gas, as an engineer, and as a consultant - everyday run-of-the-mill type jobs. Article also seems to violate WP:VAIN - the article was created by user Nodivide who seemed to have created articles relating to this user and his associations and who's username is strikingly similar to "digital divide," an organization, the individual is associated with. Strothra 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google test[15]. Yanksox 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to use google as a means by which to establish notability. Many non notable individuals get many google hits. Just because they have a large web presence (ie someone who works with technology would obviously gain more hits as easily as someone who is notable on their own merit.) None of the standards set in WP:BIO are met by this individual. --Strothra 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care - but - this seems like something personal by Strothra. Consider: my talk page. There is actually plenty of information about me on the talk page which nobody has put in; the fact that I have been involved at WSIS level things as well as Digital Divide issues related to Mobile Technology and Culture and ICT. If Strothra feels strongly enough to delete the page about me and doesn't feel strongly enough to add information which is on the talk page, I believe that this says more about Strothra than myself. Have at it, I'm a bit tired of this particular deletionist. Get my user page next. ;-) --TaranRampersad 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing against you. That discussion was over for me the moment I stated I would not comment any further on it. Please see WP:AGF. Please also remember to comment on edits and not editors - see WP:NPA. Thanks. Also, information should not be put into the article unless it can be cited by reliable and verifable sources. Please see WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Your talk page is hardly a verifiable or reliable source for article information. --Strothra 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, denial would be an obvious response. As such, I have requested informal mediation, which will probably become formal mediation at this rate, and I'll probably be shouted down by people with more edits. That will guarantee that those people will always have more edits than I. This is sort of sickening. Why not create value instead of delete things that could be fleshed out? Why is it you are more willing to delete than follow up on the verifiable links that I pointed at in the talk page for the article? Why not look through the Google hits and see what is of worth in there, and which verifies things? Sure, you can delete this article but if you are following process like a robot and these are the results, the process is broken. I'm giving it 24 hours before I apply for formal mediation, and let someone else sort this out. Sad. Very sad. --TaranRampersad 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that it would become formal mediation unless you were the one to initiate that process especially when it concerns this article's AfD which so clearly merits an AfD tag. Although, if you wish to request formal mediation I can help you with that process in requesting arbitration. The links in the article to not establish firm notability requirements nor are they verifiable. For instance, blogs are explicity considered unverifiable and improper citations as per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia has standards to which articles should comply. Also, please further note that userpages are not part of the article space and thus cannot go through the deletion process. If it's not an article then I wouldn't try to have it deleted unless it contained clear personal attacks or threatening material. --Strothra 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep In my mind, at least, he meets two of the criteria. He is a notable editor in the Linux and ICT4D communities, as former editor of the Linux Gazette and a newly appointed editor of the Digital Divide Network. He was also actively involved in the core team of technology activists who responded to the Boxing Day tsunami, and received press coverage because of these activities. Acarvin 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go with Keep on this one. I probably wouldn't have gone for it w/o the BBC link. Active in technology seems pretty good. Kevin_b_er 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that if the article was about him but he is only part of a larger topic in that article. Further, it's just one article in which he is mentioned. That hardly makes him notable. --Strothra 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. Also, there are concerns about this being a retaliatory nomination, given Strothra's recent conflict with User:TaranRampersad over AFD noms. Guettarda 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the edit conflict I had with this individual had nothing to do with the nom. It wasn't even close to being the most serious edit conflict I've ever had. This article has no citations whatsoever. The only thing that even begins to establish notability is an external link to a BBC article in which he was interviewed. That's why I nominated it for deletion (refer to the nomination above). This is actually a very similar situation as the Chuck Olsen article which I nominated expect that one was actually deleted. --Strothra 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After our previous conversation I find this rather difficult to believe. It's reasonable to assume good faith the first time (as I did), but after I explained to you what the problem was with your actions, you continued along the same path. You can't use the same excuse twice. Guettarda 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Taran AfD came after I was already putting Rocketboom related articles up for deletion based on the same principles of Cite and verify which is how I was led to the article regarding him. I had noticed that A. Carvin, who has more than one username, had a history of creating these articles which were not cited and actually followed his article creation history. That's not really wikistalking but noticing a trend of bad article creation. Carvin is a notable individual and I never put his article up for AfD because his article establishes his notability. Anyway, if you wish to continue this please do so on my talk page or on the AfD discussion page. I would also like to ask you to please actually state why you believe he is notable and how the article establishes that rather than just saying that he's notable. Remember, this is a discussion not a vote. --Strothra 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Room for improvement is not grounds for deletion. I would note, however, motives of the nomination are less important than establishing WP:BIO. I think the news coverage qualifies the article. The fact that it was created by an independent source is a testament to that. --TeaDrinker 03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not created by an independant source but by someone associated with the individual through Digital Divide. --Strothra 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is an unfounded assumption. I don't know who created the article. Digital Divide and the user NoDivide can be completely unrelated. I have NO idea who NoDivide is, and I take that as a personal insult. Whatever happened to 'Assume Good'? Yes, I disengaged per informal mediation, but nobody else can defend me BUT me. I don't know where you get off, but I do know where I get ON. Your POV is far from objective, and if there were an avenue I would question your authority to suggest AfDs. But, in an odd twist of fate, there is none. Your assumptions (1) Assume Bad, (2) Are completely wrong, and (3) demonstrate the level of personal bias you have shown so far. Delete the article if you wish, but at least do your homework instead of all this conjecture. Any response to this should start with, "I'm Sorry" and should end with, "I won't make these sort of assumptions again". Practice what you're preaching. --TaranRampersad 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy the article as written. No offense to Mr. Rampersad. I've gone through the article, its history and the talk page. Article as written does not meet WP:BIO, and none of the references establish notability in my opinion (Digital divide profile and blog do not, BBC article does not in my opinion and worldchanging.com ref does not). If more substantial refs are added of his role as a technology activist, I can be swayed -- Samir धर्म 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taran's Notes[edit]

As the topic of the article, I cannot and should not vote. I will point out that this article has been edited, and that for a judgement to be formed the entire history of this page should be considered. Informal mediation (see my talk page) has suggested that I disengage. This is what I am doing at this time - from the Wikipedia, completely. I do not feel contribution here can be done by myself at this time. Again, look at the history of this page. If this note disappears, it will reappear. My comments are on record. Perhaps AfD should be secondary to POV. --TaranRampersad 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion was restored. AFDs are not meant to be votes, but discussions. Only excessive off-topic discussion needs to be moved. Guettarda 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but it's common practice to remove discusion which is not related to the article. For instance, if we're just talking about whether the nom is in bad faith or not, that's not relevant to the article placed up for deletion. There are many AfD discussions that are like that. Many editors do not engage in discussion and move on when they see potential disputes and bickering between editors. --Strothra 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is an excellent example of OT comments which should be on the talk page. Guettarda 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Milano[edit]

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong 14:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would not pass either Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors). Hong Qi Gong 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porncruft. Cited sources for bio data are not reliable sources, soile reliable source (IMDB) shows a series of straight-to-video (i.e. low budget) porn flicks. No evidence of significance per any of the usually cited guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that "straight-to-video" has any meaning when it comes to pornographic films, at least not anymore. There are very few porno theaters around these days. However, many movies have been very successful through VHS and now DVD sales. -- Kjkolb 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass the criteria of WP:PORN BIO, or even WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she's been in at least 16 videos and has been the centerfold of a magazine. WP:PORN BIO is only a proposed guideline and is unreasonably strict compared to the treatment non-porn actors get at AfD. I would set a much higher standard of notability for both, but if we are going to let barely-notable regular actors in, we should do the same for semi-notable porn actors (relative notability being within the industry, both are less notable outside it). -- Kjkolb 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even noticed the WP:PORN BIO discussion until recently, so I'm just going to go with concensus on that. But I don't even know why porn stars have a different test for notability. They should go through the same test as everybody else. Some porn stars are unquestionably notable and ought to stay, but if many porn stars do not pass WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO, it just reflects how notable they are in the real world. WP is not a porn directory, and the notability of porn stars should not be measured in terms of how notable they are in the porn industry. Their notability should be measured in terms of how notable they are in mainstream society. That being said, she's never won any awards, and 16 videos which your average person doesn't even know about and a spread in some random porno mag definitely does not make this particular person notable. Hong Qi Gong 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep, Brooke has been in 22 adult films and has quite a large fan following. It would be foolish to delete her Wiki entry when less notable stars have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticJobber (talk • contribs) 04:56, 15 June 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB Sinha[edit]

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr B B Sinha, this is a re-creation with different content. Still lacks verifiable evidence of significance, by my reckoning (actually no citations for most of it), but the most important thing is that as it stands this is vulnerable to speedy as repost, so we need a clear consensus at AfD one way or the other. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have fought before for this article and brought it back from the dead once. The only thing going agaisnt this is the lack of sources. But, I think that is due in part ot language barriers and restraints involving tech. communication. This article does stress the importance of humanitarian aide, and that seems notable. One of the claims is that he helped 500 patients in one day, I question the exact number, but it's pretty well infered that he assisted a great deal of people. It's really hard to keep a record of humnatarian aide, but if we have an article on Paul Farmer, I think this could stay up. Maybe a better solution would be to prod for sources, and delete if none are brought up. Yanksox 14:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, so you knew it had been deleted and you still re-created it without sources? At the very least I'd have thought you would have found references to back it up, given what happened before! Incidentally, the Farmer article cites multiple publications (WP:BIO applies) Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and particularly Just zis Guy's point about still recreating it without sources. db-repost? - Motor (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources can be found. The self-serving tone of the article doesn't help either. I also propose a two-day extention on this AfD to give Yanksox time to add references. (His userpage says he'll be on wikibreak until June 13.) --F a ng Aili ^talk 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for offering the extension. I'm withdrawing my keep vote, though it was based upon the articles for undeletion involving this article, and the article's log. I found proof of Sinha's existance and death. I can't find all the proof necessary to prove some of the claims. The creator of the article left a message on the talk page, and I've tried to get in contact with him but to no avail. So, I'm withdrawing and going to a no vote. I really can't take part in this or anything Wikipedia for a little while just due to an urgent personal situation. Yanksox 16:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've copied the article here, for use if sources are found. Feel free to copy it to a subpage of your own. --F a ng Aili ^talk 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. DS 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From , With Love[edit]

Reads like an advert, probably because it is one. Probably a copyvio, too, since it's from the back cover. No evidence of significance (units sold, awards, airtime, distribution). Made in 16mm, stated as a huge advance but actually standard for garage films until quite recently. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT advert, promotion. And it's pretty bad that it's from the backcover. Yanksox 15:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Arberry[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page for a player character in the game City of Heroes. A Google search turns up a post in the CoH forum that pretty much confirms that this is a player character, not a in-game character. IMHO, we really do not want to start having listings for individual player characers in MMORPGs. TexasAndroid 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is against Wiki policy to create a page for an individual created by that same person. Lord_Hawk 15:10, June 9 2006 (UTC)

This is a page for a fictional character, not a real person, likely created by the character's player. Since it's a fictional character, I'm not certain the nn-bio, or self creation criteria apply. Would definitely count as WP:OR, though. :) - TexasAndroid 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we need a {{db-unspeakablycrufty}}. - Motor (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second Motor, although can the template be {{db-bc}} for blatantly crufty? It sounds better and is shorter. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor. --Zoz (t) 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female Revan[edit]

Largely duplicated content from Darth Revan. Should be deleted as all the content in this article exists/has existed in Darth Revan Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete as nominator. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darth Revan. Yanksox 14:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~Redirect There's no purpose to this article; any distinctions between Male Revan and Female Revan should be made in the Darth Revan article. As the canon states, Revan is officially male. The plotline is affected by the gender difference, it isn't significant enough to warrant anything more than a "oh yeah"-type mention. EVula 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I suppose a redirect would work too.--Isotope23 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am only suggesting a redirect so you don't have a blank page floating around waiting for this to happen again. It will never be used for anything aside from a redirect most likely. Yanksox 15:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. My delete vote wasn't a vote against a redirect; I've changed my response to reflect that. EVula 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this (and Darth Revan for that matter. This ain't Wookieepedia). -- GWO
Delete pointless copy & paste, possible fork. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the main plot doesn't change. Canderous (Talk) 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just saw the following text in the article. I feel this explains a lot.

In the game, Revan may be either male or female. This page been put up to maintain a neutral perspective and to actually be neutral as wikipedia claims itself to be. And acknowledge the unequal gender distrubition in Star Wars. Not everyone agrees with canon--particularly the women who have played the games.

Aside from the self reference, it gives a clearer picture on why this article was created. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay so according to this post, you nominated this page for deletion before you even went up and read the entire content. How many of you actually read the article in its entirety before you decided to put it up here? Do you even know it has different sections? user:StarShadow 18.23 UTC
Keep this article up I fail to see how this article is unnecessary. I have tried to edit the original Revan article to make it gender neutral, but all my efforts have been deleted. If you won't let us create gender neutrality on the main Revan page, then for Pete's sakes, let us make a Female Revan page! It's not offending anyone in any way, and since it is one of the available options in the game, it deserves more than a line in the Wikipedia entry. Noneko

This user hado nly 3 previous edits -- Drini 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article up This article has text that was largely deleted from an edit because too many people did not agree with it. There are people who want to have Female version of the article. As shown by the number of edits to that page and the amount of traffic. If you believe the article is superfluous than maintain the gender-neutral perspective on the main Revan page. However this article will be backed up and reposted. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it should maintain either the gender-neutrality or allow this page to stay up. Anyone can post on wikipedia--if the article is about a non-canonical character, that does not mean that it's content is superfluous. If the content offends you, then you have a choice not to go to it.NOTE: I do find it offensive that you deleted the portions of the post that indicated how the article was different: The Mandy War Section is different, the Revan as Padawan Section is different, the vast majority of this page, content wise, is different. This page has more references than the other page, and is more thorough in giving inforation that the editors of the other page chose to forgo simply because they didn't want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarShadow (talk • contribs)

This account is less than a week old and has only edited the article and afd -- Drini 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It that shouldn't matter since Wikipedia allows people to post unless there is some kind of elitist association that only allows people of a certain time to post anything. And no if you check the edit section of the article you will see that I am not the only one who has posted on the article. User:StarShadowUTC 18:37

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process.

