Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 >

Purge server cache

May 28[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 Speedy delete (not sure if this falls under A7, but consensus here for it to go is strong). Petros471 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sativa Afghani Genetic Equilibrium[edit]

Cleanup tag since January, no action. This is spam for a nn product that gets <700 ghits - including verbatim transcripts of this article on answers.com etc etc. Bridesmill 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Answers.com is a WP mirror. Every WP page shows up there verbatim. -- Kicking222 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, and a copyvio from the only external link. Kevin 00:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with above statement Sarahgal 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is blatant advertisement, copy vio, POV propaganda. I'm surprised it's survived this long. Ande B 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kevin. -- Kicking222 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Ande B. --Starionwolf 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Crazynas 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kevin. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement, spam. --Terence Ong 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an add. jbolden1517Talk 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some ad for weed, or something M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-notable product/ad. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, do we get to use red for speedies now? In that case, speedy Delete – under CSD A7 – Gurch 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. No point keeping this any longer. kingboyk 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Harchick[edit]

Proposed deletion is absolutely bloody useless for internet stuffs, being that some fan will inevitably remove it. Not a notable video logger, the only notability that the article comes up with is that he's been mentioned on other blogs. Woop-ti-do! Google gives 50 links for his name, Google news gives nothing. The only reason I found this was because I saw his sketch on Google Video, and thought, "I bet some webfan thought he should be on Wikipedia, and if so they're entirely wrong." We should just speedy this rubbish. - Hahnchen 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie wortel[edit]

NN advert for a small chain of 3 shops Bridesmill 00:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but does the Gyro Gearloose article need to know that there are 3 marijuana coffeeshops n Holland named after him? Bridesmill 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think Disney's Dutch trademark lawyers would be interested, but I've only suggested a redirect, not a merge. As a second choice, I'd rather this be deleted entirely than merged into Gyro Gearloose. --Metropolitan90 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertisement, or redirect per Metropolitan90 if the above statement can be sourced – Gurch 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what everyone else said — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osbus (talk • contribs)
  • Delete advert. --JChap 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect to Gyro Gearloose without merging per Metro. --Eivindt@c 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn Jll 10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speediest delete - mistake by nominator: the AfD tag was the first edit on this title! -- RHaworth 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Lane Players - History[edit]

Prodded by Melaen; removed by Ssimon9589. Just bringing it up here, though i must also vote delete as there's only 49 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aiming for The Fox Lane Players with this nom? That article was blanked by the author(User:Ssimon9589) so I've put a speedy G7/A1 tag on it. Kevin 00:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap. I forgot--AfD helper needs to be on the article page. Also the page has already been deleted. Close, please. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not sure what the above means. But the blank article can be deleted jbolden1517Talk 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – as blank article, under CSD A3. I've added the speedy tag – Gurch 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, cheap n' easy. Mailer Diablo 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Draven[edit]

Wrestler in a non-notable wrestling federation in Indiana. Fails WP:BIO. Metros232 00:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack shit[edit]

Dictionary definition plus nonsensical original ideas. WP:WINAD and WP:NOR. Erik the Rude 00:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was new page patrolling and about to do the same. SorryGuy 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary definition. Sarahgal 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary:
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate. --Jersey Devil 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research about a dicdef. Kevin 01:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slang dic def, POV. Ande B 01:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was just created today, of course it's bad. Also consider a transwiki to Wiktionary. Armedblowfish 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC) changed vote to merge and redirect (see below). Armedblowfish 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, slang. --Terence Ong 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki if others agree. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move This is actually a pretty good article on a definition. Move to wikitionary. jbolden1517Talk 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- policy is very clear. Thanks, Jersey Devil. Reyk YO! 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no transwiki. This crap isn't worthy of Wiktionary, IMHO. Maybe for urbandic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – if Wiktionary want it they can have it, but I doubt they do – Gurch 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, if keep isn't on the cards. A well known phrase. -- 9cds(talk) 14:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no transwiki, if wiktionary users want this article they're better off creating a new one. Captainj 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term should mabye redirect to a page on street slang, but it is not a notable enough term. No citations, OR interpretation of unoffical terms. HighInBC 16:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, there are two external links, one of which is a reliable source (though they definitely don't cover everything in the article). However, I change my vote to merge and redirect to List of profanities. Armedblowfish 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdomonus[edit]

Um, what? Richard Sandrak is a child body builder. What does it mean to have an enemy? Only two Google hits for this word, and neither has anything to do with this article. And the picture is meaningless in this context. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just get rid of it now. I'm not sure why this just hasn't had a speedy deletion tag slapped on it. It's obviously nonsense- there's really no debating it. -- Kicking222 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and Kicking222. Db nonsense. DVD+ R/W 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. I have slapped a speedy tag on it. Kevin 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Spam, deliberate nonsense. The Enki link clinches it for speedy. Ande B 01:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Patent nonsense (CSD G1) --Starionwolf 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chahrazed[edit]