-- Drini 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that this is a fictional character has nothing to do with the AfD, and threatening to willingly violate Wikipedia policy isn't an especially good idea. The problem is that the Star Wars canon, which is what is most important in this issue, states that Revan is male [16] [17]. Hence, Revan (in the Wikipedia article) should be referred to as male, with an aside about the possibility of him being female. Wikipedia's neutrality has no bearing on this issue. EVula 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so basically you're saying if someone wants to look up information specifically on a Female Revan, you're saying that the main article is sufficient? Look at the difference between the articles There are parts of the male character article that have no reference whatsoever including the height for the listing, that was why the hieght listing was changed for both the female character listing and the male. Again, no reference added for that. At least merge the information between both articles to at least maintain accuracy. User:StarShadow

I disagree Starshadow. Revan is Revan is Revan. Having an extra article is a waste of space. The information about Revan's past is the same, regardless of gender, so what's the problem.Hitokiri Akins

new account, no previous edits -- Drini 18:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If that were true, why were the changes to the Mandy War section which were far more specific deleted? StarShadow 18:30 (UTC)

comment this article was the result of multiple people editing accurate content that was added to the Darth Revan page--many of the sections that are in this Female Revan article were at first added on to the Darth Revan page but were ripped out. Now, this artcile was created in order to put inforation up. Again deletion. This isn't neutrality, this is pure censorship. The reason wikipedia doesn't get respect as a source is because this kind of thing happens. StarShadow June 9, 2006 18:47 (UTC)

comment Having an article here that states that Revan is supposed to be male, even if it has a section on the option of being female, is NOT neutrality. It's sexism. Female heroes can and do exist. Keep the article up--then, at least, it will be somewhat closer to maintaining the ambiguity of Revan's gender. --DJP 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first and only edit, as of now. -- Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits I have made in the past is completely irrelevant to the argument being made. Stop pointing it out. ----DJP 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with sexism, take it up with LucasArts; they are the ones that dictated that Revan is a male. No number of sockpuppets is going to change that. EVula 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Let's talk about sexism. How many people who voted for deletion page right now are guys? And how many of you are girls? The bias will reveal itself if you simply answer the question, at least if you're not afraid to answer the question. I'm a girl. Putting up that page after I was countlessly deleted was my only offense, that and being insulted. And of course, being a girl--if you think that to be offensive. StarShadow 19:00 June 9, 2006.

comment I'm female. I want that article to stay partially because I'm a feminist girl-gamer, but also because there are people who might need the reference material. If you're going to delete this page, you'll have to delete the original Darth Revan page as well. Or add a section to it on the female option in the game that is of equal length to the male one: the section they have now is pitifully small compared to the rest of the article that has Revan as male. --DJP 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit -- Drini 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've read this article and the other Darth Revan article. This one is well written and well researched as well as offers the female perspective of the character. The game this character originated in was designed to allow the player to choose the gender and to allow a distinct and seperate story line for each gender. To be fair to the players and creators of Knight of the Old Republic, this article or one similar should be allowed to tell the female side of the game. --LanaRevanStar 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit -- Drini 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:POVFORK, fancruft. This fictional character hardly needs one article, let alone two. Sandstein 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it While "canon" claims the character is male, a cruise through KOTOR fanfics and discussion boards indicate a strong following that holds the "heretic" view and hotly disagrees with Lucasarts. Over 85% of KOTOR fanfic depicts the character as a woman, despite the "canonization," or gender of the player. Also, articles on a Male Revan omit the references to gender neutrality and the female-only content. Perhaps it should go to Wookieepedia, but full-blown omission is a bad idea. Multiple attempts have been made to add the female game path perspective to the "standard" page; attempts that have met with hostility and deletion. If Wilkipedia's going to have KOTOR and Star Wars entries, then the controversy must be addressed.Allronix 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[[[reply]

User's first edit -- Drini 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited several articles on before (Below the Root, Wizard of Oz, fan fiction), just never saw the need to make comment until now. -- Allronix

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! [18]

Oh? EVula 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I cant vote for it either way, I'll ask this: Why is there a need to delete this entry when it doesnt impede or invalidate the MaleRev article on Wookiepedia? Is it so wrong to want a FemRevan entry source? To be fair, if your going to delete this entry, take down the MaleRevan article as well. Or merge both of these together, along with all the baggage Lucasarts created over the issue, that way we can all be one happy KOTOR family again. Warts and all. –Silvermane —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silver mane (talk • contribs) .

User's first edit, not to confuse with Silvermane -- Drini 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite obviously sexism. Notice how a LARGE portion of the people saying that it should be deleted are men? The Darth Revan page was edited BEYOND recognition just to say that Revan was MALE. This page should balance out the idiocy put on the Darth Revan page. And just because George Lucas says that it's canon doesn't mean that it goes. Lucas can't write any good lines for the fricking movies (remember Padme and Anakin in Episode III?), so I don't think he gets a say in what Revan is gonna be. There's a reason Knights of the Old Republic is an RPG game: So people can customize their character, from gender to type of Jedi. No one can give us the "We don't need two Revan articles" bull because it's obvious that it's the word FEMALE before the word Revan that's giving everyone the problems. Female Revan is as much of a valid character as Male Revan is. And whoever said that it DOES affect the storyline - how so? I don't see that much of a difference. FEMALE Revan defeats Malak the same way MALE Revan does. I say this is unfair and that the article should be either kept or merged with the existing Male Revan one. It's not like a Female Revan article is going to overstep the other one. Besides, women need a chance to shine in Star Wars. Notice how Luke and Han and Obi-wan and Qui-Gon are ALL men, along with Ulic and Exar Kun? The only three women that have big names are Ayla Secura, Leia, and Shaak Ti, and they don't even get the attention of most people who have only seen the movies. Does someone have a PROBLEM with forcing it to stay that way? If so, give me some really good reasons for it.I don't really care if someone places Revan as male of female because that's ridiculous. As I mentioned before, KotOR is an RPG. It's supposed to be customized by the player. One side has as much meaning as the other. My gripe is with the people who say that Wiki has room only for one Revan. Think carefully. The person who wrote this article spent a lot of time, as I've heard mentioned. Would anyone want to throw that away just because someone thinks that having articles for Male and Female Revan is ridiculous? DelasaerChval 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit -- Drini 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen such fucking blatant sexist tripe, I'd vote to keep because women have just the same rights as we men do... and it's rather interesting to note that a lot of the men here are threatened by strong female roles. I honestly thought we'd left the dark ages behind.Narsil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.55.140 (talk • contribs) .

ip's first edit -- Drini 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of this. The one person with all of the sockpuppets is really the only one who wants this article kept. --Cyde↔Weys 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If even the article even says Revan is canonically and offially male, how is it such an argument or sexist? It's even got its own section, though not as lengthy, on the main Revan article. Voice of Treason 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft, filled with dubious speculation and weasel words.--Nydas 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my final post here. None of the people who posted there were sock puppets, they were people however who were upset at having the page deleted and decided to post. Many of them are first times posters. Every time the Darth Revan page has been edited to reflect the gender-neutral story, it has been shamelessly edited and the content destroyed. That is far from objective. Before considering the deletion of this page, consider that no one put it up for deletion until now. Consider also looking through the history of the Darth Revan page and seeing how many times a user has tried to edit the page to reflect the gender-neutrality page before it was written over. Also consider how many of the people who have posted here for the deletion of this page are, in fact male, and have edited the male Revan page how many times. It seems, that this article is not being considered for deletion on it's strenghts or weaknesses, but it is simply an affront by those who feel offended by a female version of a gender-neutral character, although the article specifically states the inconsistency within Canon, while the other article does not. The Darth Revan article not only is incomplete compared to the Female Revan article's sections, specifically on the Mandalorian Wars and the references to Mando'a, but it is far less thorough. It does not, detailed with regards to Revan's upbringing, it is not detailed with regards to mythological influences. And furthermore, for fan creation, it is little more than what the Darth Revan page is. Of course, I'm probably going to get edited on this edition anyway. But I ask, what is the point of putting information if people simply will delete it? What is the point of having an encyclopedia if it will not tell the whole story, just only what one side of the fans want to read. As a practice it is wrong and unethical on a number of different levels. Just as far is it is from objective. None of these people tried to participate in the imput of the Female Revan character article, as I have tried with the Darth Revan article. They haven't even posted comments on the comments page. Looking over this page suggests that most of them haven't even read teh article in its entirety before voting for a deletion. Is that fair from the perspective of those who want an online encyclopedia? The reaction itself indicates that those who want this page deleted are unwilling to have any other truth or version of this character except that which reflects their page. No one asked for their page to be deleted. And it should be noted that the administrator to asked this page to be deleted reverted to unnecessary name calling in the editing of the page. If he is truly objective, then who can say that the people who are writing in and calling for the deletion of this page are not his buddies as well, except they have posted longer. To be fair, none of the other people who have written on the Female Revan site have posted either, and doubtless they will have their say too. StarShadow June 9th, 23:17 (UTC).

Merge with Darth Revan, to continue the discussion. Surely we do not need an individual article solely on the theory that Darth Revan, a fictional character, might have been female. It is interesting content, in other words, but does not warrant its own article. Falcon 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete per nom, and frankly this debate is fast approaching WP:BULLSHIT. If I understand these long impassioned postings, this article invents a purported "truth" about a fictional character that violates the expressed intent of the fiction's author, and we're a bunch of sexist dogs for not buying into this fringe POV. What's next, the Homosexual Rand al'Thor article, complete with fanatics telling us that they know better about Robert Jordan's characters than he himself does? I prescribe a healthy dose of WP:NOT; this is an encyclopedia, not a fanfic site. That's where these hypothetical musings belong. Ravenswing 00:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument to keep, once you filter out all the noise, is "We decline Lucas' reality and want to replace it with ours". Fancruft, garbage, burninate. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GWO: This ain't Wookieepedia). --Starionwolf 01:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a section in the Darth Revan article, not an article unto itself. Ace of Sevens 02:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is a bigger fan of KOTOR than me, nor was anyone more disapointed that the SW-canon has Revan down as male, but still, two articles for one character, that's way too crufty. And the Revan article is just fine as it is, no need to morge, the diffence between the male and female Revan is too small. Force Delete --E ivind ^t ^@^c 02:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above arguments. This certainly does not warrant its own page. -LtNOWIS 03:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trainspotter (music)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Move to urbandictionary. - FrancisTyers · 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternative, metaphorical meanings can be included at Railfan#Trainspotting -- GWO
Delete dictdef. And it's anorak, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected. Melchoir 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Andrew's Episcopal School[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a page on the school already existed before the creation of this one, which provided no new information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeellsworth (talk • contribs)

Comment I have gone ahead and boldly redirected this to St. Andrew's Episcopal School (MD), which should make this AfD unecessary. As the article creator has brought this here apparently because they realized this was a dupe article... redirect seems to be the best option right now and this could always disambiguate at a later date if there are other Saint Andrew's Episcopal Schools out there in the world. Unless anyone disagrees with my solution here, I think this AfD can just be closed.--Isotope23 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good; original is here, target here. I'm not crazy about the article name, but it'll do. Melchoir 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porching[edit]

Delete per WP:NEO and advert. Immediately deprodded. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Nonencyclopedic. -- Docether 15:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism and dictdef. WP:NOT applies. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; never heard of the term, the book, or the author. SmartGuy 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Kadies[edit]

Article was prodded on the 10th by User:Eagleamn, and was deprodded the next day by User:Kappa [19], thus taking it to Afd. No vote --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article has asked for verification for some time now. Melchoir 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bury, O Admin, in the desert sand the name of this house of mirages, per WP:V. Sandstein 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the Day of Deletion, their efforts shall not profit the unbelievers, per WP:V, quite aside from hearing from Kappa once more, which is near-to-a-sure barometer of a deprodding's genuine breach of standards. RGTraynor 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Christensen[edit]

Non-notable. Unencyclopedic. I don't see this has a place on WP. Robertsteadman 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Robertsteadman 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the cult is notable enough. Melchoir 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as non-notable. Always a bad sign if one has to re-read the article four times to even find the claim to notability. Sandstein 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe worth a brief mention in the article about the cult?... ENpeeOHvee 05:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GrafWeb[edit]

Appears to be a nn internet company not meeting WP:WEB and WP:CORP. A google search for the grafweb.com phrase only returns 50 ghits [20] --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically just an advert for a small company. DrunkenSmurf 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is spam for a non-notable company —WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Fl owerparty☀ 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutvij[edit]

Delete and Userfy. Vanity added by User:Rutvijshah. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my opinion. I am not fond of name stubs, but according to the nomination, this article is not justified to be deleted. This page is not vanity and is a valid Indian name. So, I opine Weak Keep. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I don't like these name stubs but it seems unfair to pick on just one. Melchoir 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the vanity aspect that causes me pick on this one. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, but the article content doesn't seem too vain, at least now that it's been pared down. Melchoir 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems useful, in a stubby sort of way NawlinWiki 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - will change vote of notability can be shown... ENpeeOHvee 05:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Buildings[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Moreover, Google doesnt return relevant links, the only external link given links to a singular picture. Nearly Headless Nick 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page linked to is the website for the artist (not a singular page), and the website is among the first to appear in Google. --Mrsteakneggs 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its not a hoax, it is not notable. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are over ten links to other pages on Wiki here that are directly related to the entry. So are these pages also not notable? --Mrsteakneggs 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; if the biography section is true then it's just barely notable per WP:MUSIC. However, the article desperately needs verification to prove that it isn't a hoax and to back up all the "acclaim" statements. Melchoir 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails WP:MUSIC. "Continues to tour in the United States" is not a national tour... the rest is PR fluff. But at least allmusic lists them. Even if this is kept it needs a) reliable sources 2) bias work. - Motor (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band is on a completely non-notable label and doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC, while the article is completely unverified and somewhat POV. -- Kicking222 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Starionwolf 23:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Fl owerparty☀ 03:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box Hill Town Hall[edit]

I am merely listing this properly, the original nomination by 220.239.107.64 was unfinished Cool3 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Box Hill, Victoria. Cool3 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article' The article has now been expanded and referenced in response to the AfD notice. The National Trust regard the town hall "of regional architectural, historic and social importance". Due to notability and expansion of article I oppose deletion and oppose merge.--Melburnian 08:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's a notable building and because it's not a college dorm. - Liberatore(T) 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's been expanded since the first nom. Melchoir 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but how about a picture? KriZe 19:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 jheri curl. Fl owerparty☀ 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Curls[edit]

Delete. No such thing as a Jerry Curl. Drmagic 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jheri curl. There are already a couple of misspellings redirected there, and this seems a likely search term. Fan1967 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no new info. Melchoir 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Jerry Curl redirects there already.
Redirect to Jheri curl. --Metropolitan90 02:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Fl owerparty☀ 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Deer[edit]

Not notable in any way, only acheived notoriety by leading the media smear campaign against Andrew Wakefield. --john 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you followed the convention of notifiying the editors who have worked on that article? Midgley 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD appears to be orphaned anyway through failure to follow the proper procedure. Tearlach 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His work for CND is somewhat notable, being the first social affairs correspondent in the UK is notable in that the first of anything is significant. In the vaccine area, his investigative reporting of the DPT scare is significant, not least beucase it helps people see the same tactics and exploitation being made of newer vaccines[21]. Far from smearing Dr Wakefield, who is another topic, the media have uncritically covered his speculations to a greater extent than they merit. Midgley 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as an investigative reporter. Andrew73 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article Brian Deer asserts notability. He won Specialist Reporter of the Year. Tearlach 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable; if we keep Dan Olmsted we keep Brian Deer. Also: has other achievements, such as exposing toxicity of the commonly prescribed antibiotic co-trimoxazole. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable achievements demonstrated in article. There are vanity pages out there which are far more worthy of speedy deletion noms. - Stevecov 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; seems vaguely well-known but the award is minor and there's no independent biographical information. Melchoir 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep British Press Awards are the highest distinction in UK journalism 81.159.187.122
Keep notable. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and war crimes[edit]

This non-referenced article appears hopelessly biased. Joyous! | Talk 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accusatory title makes any hope of the article becoming unbiased impossible...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly POV (magnet)--Kalsermar 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 18:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This falls under Original Research, is in itself an act of treason, and is way too biased. Lord_Hawk 23:02, June 9 2006 (UTC)

Comment I wasn't aware there was such a thing as an act of treason toward Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Equendil Talk 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad title, obviously POV. Original research. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of articles on CIA goofs, incompetence &ct. Since it is a civilian agency it is doubtful that what it is engaged in is war, hence these are not war crimes. --Gorgonzilla 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, sorry to cut short the hilarity. Melchoir 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Grammar School[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article is too biased, and it is poorly formatted, to the point that I believe that it is a lost cause. For example, the following line is of concern to me: "The academic program holds a strong reputation". I'll ask but one question, WHO'S OPINION IS IT THAT THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM IS GOOD? There is no indication as to where this 'strong reputation' originated. Also, the article is badly formatted, and feels more like dot points. If a proper article cannot be produced, none at all deserves to be on this site. I vote for STRONG DELETE 19748 08:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons given are no reason to delete article. Should be rewritten, yes. --Nlu (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your reasons do not make it as lost cause, if there even is such a thing on here, as it is notable. Also, may I welcome 19748, Briagalong and Darth nib23 who all joined today! By chance, their first edits were voting delete at this afd... :). It is an obvious bad faith nomination, it is probably the same fellow who afd'd it last time, anyway, the use of suckpuppets is very obvious here. Cvene64 12:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown a group of people across the internet community this horrid display blemishing wikipedia. We have banded together to bring down this absolute rubbish of an article, and restore normality to wikipedia. I am not guilty of deceptions, merely showing the community the horrid side to this site. It must be purified. - --19748 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons show that the article could be improved, but nt that it should be deleted. There are quite a few high standard school entries that we, really, should be trying to emulate across the board rather than deleting some on a whim. Jpeob 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Nlu, it really does not warrant deletion but rather clean up.Rcm 12:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I just looked at the page in more detail. It doesn't even look like it has obvious POV...it's quite non-existent, really. there's my 2 cents, anyway.Rcm 12:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is not a lost cause. It should be kept. I agree with rcm, it should just improved.Tjpob 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only thing this article might need is a cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.253.46 (talk • contribs)

I have cleaned up the article - removing unsubstantiated statements and bias. See my changes and then decide whether it should be deleted. I think it can be improved and cleaned up - as I've just endeavoured to do. Maybe more can help. Cheers (I've already voted) - Jpeob 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason for deletion. Cvene64 is correct, Heal the world-iddly-orld, Tattoo678, Snake eyes!, 19748, Pulsar vectram, Darth nib23, Briagalong, Marksman prime have all only voted here or made user pages to date. Obvious use of sock-puppetry and reemphasises the belief of a bad faith nomination. --Bob 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is at a decent start, 19748's sockpuppet campaign notwithstanding ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive that what I'm doing is called 'meatpuppetry' and that there is nothing wrong with it. All these people are fighters. I don't know them personally, but we intend to sweep through wikipedia purging it of all its greivances and blemishes. we are the purifiers, and we have banded together. As for the user page scandal devised by Cvene64 to bring us down, we want to use other's templates only, to further our pages. There is no law against that, but we haven't yet started to change the pages to our own designs because of this little scandal. Wikipedia states that you must not assume that a person is a sock puppet before you assume that they are a meatpuppet which is a group of people who combine to bring a page down. These are not single use accounts. We are all new here, and we are in a group so that we can defend ourselves from people who are out to be a detriment. We intend to grow and expand our horizons on this site, but this is our first crusade. We will purify the site of this page. We will not be accused of 'sock puppetry' as we are individuals who are fighting as one to destroy and neutralize this pathetic page. --19748 01:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No legitimate dispute here. -- FRCP11 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If you think the article is biased, add a NPOV tag. If you think the article is badly formatted, add a cleanup tag. This is a bad faith nomination. --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Guys if you dont like a page EDIT it, AFAIK this is a legit school so there seems to be no reason to delete the page Soundabuser 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As much as I dislike this trend of every-school-gets-an-article, it's a Wikipedia standard and the article (though perhaps requiring cleanup) has been nominated incorrectly. Assuming good faith despite all odds, I remain. -- Docether 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedu keep ignoring any contentions about school notability, etc... this should never have even been brought to AfD. BJAODN this discussion though... hilarious.--Isotope23 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and votes by sockpuppets of User:19748. Note to closing admin: The following votes come from new accounts with fabricated user pages, check contributions for evidence.[edit]

NEW NOTE TO ADMIN: WE ARE NOT SOCK PUPPETS. NO ONE IS LISTENING. WE ARE NOT FABRICATING USER PAGES, WE ARE BORROWING TEMPLATES. WE ARE WHAT WIKIPEDIA CALLS 'MEATPUPPETS' AND WE ARE PROUD OF IT. WE HAVE BANDED TOGETHER, AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE EXPLAINED THIS TO EVERYONE THEY STILL ACCUSE US OF SOCKPUPPETRY. THAT TERM IS DEGRADING AND OFFENSIVE. WIKIPEDIA LAW DICTATES THAT A USER MUST FIRST BE ASSUMED A MEAT PUPPET BEFORE THEY ARE ASSUMED A SOCK PUPPET. WE ARE FIRST TIME USERS, YES, BUT WE ARE INDIVIDUALS NONE THE LESS. WE ARE MEAT PUPPETS, AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE A BUNCH OF CYBER CLONES— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.20.178 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Reasons for keep sketchy to say the least. Delete --Briagalong 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have done some investigating and read this page's old deletion page. It had some good points, especially bias, and now the article looks really bad. I think it's pointless to keep the article. --Darth nib23 09:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pulsar vectram 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete because this article has obviously been 'whipped' together for no other purpose than to serve as a space holder until a decent version arrives. Until someone actually bothers to give this article a thought, it must be deleted. --Marksman prime 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article needs improvement, and it should also be deleted. Do you realise that deleting the article means that it won't be there to be improved? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't need a clean-up, it needs restructuring. MAJOR restructuring. and until a half-decent article can be put together, there shouldn't be an article like this on wikipedia. it serves only as a blemish. --Snake eyes! 07:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article needs improvement, and it should also be deleted. Do you realise that deleting the article means that it won't be there to be improved? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above arguments. Poor formatting; bias. --Tattoo678 07:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor formatting? Where? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of strong POV in the article. example: "each Year Eight and Nine class is assigned a group of year 12 students to act as form seniors, who participate in class activities and act as friends and role models as well as easing the transition into (for 140 boys) a new school and then into the upper school." WHO said that they are friends and role models? This is just opinion. On wikipedia, WE NEED FACTS. assumptions just don't cut it. A little statistic or word changing ain't gonna be enough. A delete is required. also, per above. --Heal the world-iddly-orld 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a greivance with one sentence, so therefore the entire article must be deleted. If that one sentence is such a problem, then why not correct it yourself, or simply add a NPOV tag? --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the above user(s?), creating a funky userpage doesnt fool anyone, a simple click and I can see that your a brand new user, and have only voted to delete this. I'm not sure any of the above delete votes are *real*. I would not be be crazy to say this guy has created eight accounts, then copied someones userpage to make him look like an established member...sigh..Cvene64 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add... that the treatment that the purifying league (the eight of us(the number is growing)) has received is disgusting. I am happy to be helping my fellow leaguers neutralize this page's signal. This page is horriblé to say the least. C'est merde! Je deteste la pagé! Anyway, you can't discard our opinions with your big blaring banner at the top of the page, because we have come forward with good points!!! for example, bias, poor formatting, limited references, and these factors are reasons why this poor performance should be deleted. it has obviously been whipped together like 19748 has poignantly said. We are not going to bow down to personal attacks and accusations of meat puppetry. we are individuals, and demand to be treated as such, not as a group of cyber-clones!!! --Marksman prime 04:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have come forth with plenty of exclamation marks. That does not mean that you have good points. --Cornflake pirate 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you accuse US the purifiers of ballott stuffing, when it is you that is committing the act. as a devoted member of the brotherhood of purifiers, it is my duty to add to this honourable crusade to neutralise this pages signal. You all think this is some sort of 'bandwagon' right? WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG. This ain't no bandwagon. I think this article is bias in several sentences which have been IGNORED. Now, I don't know about the school to actually change the article, and that is why it must be deleted. everyone keeps saying 'it must be cleaned up, it must be edited', but they are not doing anything about the article!!! If everyone wants it to stay, DO SOMETHING I am a member of the brotherhood of purifiers and am also an individual. I consider this article 'purifiable'. --Shaanxiquake 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete Brothers of purification, I agree with this crusade. The purgatory must be enacted. NUM QUAM POSTEA! No more will this article blemish the site. My other brothers have jumped the gun and told you they want it to be deleted. Let me outline WHY:

1. The article is clearly bias. There is no doubt about it.
2. The article looks like a note point summary of some kind. Wikipedia IS NOT about note point summaries.
3. The populous are accusing the BP (Brotherhood of Purification) of not acting and changing the article. As Brother Shaanxiquake said, we know nothing about the school! I am from Bahrain! Why doesn't the populous change the article? Let me guess, the article is incorrect so this AFD was instigated. Now everyone in the populous is going to argue to bring the BP down, saying that the BP should fix the page. When the AFD is finally removed, the article WILL NOT HAVE CHANGED ONE BIT, and it will continue to be a blemish. The BP is bringing forward incredibly valid points. If no one will fix the article, it must by neutralized. The site must be purified.

It is in this vein that I call all the bretheren of the Brotherhood of Purification (the number is growing) to merge as one and yet retain their unique individuality, to bring down this pathetic page which obviously has some sort of fan base from the school itself. Don't pretend you weren't from the school, populous! I've looked at members' of the populous userpages, and they mention this school as part of their education! This is obviously some sort of school push, but it will not be tolerated. Wikipedia does not accept people FROM THE SCHOOL spreading lies and deceptions, or even more importantly defending an article worthy of nothing. The Brotherhood of Purification will see to it that this pathetic display is neutralized forever, because it serves no purpose and people continually whine for others to fix it, and no one does. --Purification 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious self admitted meat puppetry going on here Ydam 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest maybe we BJAODN this whole debate too, it's certainly unique Ydam 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rush (porn star)[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Delete - non notable -- Tawker 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- he is one of the most important porn stars in gay porn now. The article is well-written, and properly categorized and linked. Saying that he is "non-notable" is blatantly false. The only motivation for this nomination appears to be prudishness. If this article is deleted, then precedent will be set for all porn star and porn-related articles to be deleted. Zeromacnoo 10:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Molsby
Strong keep Zeromacnoo said everything about this topic. Daydream believer2 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Every porn stars have their article even if they are not specifically 'notable'. And if ones need reasons for Rush's notability, there are plenty, including that he might be the very first gay porn star to have a 'Lifetime' exclusivity contract with a studio. Em79 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is one of the more popuar gay porn stars so he is actuly very notable --unsigned comment by Archangel2244
Strong keep We need more like him--unsigned comment by 69.244.28.8
Strong keep per Zeromacnoo. Senatedems 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very very very strong keep. He is a very important star. The article itself is well written and should not be deleted. GB