This nine year old girl is supposed to be a "celebutante," so I guess notability is asserted. She only gets 9 Google hits, however, so I smell a hoax. Erik the Rude 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure where you got 9 Google hits from. This spits out two hits- both from tripod sites set up by said girl. The whole article's nonsense, and if it's not a hoax, she's just plain non-notable. I'm not sure what parents let their 9-year-old have such freedom on the Internet, but I hope she's not getting in any trouble. -- Kicking222 01:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that sentence is untrue. She would be notable if any of this was true- but, of course, it's not. I was unaware a 9-year-old could have her own record company and clothing line, yet still have time to appear on Letterman. -- Kicking222 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, possible hoax, etc...--Jersey Devil 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. This should probably be speedied. DVD+ R/W 01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crazynas 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any valid sources either. --Starionwolf 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feastoffools[edit]

Borderline patent nonsense. Erik the Rude 01:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I would gladly argue that this page is absolutely patent nonsense. And, for the record, the site's Alexa rank is in the 355,000 area. -- Kicking222 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Kevin 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Ande B 01:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nonsense. Not notable. --Starionwolf 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per all the above. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what this thing is. But there is a pretty active podcast called feast of fools. I'm finding tens of thousands of hits. There are parties which look like they are for the gay crowd called feast of fools. I think this is a real thing with a poor article which could get better in time. jbolden1517Talk 04:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – as patent nonsense under CSD G1. If they're notable, someone's going to have to do a much better job if they want an article – Gurch 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and incomprehensible as written. The podcast might (but it is unlikely) rate a line or possible two in a solid article about the historic Feast of Fools.Bejnar 09:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highway Rainbow Sneakers 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-l Mayer (W)[edit]

Prod tag removed without comment; gamecruft; limited content is already part of Ergo Proxy OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN game character Kevin 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ergo Proxy. — TKD::Talk 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ergo Proxy, nn, but we could keep it. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ergo Proxy I love the image lets not lose that. jbolden1517Talk 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minimal content already part of the Ergo Proxy page, if that section expands then it can be considered for it's own article. No point in redirecting since no-one is going to include (W) in a search; it was put into the article to indicate the source, goodness knows why it was included in the article title. Shiroi Hane 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Shiroi Hane. MCB 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no redirect per Shiroi Hane -- Hirudo 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Ergo Proxy no need to delete something when a simple merge or redirect will do; notable as she is the main female protagonist in the show Delete per Shiroi Hane Hobbeslover 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above there's nothing to merge as the information was copied from the Ergo Proxy article, and redirecting is pointless since the article is misnamed anyway. Shiroi Hane 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nekst Song[edit]

Non-notable blog site. Half the article is a copyvio from the actual site. Fails WP:WEB, inconclusive Alexa ranking since it's listed under the Blogger site in general. Metros232 01:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising for a non-notable blog. Kevin 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, hmm... no notability, blog hosted on freespace, completely an advertisement, "Nekst Song" gets 22 total Google hits... I think that's enough. -- Kicking222 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Starionwolf 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 06:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as advertising, copyvio and whatever else is mentioned above – Gurch 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highway Rainbow Sneakers 09:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was indeterminate, but certainly not to keep. Relisting will probably not yield much either. Consensus seems to be somewhere between redirect and delete. Since redirects are cheap, redirect to Citizens Area Transit it will be. --Ezeu 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Area Transit: Routes[edit]

Someone had posted a {{dated Prod}} tag on this page. I felt that it should not simply be expunged without discusaion.

Apparently, Citizens Area Transit is a Las Vegas, Nevada Regional transit provider, and this page, obviously, is a list of routes of that system. I think I can agree that this, perhaps, is too limited in interest to be something that should generally be included in Wikipedia, however there is plenty of stuff that is of extremely limited interest, such as Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. I felt, however, that mere uncontested expungement was not the answer.

Recommendations[edit]

  • If there is a page for Citizens Area Transit, merge the route information on that page.
  • Make this page a subpage of C.A.T. as in Citizens Area Transit/Routes as opposed to a standalone page.
  • If there is no general, substantial article on Citizens Area Transit, delete.