Strong keep . mtxoracle 04:00 22 May 2006 (PST) Matthew/Greg is very notable, the mark of AfD is silly. He is very notable, given that WikiP keeps a list of pornstars and has many holes in that list, as a resource for free information and a compendium of said information it stands to reason that this article should not be deleted or altered outside of furhter updates or corrections.... now i hope i did this right.
Strong keep . UBopp 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Unless Wikipedia is instituting across-the-board censorship policies, there can be no argument for deleting this article without advocating a major reduction of freedom of speech as it is permitted in the rules of Wikipedia. That wouldn't be very conservative, now, would it?[reply]
- - Comment, "...freedom of speech as it is permitted in the rules of Wikipedia"? Sorry, there is no inherent "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia, or any other website for that matter. Deleting this article would not violate "freedom of speech" if you are referring to your constitutional rights (presuming you are American), because the 1st Amendment only guarantee's that the government will not abridge your right to "free speech". It says nothing about the media, or society at large, moderating you, I, or anyone else. Just ask the Dixie Chicks... Besides, Jimbo's executive actions on some articles Brian Peppers should be proof enough that there is no absolute "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia; all articles are subject to removal by executive action if Jimbo et. al. deem it so. But, enough of a civics lesson for today... If you are speaking about systemic bias that may occur by deleting this entry, you may have a point. In that case though it would be beneficial for anyone with the opinion of "Keep" to post some verifiable sources proving that this individual meets WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO. I have not idea if he meets those criteria, hence no opinion on it. Opinions for deletion or rentention should be based on those criteria though.--Isotope23 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete; listing now. - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not true that "Every porn stars have their article even if they are not specifically 'notable'" - lots are deleted right here at AFD. WP:PORN BIO is a proposal for formalizing what makes a porn star notable. Can one or more of the people voting Keep explain exactly what makes Rush "one of the more popuar gay porn stars"? Is there some kind of ranking of relative popularity we can reference? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per Zeromacnoo, et al. Subject is notable within his niche. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no value. CalJW 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The criteria in WP:PORN BIO are clearly not met, or no mention of their being met is made. I also wonder precisely why there are so very many "strong keep" votes, which are otherwise rather rare, by so many users who are either anonymous or lacking userpages? Having investigated as much during the writing of this comment, I have found that a few of them are extremely new, with very few edits. I have nothing against new users, mind you, but could some be sock puppets? Ubopp, for instance, has made all of one edit - to this page. Mtxoracle has made only one edit to article space and two to this page. Falcon 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:PORN BIO criterion the keep "votes" are being cast under would apparently be #8, notable performer in niche, where "gay porn" is the niche. Again, I'm not "voting" one way or the other, but I would really appreciate if someone who does know about the niche state what specifically makes him notable in the niche. Note that this specific issue (that 100 films was probably too high for gay erotic actors) was the very first comment on WP:PORN BIO. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the article can be cleaned up and actual information (other than physical attributes, etc.) can be uploaded, then Matthew Rush is a good candidate for keeping around. Mr. Rush's career, according to the aforementioned proposed outline for adult film stars that Falcon alluded to, is a valid Wikipedia entry. He won an AVN (Gayvn Award to be specific) award in 2002 for Best Newcomer, and as it has been mentioned before, he has what seems to be an exclusive "lifetime" contract with the higest-grossing gay film company in the country. If any of the editors who have voted "strong keep" can update this information, it might be worth it in the long run.Overdrive10 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that WP:PORN BIO has appropriate criteria for gay pron stars. I would try to add some but I'm not sure exactly what they should be myself. Someone with broader experience than I should look into adding something to the proposal. Eluchil404 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matthew Rush is definitely among the more notable porn stars in the industry, due to his appearance in high-profile Falcon films and in the touring play. I was pretty surprised to see that a well written article about him is being considered for deleltion. --DavidK93 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep article is well written and factual. I see no grounds for a valid AFD. ALKIVAR™ 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning the Gayvn Award in 2002 for Best Newcomer and signing a lifetime contract (whatever that entails) with the highest grossing gay film company in the United States is a fair expression of notability in my book. Sorry tawker. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consenus) - renamed to Sydney Roosters 1908 Season. TigerShark 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roosters1908[edit]

This page and its companions below were deleted pursuant to an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydneyroosters1909. A DRV consensus determined that this decision should be reevaluated in light of a newer AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which brought forth new evidence on the matter. Please read the provided debates before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain (except to that, if kept, this article must be renamed), obviously. Xoloz 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename It's an encyclopedic entry for a notable team. ScottW 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The result of every Sydney Roosters game (and by extension every "major league" sporting event anywhere, ever) is too much. At worst, gather all the results for all teams to 1908 NRL Season, though frankly, a page with the final ladder would more than suffice. We don't store heat results for the Olympics ... that's too much information. -- GWO
Keep this page on the basis of the favourable retention of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season. I am also in favour of this article being renamed Eastern Suburbs 1910Sbryce858 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is perfectly feasible that over time (many years) we can work up to provide this level of detail on a comprehensive basis. Athenaeum 11:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus) - moved to Sydney Roosters 1910 Season. TigerShark 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydneyroosters1910[edit]

This page and its companions below were deleted pursuant to an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydneyroosters1909. A DRV consensus determined that this decision should be reevaluated in light of a newer AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which brought forth new evidence on the matter. Please read the provided debates before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain (except to that, if kept, this article must be renamed), obviously. Xoloz 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page on the basis of the favourable retention of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season. I am also in favour of this article being renamed Eastern Suburbs 1910Sbryce858 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic article on a notable team. Additionally, rename this page to Sydney Roosters 1910 Season to be consistent with the previously kept article. Further renaming would probably be better discussed on the articles' talk pages. ScottW 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The result of every Sydney Roosters game (and by extension every "major league" sporting event anywhere, ever) is too much. At worst, gather all the results for all teams to 1910 NRL Season, though frankly, a page with the final ladder would more than suffice. We don't store heat results for the Olympics ... that's too much information. -- GWO
Keep It is perfectly feasible that over time (many years) we can work up to provide this level of detail on a comprehensive basis. Athenaeum 11:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus) moved to Sydney Roosters 1909 Season. TigerShark 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydneyroosters1909[edit]

This page and its companions below were deleted pursuant to an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydneyroosters1909. A DRV consensus determined that this decision should be reevaluated in light of a newer AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season, which brought forth new evidence on the matter. Please read the provided debates before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain (except to that, if kept, this article must be renamed), obviously. Xoloz 17:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename this page to Sydney Roosters 1909 Season. Encyclopedic article on a notable team. ScottW 02:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The result of every Sydney Roosters game (and by extension every "major league" sporting event anywhere, ever) is too much. At worst, gather all the results for all teams to 1909 NRL Season, though frankly, a page with the final ladder would more than suffice. We don't store heat results for the Olympics ... that's too much information. -- GWO
Keep this page on the basis of the favourable retention of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Roosters 1911 Season. I am also in favour of this article being renamed Eastern Suburbs 1910Sbryce858 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. It is perfectly feasible that over time (many years) we can work up to provide this level of detail on a comprehensive basis. Athenaeum 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I gave on the other AfDs. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. notability not sufficiently established. --++Lar: t/c 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE please list all articles covered under the nomination, don't assume that "what links here" will catch them. There are a large number of articles also covered by this nom that are not named off. They're all going to be deleted though. IF one of the creators wants to set up their own wiki and wants all the text userified, contact me. No place for it here that I can see though. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent_Flag_Football_League[edit]

This is a non-notable local organization not discussed by any third party, in violation of Wikipedia's notabilty policy. KriZe 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pages regarding matches to be played in 5 years, including starting times and quarter-by-quarter breakdowns are of little interest to anyone but the participants themselves. As for already-played games, were any of these broadcast on local media or written up in the paper? I should encourage you to create your own wiki, and all of this material would be quite appropriate and that would be a suitable reference to commemmorate this league and its matches, but the notability factor overall is nil. KriZe 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a mirror of iffl.info. Melchoir 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Themadmac An organization with roughly 200 members in a community hardly seems 'non-notable' to me, and the article's lack of amendment by third parties seems to me to be indicative of its quality rather than KriZe's perception. By the logic that pages regarding matches played in the future are reason for deleting main articles, Wikipedia's entries for the National Football League and several other sports organizations, at various levels pro and amateur, should be deleted as well. And to answer your question, KriZe, YES, the league's games and the organization's events have received periodic coverage both locally and nationally - most notably in 2004 when the organization's founders were covered by Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, and other publications. Besides, I always thought Wikipedia was about [u]adding[/u] information, not selectively deleting it.
Keep. Thomasjmarshall The article may be borrowed from their website, but its still informational and should be kept.
Delete "roughly 200 members in a community" is the definition of a small and non-notable organization. Unless User:Themadmac can provide citations for the claims of press coverage, this is a clear delete. Actually, Themadac doesn't claim press coverage of the subject, merely the subject's founders. This is a clear delete under a number of policies including WP:NOT a webhost to "mirror" Melchoir. :) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Insurance Company[edit]

advertisement or vanity Ekem 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, no real assertion of notability, or verifiable sources. -- Docether 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really of any value to anyone. Not even truely Wikified. Andy Blak 17:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Melchoir 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably promotional copyvio of a certainly non-notable company, WP:CORP —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no consensus). TigerShark 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together[edit]

This page was speedy deleted under CSD A7. A DRV consensus determined that notability was asserted, and a full hearing at AfD was deserved. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newspaper coverage. Melchoir 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What newspaper coverage? That page is mostly press releases by FAST that are on-site, and occasionally a link to 1 other website. --Rory096 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the newspaper coverage, most of which appears to be in Jewish newspapers. I rest my position on the three or so links to mainstream Canadian papers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And one of those is a press release, so it's more like two. But that's exactly my threshold for notability. Melchoir 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I mean, these are established Jewish papers, so the coverage is worth something, so it's more than just two newspaper mentions here. Wouldn't wanna condone "jewcruft" though. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Ardenn 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. (A google news search would be more creditable here than their press release page, although not on the article itself.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newspaper coverage. TruthbringerToronto 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only a year old, no real claim to notability in the article and only 79 unique Google results, many of which appear to be a press release. -- Kjkolb 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by a narrow margin. The coverage is not substantial, and largely in special interest publications (Toronto Jewish News). A one-year-old organisation is rarely actually notable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in the Jewish press. --JJay 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Link? --Rory096 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Please try to follow the discussion before commenting. See link at top of page. --JJay 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for the Bank of Montreal to be supporting it[22] (and its CEO being one of the co-founders). Agent 86 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bank of Montreal is probably supporting it because its CEO is one of the co-founders, but its founder doesn't make it notable (do we even have an article on the CEO of the Bank of Montreal?) --Rory096 07:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That may very well be true, but the fact remains that a CEO answers to a board of directors and the bank approved support for the programme. As for an article for the CEO, if you'll see the FAST article mentions him and links to the article on him. Agent 86 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so any organization made by a substub is notable? Doubtful. What does "supporting" it mean? They issued a statement in support? Why would they turn that down if the CEO asked for it? --Rory096 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The BMO is not some mom-and-pop organization. They do not allow their goodwill, name, and trademarks to be taken lightly. In fact, I see that the BMO is not the only significant organization lending their support. If this organization was not notable, you wouldn't see all these people and organizations[23] giving their support. Agent 86 00:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that while it is a rather cursory stub at the moment, time will make it a decent article. Falcon 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I can't see that it's gotten a lot of media attention. this page is supposedly reprinted from the Toronto Star, but I can't find anything on the Toronto Star's own website, and they're usually good about archiving everything there. That article says "The two recently made headlines by founding a group called Fighting AntiSemitism Together," but where are all these "headlines"?... If someone can show me some then I'll change my vote. ENpeeOHvee 05:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Post ran an op-ed piece by Mr. Comper on the topic, and the Winnipeg Free Press ran an article May 12, 2006 (their on-line copyof the story requires registration). Agent 86 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable organization. Borderline {{db-club}}. --Rory096 07:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. and per Rory096 it's borderline db-club. - Motor (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, I don't see where/how notability was asserted. Equendil Talk 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep in light of other comments. Articles needs sources though. Equendil Talk 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rory096. SushiGeek 16:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable "blue ribbon" group made up of leading business figures in Canada such as Tony Comper, President and CEO of BMO Financial Group; Dan Fortin, President of IBM Canada; Charles Baillie, Retired Chairman and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group and Chancellor of Queen’s University; John M. Cassaday, President and CEO, Corus Entertainment Inc., Ed Clark, President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group; Richard J. Currie, Chancellor of the University of New Brunswick, Michael Sabia, President and CEO of Bell Canada Enterprises, David A. Galloway, Chairman of BMO Financial;Galen Weston; Senator Michael Meighen; Gordon Nixon, CEO of RBC Financial; to name a few[24]. They received notable media attention when they were launched (not just the Jewish press, I recall reading about them in the Star and the Globe and Mail). They're also interesting as they are a group fighting anti-Semitism made up entirely of notable non-Jews. Homey 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to a Toronto Star article[25].Homey 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EQ Smart Energy Drink[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable product; see WP:CORP. Melchoir 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, spam.--Andeh 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This page is intended for informational purposes only - They weren't even kind enough to remove the notice from their spam. Strong Delete. Voice of Treason 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete due to the fact that it is spam. Didn't we just do this to a few sobe drinks after the same format last year? Falcon 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, spam. I think I saw another soda drink last week Falcon. --Starionwolf 02:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deli nk 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question This company currently sponsors a NASCAR team. Does this affect its notability? (This is not an endorsement towards any side.) --D -Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha[edit]

Notability is not determined. Has only been in a handful of movies (roughly 14 per the EGAFD), and there isn't anything distinctive about this person. It doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:BIO or the WP:PORN BIO proposal. Therefore, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Hong Qi Gong 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep the disambig, delete the bio as non-notable as cited above —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 11:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarafa[edit]

Not notable. 100 google results. Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP. Sleepyhead 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. incog 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve the heavy rewording that has been done already. -Mardus 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | Other similar software titles' articles with better style could also be taken as examples. I dont totally agree with this deletion, true that the zarafa isnt well know, but i have been looking for exchange alternatives and there arent many and most of then are little known, mostly only open-source exchange alternatives have many references. for now i'm happy that this is wasnt already deleted. anyway thanks for wikipedia.[reply]

I cannot see that it meets the notability criteria of WP:CORP or WP:SOFT, thus the article has been nomiated for deletion. Your vote have not brought any evidence that this company is notable - in fact you are stating that it is not. --Sleepyhead 06:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOFT - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOFT, fails google test, generally fails notability —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arm the elderly[edit]

WP:BAND Local band, no major albums John Nagle 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a local band in Cork, Ireland, with one self-published EP out. According to [26], they're playing a pub in Cork this week. --John Nagle 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, could have been given a db band NawlinWiki 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that and it was deleted; that's why we're in AfD. --John Nagle 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No reason to be on AFD. Removal of deletion process notices other than prod is vandalism. The speedy tag defines use of the talk page and {{tl:hangon}} as ways to contest. Outright removal is not okay. I'm retagging as db-band. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number Six Club[edit]

Delete. Essentially, a group that does not assert notability. Individual chapters of nationwide fraternities are NN, and there's lots of precedent for that, I think. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MaxSem 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of MIT dormitories (by adding a new section for fraternities, similar to List of MIT undergraduate dormitories). Nationalparks 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Nationalparks. Isopropyl 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge clearly fails notability and pushes me towards db-a7, but since there is a place to put it... —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 was attempted and declined before this AfD. Go figure. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vaiolaptopfirefox 22:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikiquote. TigerShark 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from Bubbles[edit]

Last time I checked lists of quotes were not the types of article we are looking for here on Wikipedia. There is WP:NPS and the fact that they just seem better off at Wikiquote. --Hetar 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki per nominator. Saw this new article earlier today and it crossed my mind that it didn't belong here. Agent 86 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Invitatious 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote per nom. Falcon 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trailer Park Boys (same logic as merging Rickeyisms). --Kevadian 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, per nom. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we throw Laheyisms and Rickyisms into the mix, too? Yanksox 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I agree with Yanksox; all three belong on wikiquote as , (gasp), they're nothing more than a list of quotes. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. feydey 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xie Qiuping[edit]

Delete , Way too short to be considered a serious entry.
Delete , Not Notable Anonymous anonymous 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep if verifiable, as a world record is notable, otherwise delete. EsonLinji 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Check out on the internet if you don't trust me--try TLHP (The Long Hair site) or TLHS (The long hair paradise) using yahoo or google to search. Keep, obviously, but the article needs to be expanded. Only extraordinary people can grow hair to such lengths: Check out Crystal Gayle or Alicia Witt's mother Diane for references. Mr Tan 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Wikipediaaddict 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Xie Qiuping does have an entry on the official Guinness World Records site [27] 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is verified and I would consider a world-record holder to be a notable person. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any entry can be expanded and a valid world record holder is notable. Too short, is not a meaningful criteria, I began an article of similar length not long ago [28] that has now become the Featured Article Michael Woodruff. Cool3 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - it is on the official guinness web site

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no case for deletion established. Obviously notable, obviously a stub. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator gave no reason for deletion. The article's subject is notable. Afonso Silva 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hair. The subject is not notable for any reason beyond the length of her hair, and it's going to be hard to ever expand this beyond the current stub it is. Therefore, she deserves about two lines in the Hair article. I looked around and added a Reuters article which has something like 4 lines on her; that seems to be it. I don't think there will ever be more on this person. There is a precedent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hunn, which was merged into Burping after no keeps in a delete/merge no consensus. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr Tan and Hyenaste. I assume the first unsigned entry was by the nominator. Shortness of an article does not merit deletion, it merits a {{stub}} tag (preferrably within an appropriate stub category). Agent 86 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this world record holder is a notable person Yuckfoo 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, malformed nomination and figure is clearly notable. Silensor 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Yanksox ^(talk) 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Randle[edit]

Asserts insufficient notability. Delete or merge to The Tonight Show. --Nlu (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asserts notability. Check out new CD "Sleep City" - April 2006.

Before you delete or request deletion by vote ask about her contribution to our world and see that the woman is having an impact on millions of souls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.144.167 (talk • contribs)

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself establishes notability and is within the criteria for WP:BIO. Agent 86 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only woman in the Tonight show band- that's huge, pathbreaking, a giant step. She is also on TV every night. --JJay 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly establishes notability. She has recorded and toured with numerous artists, recorded a new CD, and is the only woman in the house band of one of the highest rated evening shows in the U.S.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 MIT hack. TigerShark 23:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IHTFP[edit]

Delete. Dicdef. There was a long and incongruous section on MIT hacks, which was longer than the entire article dedicated to that notable phenomenon. I have moved it there wholesale. What's left is an unencyclopedic dicdef treatment of a NN aspect of the culture of one U.S. university. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phenomenon extends beyond MIT: see [29]. Extended history at MIT, including inclusion on class rings, hacks, literature; legacy comparable to Primal Scream (Harvard) and other institutional traditions. Important for context of MIT hacks. Isopropyl 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't assert notability, and a dicdef. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a couple links to establish some context: [30], [31].
Delete. This doesn't deserve more than two or three sentences, which are already in the MIT article. We don't need entire articles on matters primarily of fascination to MIT alums. Any classmates of mine, I hope to see you tonight at the Museum of Fine Arts. Arise, and raise your ~~steins on~~ glasses high/Tonight shall ever be/A mem'ry that shall never die/~~Ye sons of~~ All ye of MIT!. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as MIT cruft. -- Kjkolb 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MIT hack, or just keep it, IHTFP. --JJay 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MIT hack. If that is where the content has been moved to then that is where the article should redirect to. Cedars 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might also be considered a neologism, as the acronym/phrase also appears in a Jerry Pournelle and S.M. Stirling novel, Falkenberg's Legion, Chapter 12, including a backronym for it. Perhaps the article should be kept and edited to reflect that, as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.58.76 (talk • contribs) .
Redirect as per User:Cedars. Equendil Talk 10:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
r if content is merged, a redirect should be left in place to preserve history —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Plane Program[edit]

Proposal for an international version of the Space Shuttle program. I am puzzled - the websites exist but Wikipedia thinks that the International Space Agency is fiction. Notability check please. -- RHaworth 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not done any deep checking other than visiting the sites, but this has 'crazy person vanity project' written all over it. Artw 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration: Delete Artw 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as semi-hoax (or wishful thinking, much as I would wish it were real). Even on the web site, the ISA is a small New York corporation with no actual international affiliations. If they signed up one aerospace company or one national space agency, or even an organization with the credibility of the L-5 Society, the article might be notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthur Rubin. There are lots of paper spacecraft. This appears pretty non-notable; someone is saying "hey, how about a ramp launcher, anyone want to invest in us?" and (looking at google) nobody is noticing. Would need professional external sources that verify this is a viable system. Weregerbil 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fantasy project, see also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Agency (ISA). Sandstein 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Space Agency (ISA). Powers 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluekipper[edit]

Delete. Site does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank of over 125,000. Google points mostly to blogs. ... discospinster _talk 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Silly hit count rankings aside, this page is clearly some kind of (self-)promotion of something which has no significance to anyone other than its members. Falcon 23:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "hey bobby wats french 4 shite?" The claim of notability for this website. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Allison[edit]

Person whose only notability is founding a political party a few days ago. That article is also up for deletion. My vote is clearly for delete. Wickethewok 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *Arrggh* per nom. PJM 19:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into party article if kept. Else, Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no way either he or the brand new party and their few dozen buccaneers should be kept at this time. Fan1967 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this, some guy's resume? SmartGuy 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Walk the plank as non-notarrrble, together with his "party", which is also going to the wiki-bottom. Sandstein 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't you actually need to be elected or something close to it in order to claim notability through politics? Falcon 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A grad student who's floated an idea? That's it? --Calton | Talk 08:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, I'm flattered that someone decided to make a Wikipedia entry about me, and it did get me lots of cool points with my friends. Still, if none of my higher-ranking colleagues in academia are getting Wiki entries, then it's probably a good sign that I don't merit one now. But if it will Merge into the party article if it's kept per CrazyRussian's suggestion, I won't object. The academic jargon they got from my site for the entry would just have to be consolidated/removed if that happened. -- Brent Allison, 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.187.253 (talk • contribs)
Delete and Redirect to Pirate Party assuming the other article gets merged. Paul^C/_T+ 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject just requested deletion on the basis of admitted non-notability. But if Pirate Party is kept, redirects are cheap. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerson Lehrman Group[edit]

Article reads more like an advertisement. Almost all google links are back to company or subsidiary. Lacks notability. Was prodded and removed, so this is the next step. Avi 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator -- Avi 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to Wiki looking for info on this rather obscure but interesting company. I saw that the existing article had been proposed for deletion, and admittedly it was pretty useless (seemingly copied from marketing collateral). So I decided to try and make it a little better. Google revealed a couple of previously published stories, one in Crain's New York Business (Jan 27, 2003) and another in the Wall Street Journal (December 3, 2004). There was also a useful answer posted on Ask MetaFilter (http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/16697), which actually had much better info than Wiki. I hope the additional info improves the article, but it would be useful to have more recent info (which I don't have).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telematique (talk • contribs) 14:45, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean to vote for keep, but you may wish to clarify that, or preface your remarks with "Comment" if you do not wish to vote. -- Avi 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless notability established by reliable sources; many external links are broken; article notes that it is "little known outside Wall Street circles". Sandstein 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

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

The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like, this looks like a delete. Ian13/talk 20:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheSmartMarks.com[edit]

KEEP - Last I heard or checked the site gets nearly 10 million hits a month, this is no small discussion form and since the days of Scott Keith, TSM has become a name most any wrestling fan has come to know, whether they visit it or not.

KEEP - IT MAKES ME LAUFF AND THAT CZECH NIGGAH BE COOL BUT HE HATES RAP AND DAT AIN'T COOL BUT HE STILL COOL 71.108.35.14 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Mole[reply]

The website has not established notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). As it stands, it appears to be little more than an advertisment. McPhail 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The forum gets more hits than anything else. Most don't even bother reading the articles at the website. Voice of Treason 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sandstein 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep directly evolved from web sites such as Smarks, Rantsylvania, and 411mania which were integral to the devlopment of the Internet Wrestling Community. Has been around since 2001 which makes it one of the longest lasting pro wrestling message boards on the Internet. Plus, it has branched out recently (as mentioned) into the poker business.JB196 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't need a Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrrant (talk • contribs) .

Keep As mentioned, it is one of the longest-running wrestling sites in its various incarnations, and has a very colorful history featuring such IWC luminaries as Sean Shannon, Scott Keith, and others. If other IWC sites have pages, then TSM certainly should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.200.128 (talk • contribs) .
Doesn't meet WP:WEB. 81,128 Alexa ranking. --Rory096 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Death Valley Driver Video Review meets the requirements to remain on Wikipedia, than The Smart Marks should as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kernoodle (talk • contribs) .
Keep It rocks, IIRC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.183.10 (talk • contribs) .
Delete It doesn't need an entry. It would only be of interest to those already familiar with the forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.172.74 (talk • contribs) .
Delete WP:WEB isn't perfect, but even beyond that it doesn't merit an entry. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To say that this article doesn't merit an entry does not achknowledge the fact that Scott Keith was an integral part of the development of TSM, and that TSM was an integral part in the development of Scott Keith. Scott Keith has an entry on him on Wikipedia which has never been contested over afD...there is a reason for this...the reason is this...he was important to the development of the Internet Wrestling Community. As was TSM. As such, the entry for TSM should be kept if the entry for Scott Keith is kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JB196 (talk • contribs) .
- Just because someone notable is involved in something doesn't mean that it's notable. Anyway, the article on Scott Keith doesn't even mention this website... --Rory096 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - TSM evolved from TheSmarks.com, which is mentioned in Keith's entry.JB196 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JB196 is trying to get the entry for DVDVR deleted because it is a competitor to TheSmarks. If you want to play this game, so will I. TruthCrusader 08:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that TrushCrusader has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF many times in the past. He is also not being truthful in saying that "[[DVDR] is a competitor to TheSmarks. As admitted by him a few lines, he - right or wrong - has a grudge against me and therefore is not a credible voter in this situation. Thanks.JB196 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well fortunately for Wikipedia, who can vote is not determined by you. TruthCrusader 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fortunately for Wikipedia this is not a vote! I count eight legitimate, opinionated discussion posts by registered users. Yours, TruthCrusader, is clearly not in good faith and provides no real reasoning.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the website is non-notable. And for those arguing over DVDVR being here, the article has only survived afd twice through No Consensus. Either way, I would have voted delete for that article as well for being just as notable. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see main article. There is enough criterion to differentiate it from other Internet Wrestling Community web sites. It played a major role in the development of the Internet Wrestling Community and to this day is one of the most frequented web sites in the Internet Wrestling Community. If web sites such as DVDR are listed, then this should definitely be listed. There are NO other wrestling forums that have gained as much of a cult following as TSM and crossed over to mainstream as much as it has. They became so well known that they had to close signups for a long time because there were so many people signing up who were not living up to the expected standard---whatever that be (and actually signups still may be closed for all I know). Anyway, the subject of this entry is totally notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.203.233 (talk • contribs)

Delete, this is not something that wiki needs. It is a boring entry for a rather boring website. Seeing this kind of stuff at wiki almost gives people the message that anything they find remotely interesting is worth putting up at wiki. That should not be the case. Especially for something like a website that barely exists and whose claim to fame, if it ever had one to begin with, was years ago. Matthew Jones, unregistered contributor 11:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete: This website isn't notable by the usual WP:WEB standards, but within the community it serves might be notable. The question then becomes whether individual sites within a notable online community are notable based on their association with the community. I would say not per Rory's comment above about association not transferring notability. This has interesting parallels to the discussion about the MetaWiki article below.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a good question. I'd have to say that since Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, than notability within a community does not mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. That's a whole other debate though. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as it stands, virtually every "keep" vote is either insisting that the website is one of the most popular wrestling websites (no proof has been offered for this claim, though) or by arguing that the website deserves an article if the "Death Valley Driver Video Review" website deserves an article. This is not a reasonable argument, as the Death Valley Driver Video Review article has been nominated for deletion three times to date due to a lack of notability. Wikipedia should not be a staging ground for a series of juvenile "forum wars". McPhail 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its Alexa ranking is 85,000 which is way more than RajahWWF.com. If that's not a reasonable argument then neither is that "its a boring entry for a rather boring web site." Tons of proof has been offered about its notability, including that it was one of the leaders of the Internet Wrestling Community boom; the only problem is that many people such as you are unwilling to achknowledge the arguments that have been fully established for it to stay.JB196 12:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But 85,000 is far, far higher than 411mania (25,777), wrestlingobserver.com (26,543) and pwtorch.com (21,819). The website in question is clearly not one of the more popular wrestling websites on the Internet, as there are similar websites with 60,000 more visitors. Moreover, the (dubious) argument that the website was central to the development of the Internet wrestling community is of little merit, as that article has also been proposed for deletion in the past. The same is true of your above claim that Scott Keith has an article, so the article should remain - the Scott Keith article has also been proposed for deletion in the past. This website is in no sense notable, and the fact that it influenced or was frequented by similar pseudo-notable article subjects should not save it from being deleted. McPhail 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely invalid. There is a very good reason why there is a deletion process here on Wikipedia. If there were'nt, anybody could just delete an entry they didn't like, but because there is a process, the deletion must be approved in advance. Your argument relies on the assumption that just because an article was proposed for deletion in the past, it isn't notable, which is ridiculous.JB196 19:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDegree[edit]

Non-noteable (1 Google hit) and self-referential. An interesting concept but not a real one. Alex S 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the arguments in the nomination. Thue | talk 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. hateless 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No verification in the article that this even exists. Agent 86 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism.Gerry Ashton 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Invitatious 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cedars 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The term is used at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Market_Wikiversity#Value_of_a_WikiDegree. The meaning is slightly

different but intent is the same. . User:Klnorman 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I personally did not invent this term. I found it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Market_Wikiversity#Value_of_a_WikiDegree While it may be a neologism, so is Wikipedia. I think that it is an important , emerging idea. You can delete here but, you can't kill the idea.

Delete This is a futuristic concept yet to come into being. Whether it is notable or self-referential or not, it is also currently doesn't exist as anything more than a concept, so WP:NOT a crystal ball. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubedelia[edit]

This article was mistakenly tagged as Miscellany for Deletion by HughCharlesParker, who commented, "This seems to be a vanity page by an editor with no other edits." I've re-tagged it and moved the discussion here. ... discospinster _talk 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, protologism, googling for "Dubedelia -wikipedia" gives 88 hits, apparently all in relation to this one "Mr. Zed" garage band. Sandstein 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original mistaken MFD. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism and as an attempt to circumvent WP:MUSIC —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. WP is not a crystal ball. No predjudice against recreation at a later date when more information is available. --++Lar: t/c 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pendragon The Great[edit]

Anon AFDed this one, but wasn't able to complete the process. Looks like a future book whose title has been announced, but which nothing else is known about. Crystal ball, etc. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What would one have an article on an unreleased and probably insignificant book for, in a childrens' series (IIRC) no less? I'm almost tempted to call this an advertisment. Falcon 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We know nothing more than the title at this point. This article would be viable once we have more information about the book's content.--Rokuwa 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the anon. This wouldn't be an insignificant book, but we should delete it until at least the cover picture is released next year.209.192.108.232 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. This is purely an attempt at bluing a red link, even if it means making speculations about the content of a yet to be released text of dubious significance. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. WP is not a crystal ball. --++Lar: t/c 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upcoming Episodes of The Simpsons[edit]

Irrelevent. Out-of-date. Does it need a separate list from Episodes of the Simpsons? Robertsteadman 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a TV guide. Sandstein 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete. No logical reason for inclusion for future viewing. Voice of Treason 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be an always-changing list, and what to do when the series ends? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow ... that it hasn't been updated since April is reason enough. There are websites that already do this much better. Recommend that those interested check out GEOS and volunteer to maintain episode information for all the countries that are already listed. Nfitz 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm sure I've seen this before. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact reason Sandstein said. (We've seen variations of this before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes for example.) --Metropolitan90 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for TV guides - especially out of date ones! Batchelor 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was that I speedied the article as a hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Zion[edit]

This looks like a possible hoax. I have tried various searches on google and found nothing. I might be wrong though, hence putting this up for discussion as opposed to prodding RicDod 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable due to lack of sources. Borderline nonsense. Gw e rnol 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsensical hoax. Sandstein 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ~~WP:V~~, hoax. Voice of Treason 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lack of WP:V is not on WP:CSD. Sandstein 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was more for being a fake, but OK, I'll strike it through. Voice of Treason 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added speedy-nonsense tag should be deleted soon.--Andeh 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Moran[edit]

Not notable.

Delete Does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:PORN_BIO. Hong Qi Gong 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO, unless Lowrider Magazine model is notable enough. Voice of Treason 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's been in at least 32 videos and was nominated "Most Recognisable Adult Actress" by a French magazine. While the numbers are inflated when it comes to porn, she gets a huge amount of web page and image results on Google. -- Kjkolb 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She'd have to have been in around or over 100 movies to qualify the videos, and how notable is the French magazine, especially to English audiences? Voice of Treason 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've basically argued for why she is not notable. 32 videos and nomination (didn't even win?) by some unknown French magazine is what I would call NOT notable, even by porn standards. As far as number of videos and awards go, the proposed WP:PORN_BIO requires at least 100 videos or winning (not just being nominated) an award given by a major porn organisation. Hong Qi Gong 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The keyword about WP:PORN BIO is proposed. :-) As I mentioned in another AfD, it is far more strict than the treatment that regular actors get on AfD. If you're a regular actor and have an IMDb entry with two or three minor parts with brief screentime listed, you have a very good shot at being kept on AfD. If your only role is an occasionally reoccuring character on any TV show, no matter how low rated, you have an excellent chance at being kept. As far as the magazine being "unknown", I don't know. It could be well known in France. Also, if she was even nominated for the most recognizable adult actress award, it seems like she would have had to have been considered very well known. Other awards, like best performer and such could have relatively unknown people, but it wouldn't make sense to have anyone non-notable nominated for that award. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why you'd think regular actors have less strict criteria for keeping. The difference is in the movies themselves. Regular movies, especially ones with national or international distribution, are more notable than any one of the porn movies that most of these porn stars have been in. By extension, of course regular actors are usually more notable than porn stars. Having a minor role in, for example, Da Vinci Code, is going to be more notable than being the star of, for example, Teen Pussy #1 through Teen Pussy #15. Now if this particular porn star or any other porn star had minor roles in regular movies, that would make them notable. It's not how many movies they've been in or how many magazine spreads they've done. It's the kind of movies they've been in and the kind of magazines they've been in. These movies and magazines are not notable. That's the problem. It's the same thing with any other kinds of professions. You can take, for example, a computer programmer that has written several hundreds of programs, he wouldn't be as notable as the guy that wrote, for example, Winamp, if the programs he wrote are not themselves notable. Hong Qi Gong 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable more as an Internet pinup than a porn actress, methinks. Haikupoet 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, not only is she apparently a notable porno chick, but Darren Hayman (who was a favorite of John Peel) wrote a song about her. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems notable even though I haven't heard of her. Cheers --Starionwolf 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crissy Moran is quite prevalent in online porn. You see her everywhere, even in MySpace adds for dating websites. Her career is a testament to the power of the web where she might not have movie exposure like other porn stars (by her own choice I might add) but she is still as well known. Sablestorm 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are adult actresses on here that are far less notable, yet their pages are still up. The reason Crissy doesn't have tons of videos is because she has moved away from doing hardcore scenes, she said so on her forums. She has done photoshoots with popular models, she has shot with highly-regarded photographers, and her site receives tons of hits every day. She may not get the type of exposure that others get because of her lack of boy/girl scenes, but she is clearly one of the most beautiful women in the adult industry. She is completely underrated by so many people. When I see some of the other pages for pornstars that remain un-deleted, I can't believe this one is even being considered. One more point, the major adult website Twisty's named her "Twisty's Treat of the Month" this year. That sounds pretty special. She also recently did a shoot hor Hustler, and she is being considered for the front cover. The article for on here is also horrible. It hasn't been updated in forever with some of her recent accomplishments. The article does not do justice to her at all and needs to be rewritten by someone with a deep knowledge of her career.--71.246.103.73 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. --Mister Wiggles 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:PORN per "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." The niche is internet pin-up. Similar to Cindy Margolis (though substantially less notable), Crissy is notable not for her presence in videos, but for her photo shoots. Kershner 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 DarthVader noted, when the article was created it was just an AfD tag. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune High School[edit]

Non-notable. WP isn't a phone book and that is basically what this entry is using WP for. Unencyclopedic. Robertsteadman 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From what I see, it looks like the nominator created the article by adding an AfD tag? [32]. DarthVad e r 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neptune High School is a fictional high school in Veronica Mars, I presume this article was created to spin off of the TV show article.Markeer 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Not notable. --++Lar: t/c 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Akin[edit]

Vanity, Non notable (only hit on google was a mirror), written by subject (or mother of subject). Coil00 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article per nom. Almost tempted to speedy delete. --manchesterstudent 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SAPPY Chet nc 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failure to establish that he satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, vanity. MLA 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn group (see WP:CSD). Proto///type 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tepid Crankshaft FC[edit]

Non-notable football club, probably WP:VAIN as well. Reverted repeated vandal edits to the last known good version, which had a PROD tag on it. Chet nc 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the clever name, but still delete. BoojiBoy 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Anyone can play for a team like this one. Oldelpaso 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, not a significant team. I don't think we have any articles on 5-a-side teams. — sjorford ++ 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I wrote the page, but I disagree with some of the comments. I know for a fact that there are 5-a-side team pages on here because that is how I came up with the idea. also, the page isn't just a 2 line entry, it's a full page with detail. keep. phils1982 10.53, 13 June 2006 [GMT]
- I've found only two, Pragg AllStars and The Diamonds FC, which I have now nominated for AFD. There are many tens of thousands of such clubs in the UK, and virtually none of them are interesting to anybody other than the players and their families. — sjorford ++ 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. feydey 15:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFI Wild Cup[edit]

From article:"sponsored by an on-line Gambling consortium who saw this tournament as a way to gain publicity for itself." Vanity page, not at all noteworthy. BoojiBoy 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this is some sort of marketing stunt, but the participating (non-)countries and the media seem to take it somewhat seriously. They have substantial media coverage (Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=FIFI Wild Cup, and more in German), and apparently partial live transmission by German sports network DSF. Sandstein 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is after all, an international sporting event. Expatkiwi
Keep - A bit of fun, with a slight serious side. 159753 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see absolutley no reason why it should be deleted. Tangerines

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Not notable enough, per noms, and the article itself provides no evidence. Will userify on request so more notability info could be added, just ask. --++Lar: t/c 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Massey[edit]

This article has been around for a while, the player had a brief 2 year career at Kansas, did not get drafted, and is currently not in the NBA DrunkenSmurf 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what the criteria for notability among athletes are considered to be, but I don't think it would extend to players on college sports teams were are otherwise non-notable. —C uivi é nen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:30 UTC
Delete As I am also not sure about the criteria I almost wrote weak before my vote...but if he is notable the article could be relisted at some other point. I did find this small link about him though if it helps at all. NBAdraft.net Lsjzl 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Copyvio, advert. --++Lar: t/c 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorinha Wear[edit]

The page is entirely POV, and entirely un-encyclopedic. The author, Dalereynolds, has in the past few days made a number of edits, all of which have been commercial links for Dorinha Wear. A jeans brand is an acceptable subject for an article, but the article as it is is unacceptable. If it is not deleted, it needs to be rewritten as an encyclopedia article, notably with NPOV. Carl.bunderson 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio (so marked), close AfD. There is no need to list an article on AfD if the text is obviously copy-pasted from some website, as a Google search will reveal at once. Sandstein 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. "Flawless fit. Fantastic feel. Fabulous finish." Only thing worse than shamelessly blatant advertising is badly written shamelessly blatant advertising. Fan1967

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. feydey 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aguirre[edit]

I don't believe that this man is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. My reasoning is based of fthe Jill Hardy AFD, who was a city mayor but the article was deleted. Hbdragon88 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He has made a large impact on the politics of San Diego, the third largest city in California. Needs a lot of work though, it should be left as a stub and have more info added to it. Lord_Hawk 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very notable in San Diego politics, including a few stories that made national headlines. Examples from non-San Diego media outlets: [33], [34], this one features his picture OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Agency (ISA)[edit]

Delete Inherently WP:POV article that is original research. Prod tag was deleted without comment. Gw e rnol 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it's inherently POV but it is clearly OR. This organization appears to be entirely nonnotable, and the major contributor to the article (User:Isa trademark) has inserted text that says the only valid source for information on ISA is the ISA website itself (due to "misinformation" from other sources). Has all the hallmarks of a promotional article for an obscure organization. Note that this article should not be confused with the International Space Agency article. Powers 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now also adding International Space Plane Program to the nomination. Sandstein 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)~~ And now removing it again, it has its own AfD already, but the author keeps deleting the AfD tag. Sandstein 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~both~~, obvious non-notable crankery / basement space agency and their fantasy spaceplane programme. Just read their "Public Notice" in the article... Sandstein 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are legitimate. The ISA does exist but the whole thing is written WP:NOT. Lsjzl 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Artw 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, violates many wikipedia policies, including WP:OWN and the copyright notices of wikipedia (GFDL). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ahev removed their notice as that is in violation with wikipedia copyright. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete extreme conspiracycruft, and patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not patent nonsense. Powers 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Speedily Author describes it as a listing! [35], it's not the yellow pages, come on! MichaelBillington 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion. -- RHaworth 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear God, someone has mistaken Wikipedia for a webhost. Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del `'mikka (t) 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroni[edit]

2 years old and still not notable. Not in top 100,000 pages [36], numerous google hits, however its impossible to tell how many actually relate to this website. Of note, the first 3 relate to this website on the first page of results. One is a forum message about it closing down for a bit, the other is this article [37] There are 2 more hits further down, only pages with links to images hosted there. This is also a last name and obviously tainting the results. The 2nd page has only 3 results, the third page only a single result. "picaroni.com" only gives 41 results [38] Crossmr 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks proof of notability required by WP:WEB. Sandstein 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Picaroni lost its hosting service on August 26, 2005 due to excessive bandwidth usage [39], along with a majority of the pictures previously uploaded. The service was not restored until the May 23, 2006, and has not yet regained the Google-based notability it maintained before August 26, 2005. Approximately 11,400 web pages still mention, or link to Picaroni.com. [40] Zelaron 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment if and when it regains its alleged notability the page can be recreated. We don't create or keep articles on a subject if the notability cannot be established at the time of debate. Also recheck your google link. There are only 46 unique hits, thats why it peters out at page 6. --Crossmr 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, other similar sites such as Skyfolder and Fotki have their own articles, yet they are not in the top 100,000 Alexa pages either. Aston 22:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
articles have to stand on their own merit, you can't justify the existence of one article based on another. They may only exist because no one has put them up for deletion yet. For future reference fotki.com is 950th [41] --Crossmr 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users only two edits are on this AFD, very likely sock.--Andeh 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator and Sandstein. DVD+ R/W 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment its probably worth noting that the user Aston is brand new and their sole contributions are to this page[42]. --Crossmr 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,--Crossmr 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nowhere near as popular as similar products. Wickethewok 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Crunk!!!. No Guru 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Crunk energy[edit]

This article is an advertisement for the product. V. Joe 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable product (16k Google hits, endorsed by hip hop celebrity). I cleaned up the adspeak. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Lil Jon. The drinks only notability ( from online newspaper articles ) is it's link to him. Without the link it's just another non-notable energy drink. Delete if no merge - Peripitus (Talk) 22:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per Youngamerican - Peripitus (Talk) 09:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Crunk!!!, an ~~much better, well-established~~ article on the same product with a more-accurate name. youngamerican (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just checked out the redirect target, and the version before I trimmed it down wasnt THAT much better, but it is the correct title and has a neat info box. That being said, I still say speedy redirect. youngamerican (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per youngamerican. GassyGuy 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per youngamerican. --Starionwolf 23:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho'od win?[edit]

Non-notable. I originally deleted as a speedy (see talk page) and as the creator contested in due to the speed in which it was delted I have restored it and AfD it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possibly merge and redirect to List_of_internet_phenomena, if some sources can be found to show its notable. Gw e rnol 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fad - and not a notable one Dweller 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dee-lineator I have seen the term "Ho'od Win?" used to present conjectural confrontations since Day 1 on the Internet. In its beginnings, one would only see it used in reference to comic books, but the terminology has spread out to other areas as well.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 disregarded Dooly00000's, Kamgome-chan's, and the anonymous user's votes because each has less than 100 edits. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animeleague[edit]

I think this is a non-notable Internet forum, in the same way The Idiot Free Professional Wrestling Board got speedily deleted. Invitatious 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GassyGuy 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' What about GaiaOnline and SomethingAwful? They do not make so much difference either, except they have more members. Dooly00000 00:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another non-notable Internet forum. This one has an Alexa rank of around 184,000, and I can't even access the web site. -- Kicking222 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dooly is right. Gaia online is on here, so Animeleague should be too. This comes from someone who not only spends time on AL, but Gaia, too. Besides, the article says that AL is on of the biggest fourms related to anime. Kagome-chan 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dooly00000 is the author. Invitatious 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All good things take time to develop. It's not like the article is flame-bait or anything. Give it time and it will be improved. [AgentX] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.35.203 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 Jun 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. -- No Guru 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Gaia is huge (and does lots of role-playing and such that bears explanation) and Something Awful has produced a lot of affluent content that leaks all over the net. Notability doesn't really compare to this case. Might shift to a weak keep if the article is expanded with something more interesting to say. WP isn't a web directory. - Wickning1 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mu upsilon delta[edit]

Delete as nn local group. Only recognized by the University Student Council in March. Claims that the group will influence the other PA state schools in the future, but has had no apparent influence at this time. The group has no national sponsor, and consists of 25 members. {{prod}} tag removed by author. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. nn. --manchesterstudent 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. --Crossmr 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I concede that Zeta Phi has a long enough history to count as notable, but three months isn't anywhere near long enough. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No Guru 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suit of Lights[edit]

This band article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the band contains members of other, notable bands, so I'm listing here to get consensus. I'm unsure whether or not this band passes WP:MUS, or whether material should be merged. Hence, no vote. Oldelpaso 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By having those (multiple) notable members, they pass WP:MUSIC. And... that's it. -- Kicking222 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kicking222. I also removed the speedy tag from Joe Darone. --Joelmills 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking (and because, unlike so many of these bands that get nominated, I've actually heard of them.) GassyGuy 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defintely passes WP:MUS for several reasons: 1. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (#3 most added on CMJ), 2. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Thursday's last album has sold over 400,000 units! If that isn't notable, then what is?), 3. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture (All Music Guide, Amplifier Magazine, Big Takeover, Lost At Sea, etc..etc...) 63.163.57.36 01:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Suit of Lights (band). Suit of Lights should be bullfighting related. -- GWO

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete... Consensus for delete seems clear, even with only 4 comments, given that the article is 6 months old and quite stubby. I considered a redirect but as the nom says, no other characters have their own page. --++Lar: t/c 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Morrell Carrington Colby Dexter Rowan[edit]

No information, good write-up already exists at Dynasty (TV series). No other characters have their own page. Redundant. Nfitz 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. does not merit its own page. --manchesterstudent 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That's only a 1-sentence definition! Invitatious 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- No Guru 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 to Notable citizens of Chicago. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Chicagoans[edit]

Duplicate, a more complete list already exists at Notable citizens of Chicago Ckessler 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merg any not included names to Notable citizens of Chicago.--blue520 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Blue520. — TKD::Talk 00:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blue520. --Starionwolf 23:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 to network theory. Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diktyology[edit]

Dicdef of term (Greek for "network theory"), which does not appear to exist in English .scholar.google.com Septentrionalis 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator vote. Septentrionalis 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network theory. Invitatious 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nfitz 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Invitatious.--blue520 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Some history: I PRODded the article with the reason "unverifiable: No references, one Google hit (plus one for dictyology), not in MathSciNet, not in Oxford English Dictionary." The author responded "The term diktyology is an alternative denomination of network theory that covers a broader definitorial space. The world is taken from the french and german nouns "Diktyologie" for the same concept. Due to the broader meaning of the word in the context of cybernetics and systems science I suggest keeping this article." I asked the author for references on User talk:Jwdietrich2 half a week ago but have not received a reply. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network theory. Jgamekeeper 11:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenwars[edit]

Non-notable MORPG that hasn't even been released yet. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails internet notability and wikipedia is not a crytal ball - Peripitus (Talk) 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertisement (and perhaps (?) vanity, as the two editors of the article have never edited anything else), very non-notable, an Alexa rank of 1.5 million, and only 400 total (and only 40) unique G-hits for "Xenwars". -- Kicking222 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Starionwolf 23:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete... Everyone commenting except the author and one anon feel it's a delete. But there aren't very many commenters, so I looked into it myself to substantiate the claims made. This article seems to suffer confusion whether it's about a concept or a website. As a concept, there do seem to be some citations of it, and it's published elsewhere. But it's pretty clear the author of the papers that were published is the author of the article, and the cites aren't very deep. So it fails based on No original research grounds. As a site, it is almost unnoticable, and fails the web notability tests. SO, it looks like a delete to me. If the author and has made other significant contributions to Wikipedia other than this area, and wants it userified, I'd do that for them. But it's a delete, no doubt about it in my mind. Something tells me there will be a fair bit of inward cleaning to do, too. --++Lar: t/c 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3form Free Knowledge Exchange[edit]

Bizarre original research about a totally unknown and unnotable website. Alexa rating of infinity. Ashibaka tock 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This research has been published outside of wikipedia (see refs). Bizzare? This is your POV. (2) Reference to Alexa rating doesn't support your claim. Alexa estimates some share of the traffic of a website. This share is created by a sample of users who chose to install Alexa toolbar on their computers. You can only tell that the traffic is no less than what Alexa reports. However, you try to make a statistical inference about a larger population from a non-random sample. This is a common mistake (read Sampling (statistics)). Alexa used to have a disclaimer to prevent people from misinterpreting their rankings. Alex Kosorukoff

Delete per nom and as ad. Author of article claims he has created the site on his Geocities homepage. Invitatious 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as an ad for a non-notable site (which is trying to piggy-back off of the immense success of WP, Slashdot, and others). -- Kicking222 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- No Guru 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real website, pretty good one actually, I just tried it out. It's a lot like yahoo answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.154.17 (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. No Guru 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable obese people[edit]

POV & hopelessly unmaintainable, how are we to keep tabs on whether someone meets the medical definition of obesity per their BMI? Ckessler 22:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely some POV issues here. I noticed several that I would describe as chubby (Addy, Favreau) as opposed to the obviously obese. Short of having height and verifiable weights on these people, I have no idea how to maintain or verify it. And BMI has no relevance to a 7-foot tall pro athlete. Fan1967 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fan1967. List of fictional obese characters really ought to be considered for AfD as well. Agent 86 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. By the way, here is a previous afd before it was renamed. --Joelmills 03:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I think people should not be judged by their weight. Invitatious 15:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw the errors of my ways. Mrbluesky 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as a non-notable group. JDoorj a m Talk 06:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rozehood[edit]

Joke page Lawlor421 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, does not meet WP:BIO, added speedy tag NawlinWiki 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7.--blue520 23:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No Guru 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GodsGirls[edit]

Non-notable alt.porn site. The only significance is that it was started by a group of former SuicideGirls. Cigarette 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Another reason for the nomination is that no other well-established and popular sites like SuperCult or Burning Angel have pages.[reply]

keep They are ranked about 65,000 [43] by traffic. On google, the first 10 pages all seem like relevant links minus one hit, peters out at 168 hits [44]. Not an enormous amount of google traffic, but they are embroiled in a documented legal dispute with Suicidegirls and coupled with the fact that they make it in the top 100,000 websites, I think that qualifies them for notability under WP:WEB --Crossmr 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most of the Google hits on the first page are created by Godsgirls (Xanga, MySpace, Flickr) or their members (Apneatic). Cigarette 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know, I created the article after finding the whole SG/GG dispute fairly interesting...perhaps I don't get a vote. But he site was started by rather prominant former members of SuicideGirls, which itself is a very prominant and influential business. Wouldn't be a tragedy if GodsGirls was deemed unfit for Wikipedia, but it's a company that has at the very least made some waves on the internet and in a somewhat newsworthy court case. The most I'd caution is that the article be watched, because the other day some fierce GodsGirls advocate came in and turned it into an anti-SuicideGirls diatribe. --relaxathon 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. but fix the facts. godsgirls was started by annaliese nielsen who has NO prior association with suicidegirls.com, check out the jane magazine article (8 pages), spin magazine mention, penthouse forum, etc. this is by no means a non notable site. godsgirls is in the midst of a legal battle with suicidegirls. if godsgirls was not noteworthy then why would sg services be so strenuously pursuing a lawsuit against them? check their climb on the alexa ratings. i bet the person who recommended this entry to be deleted is sg services affiliated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.176.135 (talk • contribs) .

I am a member of SG, but am not affiliated with the site in any other way. I used to be an SG Newswire editor if that counts. All I got for it was a comped account, though. Cigarette 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks sufficiently notable. Phil Sandifer 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable per above facts. Postdlf 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian13/talk 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le-Metru[edit]

Delete. As far as I can tell from searches (behind the myriad verbatim wikipedia mirrors), this is an insignificant place out of a computer game. Falcon 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the first google hit is an answers.com mirror of your wikipedia article, you're not likely notable. --Crossmr 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as per above. -- No Guru 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, per CSD:A7. If he actually won a Nobel Peace Prize, I'll eat every hat in a 100-mile radius. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Flagg[edit]

Very much not in line with WP:BIO. Its a brief little bit on an average 10 year old kid. Two different people have already tried to speedy delete this, only to have the tag removed. Listed on AfD now, so this can be settled. Kevin_b_er 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per CSD A7. Disclosure, I was one of the speedy taggers. hateless 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7--blue520 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Maybe when this kid grows up and actually wins the Nobel Prize, but otherwise this is as nn as can be. Agent 86 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, though there is one relevant google hit, also provides the source of the copyrighted image. [45] --Crossmr 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Surely he did not win the nobel peace prize, particularly not for such an inapplicable and irrelevant "achievement." Obviously something is in bad faith here as well, or a speedy tag would not have been removed. Falcon 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Academy[edit]

Delete. Yet another non-notable space organization, courtesy International Space Agency (ISA) (also on AfD). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The division itself is irrelevant enough, notwithstanding that the parent article is a blatant fallacy (per the content of International Space Agency). Falcon 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabcity[edit]

prod removed by creator, advert for NN website Optimale ^Gu 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Clean-up Website rank around 46,050 [46] 178 google hits all look relevant [47]. Not much google prescence but traffic is there as far as notability goes. Keep if article is cleaned up. --Crossmr 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup because it seems about as notable as Photobucket. Falcon 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply the creator's act of removing a tag in bad faith is hardly grounds for deletion in and of itself. Falcon 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I wouldn't call it as notable as photobucket. Photobucket along with imageshack are in the top 1,000 websites. Its a similar type of page, but I like to see some traffic or google feedback before calling it notable. --Crossmr 00:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Googling seems to show plenty of recognition for the site. Madd4 Max 20:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merged and redirected—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Communiqué[edit]

Delete. I don't believe it's sufficient to grow into a huge article -- and it has a home already, in the STARFLEET International article (which should NOT be AfD-ed -- Guiness-recognized notable fan org), where I've merged the info. I think the newsletter, apart from the organization itself, isn't sufficient enough to merit its own article. — Mike • 23:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has been merged, it needs to be redirected. --JJay 21:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if someone's going to be actually searching for the Communique. I doubt that. — Mike • 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article histories are generally maintained unless deletion is absolutely necessary. --JJay 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissemination[edit]

Del A chaotic essay (on language dissemination) that does not define the term, unreferenced, obscure language. Example: Outside of polysemic distinctions to indicate the sense of a word, we have a dissemination that is ongoing and escapes the univocality of any attempt to indicate a definite semantic from its polysemia. May be I am lazy, but some google search for "dissemination of language" and "language dissemination" did not reveal anything phylosophical. I suggest other voters to observe some diligence. If the article may be rewritten, let it live, but the current text doesn't make much sense (may be I am an idiot). `'mikka (t) 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOR. --Hetar 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hetar. --Starionwolf 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The writing of a word entails necessarily the absence of the writer and reader; I think that the writing of delete entails the absence of an article. This is incoherent and if it actually is saying something is so far beyond the faculty of someone not familiar with the subject as to need a complete rewrite. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (no assertion of notability WP:CSD#A7, unsourced negative statements WP:CSD#A6). Kusma (討論) 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bolvin[edit]

Appears to be non-notable biography per WP:BIO; the {{nn-warn}} template has been added to User talk:Biblefumesrweird to inform of this evaluation. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7 --blue520 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The biography of a run-of-the-mill stoner who probably has not finished high school? Falcon 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for having no assertion of notability. — TKD::Talk 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Revert. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitian tranpose[edit]

Reason S. Jo 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be posted on Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon Kirtaran (talk • contribs) .
Comment Also you might want to - {{db-author}} Speedy Deletion CSD G7 - speedy request by only editor.--blue520 23:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking an easier solution and reverting to a redirect. It's a possible misspelling; the redirect was created because the original article was created at the misspelled title. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 Guru 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse intelligence[edit]

Nonsense Nv8200p talk 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write as an article about the cognitive abilities of equines or redirect to the most appropriate existing article or section. ENpeeOHvee 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total baloney. BuckRose 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is contradicted by everything I have ever read on animal intelligence. And I could not find any Sarah Bates on google associated with horse research. Could all of this just be a misunderstanding of the term horse sense? --Joelmills 03:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvios hoax. Eluchil404 13:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as metaphoric nonsense. Invitatious 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (You can't redirect to a section.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rubbish within and redirect to Animal intelligence. PJM 12:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. `'mikka (t) 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki[edit]

This page is completely original research and self-reference. To meet Wikipedia's policies, this article should not be included unless notable media sources have covered it and those articles can be cited. So assuming that doesn't happen, this article should either be deleted or moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Most of the articles in the "Wikipedias by language" category should also be evaluated to see if they should be deleted or moved to the Wikipedia namespace as well, since most of them have no non-Wikipedia/Wikimedia citations and include a lot of orginal research stuff that only a Wikipedian/Wikimedian would know. ENpeeOHvee 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Links to wikipedia in other languages are on the main page, I don't think there's anything to salvage that isn't already covered on the relevant namespaces. Equendil Talk 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got off of Wikibreak for this Keep This article is relevant for Wikipedia to explain the different contexts of it. I'm going to WP:IAR, to not allow the rules of Wikipedia to cut it's own heel. It's relevant enough. Yanksox 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relevant to Wikipedia then it can be discussed in a Wikipedia namespace - that's not a good argument for it being encyclopedic. ENpeeOHvee 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's (brace yourself) #666 on Alexa ranking, which is good. Also, it meets WP:WEB. Yanksox 04:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - The alexa rank of metawiki is not 600. Alexa considers *.wikimedia.org to be the same site, so for example all traffic to *commons* is included in that number. Also, upload.wikimedia.org is included, so it's an excersise for the reader to determine why wikimedia.org doesn't have a rank as high as wikipedia itself. Metawiki is actually very low traffic. I'd highly doubt that it would cross the 100,000th point on Alexa by itself. The varrious funraisers logos and such which are pulled from wikimedia.org sites by the wikipedias are what causes a lot of this number. A quick google search shows that meta is almost entirely unlinked outside of Wikimedia sites. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With cleanup, why should this be on Wikipedia namespace? It is an extant and notable entity--the article should be edited to fit the constraints of the encyclopedia, rather than scrapping the entire idea. Adambiswanger1 04:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the entity is notable then it shouldn't be difficult to find notable (not some random Wikipedian/Wikimedian's blog) non-Wikipedia sources to verify everything that's discussed in the article. But I really don't think that Meta-Wiki is an encyclopedically notable site. It's notable to Wikipedia, but not so much to the general public (which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for). And since as far as we know it hasn't been reported on in any notable source, anything that anyone writes there is gonna be ORIGINAL RESEARCH from their experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. On the other hand, if a newspaper was to interview a Wikipedian and report on it, then we could turn around and write about it and cite them. That's at least supposedly the standard for the main Wikipedia article, but for some reason those rules are being ignored for all the peripheral Wikimedia-related articles. And it violates NPOV for Wikipedia to hold its own projects to a different standard than those of others. So for all those reasons, it's pretty clear it should be deleted from Wikipedia (and moved to a Wikipedia namespace project page if need be). ENpeeOHvee 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask my fellow editors to remember that we are writing an encylopedia, not merely going around and enforcing guidelines? Yanksox has invoked WP:IAR, and it is with this spirit that all of us should contribute. We are here for the improvement of Wikipedia, not the supremacy of its guidelines. Also, the content of the article is entirely irrelevant, since that can change completely with a few minutes of editing. Big picture, people. Adambiswanger1 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transpose to Meta itself or, alternatively, to Wikipedia namespace; this is not encyclopedic content. Sandstein 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced from reputable, secondary sources. Kotepho 08:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per relatively high Alexa ranking and Template:Wikimedia Foundation: if we have articles about Wikisource and even Wikispecies, we could have one about Meta too. --Zoz (t) 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Adambiswanger1. This nomination is extremely not funny. MaxSem 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the entity is worthy of an article in itself. (if only for alexa result alone) Yes it could be said to be self referential but then so could the article on wikipedia itself. Ydam 11:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: Alexa and IAR: Its supposed Alexa ranking was cited, but that raking was misleading, as Alexa gives the same exact rank to a subdomain as it gives to the main domain. So meta.wikimedia.org [48] gets the same exact rank as wikimedia.org [49]. Also, User:Zoz cited some other Wiki-Media project website articles, but if some of those are just original research and self-reference, then I think they should be deleted too. I think there's a very strong case for keeping the main Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is a major website which has recieved extensive media coverage and can thus be written citing those sources. The same goes for any other Wikimedia website where notable sources have written about it which can be cited. Someone said that it should be kept on the basis of "Ignore All Rules," but I don't see how violating self-reference, original research, and NPOV - to include an article about a site which hasn't been shown to be encyclopedic - benefits Wikipedia. ENpeeOHvee 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to pack my bags for this site, and let me leave you with some words of wisdom till I come back: This article benefits the site because it is part of the site, it's part of a beautiful project that "makes the internet not suck." I will not stand by idley while it's being cut down but it's own rules. It's extremly important because it is the project, and the project, last time I checked: is relevant. I am keeping the overal aestics of the site up by ignoring the rules, since the rules would kill Wikipedia, and creating one massive downfall. Absoutely not. Yanksox 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- To the contrary, Wikimedia.org is only a page that points to the Wikimedia projects and meta. Since meta is really the only thing hosted on wm.org that a lot of people visit, the Alexa ranking is valid. --Rory096 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:NOR are not policies you can ignore, doing so turns Wikipedia into Everything 2. If we want to have something about meta. that does not fit content guidelines we have many places to put it other than article space. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia, it is about building an encyclopedia that is free for everyone and can spread beyond Wikipedia. Kotepho 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is relisted per WP:DRV Computerjoe 's talk 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's a notable web site. It deserves an article in the main namespace. —M e ts501^talk 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. -- from The King of Kings 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote: REDIRECT to Wikipedia:Meta. While Wikimedia Meta-Wiki does meet the requirements per WP:WEB, it's a Wikimedia Project which already has an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Plus, the link Meta-Wiki redirects to Wikipedia:Meta, so why not just redirect. -- from The King of Kings 18:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 666 Alexa is really good, and do not redirect to Wikipedia:Meta. Cross-namespace redirects are bad. --Rory096 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not its Alexa rank - that's the rank for wikimedia.org - Alexa doesn't rank subdomains separately. (see my comment above) ENpeeOHvee 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, the rank is valid. --Rory096 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~It may well be that most of the links on Wikimedia.org go to that subdomain,~~ I don't know, but I did find that wikimedia.org didn't even consider Meta notable enough to link to from their main page. At any rate though, a fairly high Alexa ranking is not by itself enough of a reason to keep it as its own article. Nobody here has yet shown how the site meets any of the three criteria of WP:WEB. If we just went by Alexa rank, we'd have an article for Pichunter.com - ranked 636 [50] - and I'm sure a lot of other sites that have an inflated rank due to Google bombing - intentional or otherwise. ENpeeOHvee 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Correction - Gmaxwell pointed out above that there are indeed other high-traffic projects on that same domain name - including the Wikimedia Commons. ENpeeOHvee 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wm.org probably doesn't link to meta because it's solely for project coordination, not education, and so most people won't need it, and the ones who might want to go there know how. As for the Alexa ranking, sure it is, it means it's a high-traffic site, and as long as it's verifiable, there's no reason not to have the article. Googlebombing does not increase a site's Alexa ranking, as Alexa rankings are based on the amount of visitors to that site (which they measure using their toolbar). And, to be honest, I'm surprised we don't have an article for Pichunter. --Rory096 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't shown how Meta-Wiki meets any of the criteria of WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"??? (If so, then show me where) Has "the website or content won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"?... (if yes, which ones?) And is Meta-Wiki "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" (Wikipedia is well known, but certainly not Independent of Wikimedia). And finally, WP:WEB notes that "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." This is especially applicable here, because while Wikimedia and Wikipedia are certainly notable, that doesn't mean that everything associated with it automatically is. ENpeeOHvee 20:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why WP:WEB is a guideline. Sites may be notable without meeting WP:WEB. With an Alexa ranking of 666, I'd say meta qualifies. --Rory096 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rank sums up WM perfectly though :D Will (^E_@) T 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a very notable website and meets WP:WEB comprehensively. It is in bad taste to leave this article in AfD. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So meta's content has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? I'm not seeing that, and that's what meeting WP:WEB means. --W.marsh 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a cross-namespace redirect wouldn't be a good idea here, so Merge to WikiMedia Foundation. This is an unsourced stub (possibly a perma-stub), quasi-noteworthy aside from its relationship to this very site (which is a systemic bias we should avoid, not foster), and doesn't really meet the WP:WEB requirements. Would be more useful to readers as a subsection of a broader article than as an isolated stub, I'd think. -Silence 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naconkantari 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WikiMedia Foundation. This is obviously of great interest to Wikipedians, but I've yet to see evidence that this actually meets WP:WEB... there doesn't seem to be much or any external interest in Meta. A few passing mentions here and there, but nothing really meaningful. Could only dig up one mention at all in the past few months [51], and it was just a passing mention. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above Will (^E_@) T 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but good God make it a better article. Granted, it's hard to make an article about Meta when Meta is so incredibly disorganized in the first place... Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Comment: Notability isn't inherited as User:Messedrocker said in WP:DRV. But that's assuming Meta is under Wikipedia in the hierarchy. However as the name suggests, Meta is contains meta-content so it's rather the parent of Wikipedia than it's child. Parents or meta-things of notable topics inherit the notability imo. (If a subdomain is notable then the whole domain is; if the theory of relativity is notable then it's inventor is etc.) --Zoz (t) 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy fails. If Wikipedia is the building, Meta-Wiki is at best the scaffolding, not the architect. Theory of relativity is to Albert Einstein as Wikipedia is to Jimbo Wales, not to Meta-Wiki. "Meta-things" do not automatically inherit the notability of the things themselves; there is no stipulation on Wikipedia's notability or verifiability guidelines saying such, and common sense suggests that "notability isn't inherited" is indeed a correct and necessary thing to keep in mind in this situation, just as much as it is for any other ("a certain lavatory of the White House" does not inherit the notability of "the White House"). To meet the requirements of WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:NOR, citations are needed (and, obviously, ones outside of the site itself!) to confirm its notability. Why should we hold our sister-sites (more like estranged-crazy-aunt-sites?) to a lower standard than we hold other websites? If anything, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, to circumvent self-referential bias. -Silence 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used analogy only to prove that "meta-things" of notable topics inherit notability. I didn't mean to relate Jimbo to Albert or anything :D. The point is that Meta stands higher in the hierarchy than WP, even if WP is far more notable in itself than Meta. --Zoz (t) 21:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't stand higher in the hierarchy, in any meaningful way (i.e., in any way that relates to notability at all). And I specifically demonstrated why your analogy fails to show why notable topics don't inherit notability, not to relate Jimbo to Albert either. The notability of an article must be established in its own right: simply saying "Meta-Wiki must be noteworthy because Wikipedia is noteworthy" is weak reasoning. If it's as notworthy as you imply, it should be fantastically easy to find reputable sources galore to add to the article, and then the issue will be settled. As of yet, that hasn't happened, so notability hasn't yet been established to a sufficient degree to merit an article; try harder. -Silence 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Meta Wikipedia" (note the quotation marks: written exactly like that) gets 154,000 ghits[52]. --Zoz (t) 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 98 unique hits [53]. ENpeeOHvee 21:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another 377k (non-unique) Computerjoe 's talk 22:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

268 unique hits, and many of them are about other non-related sites with similar names - like metawiki.com and a Wiki search engine. ENpeeOHvee 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. Changing my vote to Merge. --Zoz (t) 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about Google search, Google returns a maximum of 1000 results whatever you search for. A query for "Meta Wikipedia" [54] returns 97 'unique' hits of 149,000, but what it really does is return 97 unique hits out of the 1000 first occurences it finds. Equendil Talk 20:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per W. marsh. Not an innately notable wiki. Johnleemk | Talk 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a duplicate of Wikipedia:Meta, and anything public facing about meta should be in the foundation article. Including this highly non notable internal site would be a violation of no-self-reference. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Alexa rank misleading due to the fact it is subdomain of Wikimedia.org, which includes the higher-traffic Wikimedia Commons -- and Alexa, apparently, counts all of Wikimedia.org under one rank. I don't see how Meta itself is notable, it's just a component of Wikimedia when you think about it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content and change to Soft Redirect - it doesn't serve any real purpose ... how many separate webpages within a single website have an article? BigDT 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: Notability far greater than that judged acceptable for many other articles. Ombudsman 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per W.marsh. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think as Wikia gets larger wikimedia will become much more important. Further Meta wiki has articles on wikipedia philosophy and their are frequent questions on that topic from outside. Nicholas Carr for example has written on these sorts of issues about a dozen times. After Amazon reviews this is one of the easiest web 2.0 cites to critique and far and away the one with a well developed discussion of its own nature. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks far too much like WP:POINT. GeorgeStepan e k\^talk 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sad. The keep proponents here originally said that it met the requirements of WP:WEB. Myself and others showed that it clearly does not. Many then claimed that it should be kept in spite of this due to an allegedly high Alexa rank. But we showed that this rank was inaccurate because it shares its domain name with the much higher traffic Wikimedia Commons. So now that there's apparently no good argument left for defending inclusion on its own merit, ~~they've~~ some of them have turned to character assassination and completely baseless allegations of bad faith. ENpeeOHvee 17:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Note correction - I was a bit haphazard when I originally wrote the comment above, so just to clarify, my criticism was never intended for those who simply have an honest difference of opinion, but for those who have made ad hominem attacks - specifically User:GeorgeStepanek above and User:Computerjoe when he prematurely closed the debate on the basis of similar allegations, which were overturned - see the Deletion Review. ENpeeOHvee 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds trollish. Computerjoe 's talk 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but his point is valid. Accusing the dozen editors who have voted against keeping this article (i.e. the 12 merge- and delete-voters) of WP:POINT is, in addition to being potentially offensive (hence ENpeeOHvee's overly aggressive response), an ad hominem, and, as such, does not address the topic of this discussion: whether Wikimedia Meta-Wiki currently meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. We're discussing an article, not a person. -Silence 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think anyone who has become involved this discussion is seriously contemplating the complete removal of the information from this site. The question is rather: what would the best place for this material? In it's own article? Merged into another article? In the Wikipedia namespace? Maybe a merge and redirect is the best option, but merge and redirect do not require an AFD. At the very most one would start a discussion on the relevant talk page—and possibly not even that. Suggesting that the article should be merged or moved is not WP:POINT, but creating the AFD in the first place looks very much like it. Why go through this whole process—and face all this argument, dissent and controversy—if you don't have to? It only makes sense if the real motive is to generate controversy and dissent. I stand by my comment, and my vote. This AFD should be disposed of, and the discussion taken to the article's talk page, where it belongs. GeorgeStepan e k\^talk 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meta is a notable entity, and the nom's comments look like WP:POINT to me. jgp 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say individual Wikimedia projects are "automatically" notable, "duh," (quotes added for self-sarcasm), though individual subprojects (e.g., specific language versions of Wikipedia) may need to be evaluated according to their accomplishments and popularity, and may need to be merged to appropriate subarticle. Can't really hurt to have a separate article for Meta, that's all I'm saying. Perhaps merge later if that's necessary. Either way, should be kept in some form. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's part of the Wikimedia foundation. Deleting this article is pretty proposterous... Beno1000 16:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Madd4Max 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather odd nomination to start with. StuffOfInterest 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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