As I do not even live in Nevada, I have no preference and no opinion other than I thought this should be something thought over and a consensus formed rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 13:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up big time. There are way too many headings and subheadings, but I do think that there is some useful information here. Zepheus 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Citizens Area Transit with no merge. The bus system can do a much better job of maintaining information about its routes on its own web site, which it already does. [1] Few readers would look for a bus schedule in an encyclopedia when they can go to the official source. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with an understanding this isn't policy. We welcome this kind of article if it actually had any information not on the rtc website. jbolden1517Talk 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without the merge per Metropolitan90. Kevin 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge, the history of cancelled routes. the rest, as noted above, can be easily sourced elsewhere. I fervently hope that contributors to this article keep contributing to wikipedia. Colonel Tom 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no merge per Metropolitan.Captainj 10:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Metropolitan90 that few readers would look for it anyway, but I think that because of it no redirect is needed. As for the actual content, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. -- Hirudo 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make subarticle of CAT and Clean-up - I am the user who posted the routes in the first place. I understand that most people will just go to RTC's website and find information there, but me being a citizen of Las Vegas, and me knowing lots of people in the hierchey of the company, they don't do a good job of keeping things up to date. Trust me. I would perfer this to not be deleted as I probably state some places that CAT busses go to that RTC doesn't even mention. I do have a link from my CAT website to CAT on Wikipedia, so persons who go to my site, come here too. I believe this is good FYI stuff, and since other transit pages have their route layouts (Like LACMTA), I think mine should stay. -- cello06 08:00, 03 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is difficult to maintain and is not really the type of information that should be in an encyclopedia. Zaxem 00:57, 6 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. Mostly Rainy 12:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Razook[edit]

This is clearly a hoax. Only google hit for "Harry Razook" is the Wikipedia page. Reyk YO! 01:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear hoax otherwise not verifiable. In this instance, the absolute absence of supporting on-line evidence is indicative of the non-existence of the article's subject. Ande B 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ande B Crazynas 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax. Link to Harry Razook's funeral picture actually turns up a picture from an online family album for a family named Gutierrez. Fan1967 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, hoax. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a verified hoax and not notable even if not one. jbolden1517Talk 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


YOO save this i met him and got his autograph he is a real person, and quite a carachter i might add. - nicky d

I as well have met this very disdinguished cricket player, is he a great all around player and person. I met him in the peak of his career and ever since then he has been known world famously, it would be very rude, and unmannerly to remove this page of one of the Greatest Cricket Players of All Time, Harold Charley Razook. - T.MARK

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Carson Daly. Prodego talk 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Daly Productions[edit]

Production company for one TV show (guess which). Fails WP:CORP. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment; merge tag added, but nothing done. Calton | Talk 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Carson Daly otherwise Delete Crazynas 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Mention (in at most a sentence or two) on Carson Daly the fact that he runs this production company. Clear rest and redirect. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carson Daly and if not delete it. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'll go along. jbolden1517Talk 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as much as can be usefully accomodated in Carson Daly – Gurch 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect savidan(talk) (e@) 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I highly doubt a production company by Carson Daly would fail WP:CORP. The article certainly doesn't seem to think so, so keep notable production companies. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Highly doubt"? Anything to actually back up those vague feelings? Is Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself? Is Carson Daly Productions listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies? Is Carson Daly Productions' share price used to calculate stock market indices? Is Carson Daly Productions so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization? ("Let's carson-daly-productions that puppy!") Are there some important criteria you're using that I'm missing? --Calton | Talk 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It helps if you read my whole comment. The article shows it fine. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It helps if you read my whole comment: what part of "Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly)" was unclear? What part of Carson Daly Productions (NOT Carson Daly) is fulfilled by WP:CORP? What part of "anything to actually back up those vague feelings" was unclear? Hint: vague handwaving or "because I said so, that's why"? Not on. What, pray tell, actually separates Carson Daly from Carson Daly Productions? --Calton | Talk 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's his separate production company which is developing television shows, among other things. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nothing separates them, as you seem to be implying, then the two articles could be profitably merged. That might have been a better initial approach, than a PROD/AFD nomination, and also looks to be a likely outcome of this debate. WP:Corp is also a guideline. There is no need to reiterate all its points when you have already provided a link with your initial nom. Please show some respect for other opinions. Comments like "vague handwaving" and "not on" and the repetition of "what part" might be perceived as unnecessarily hostile. -- JJay 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per above. -- JJay 14:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. --Terence Ong 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable junk info. Bwithh 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable junk info. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. - FRCP11 12:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, seems pretty clear since there's almost no content in this article. Vizjim 13:23, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin[edit]

  • It was nominated once before and, rightly, deleted as not meeting WP:WEB. Still doesn't, and the article is once again just an ad. Reyk YO! 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even a mention of why this site is notable in the article. Wickethewok 02:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, obviously, this is spam for a completely non-notable game/web site. That almost doesn't need to be said. But I really have to add that this article is terrible. If this was an article on an incredibly notable subject, I wouldn't even vote keep, but instead go with "complete rewrite". -- Kicking222 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Crazynas 02:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Ande B 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content (CSD G4). --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost a speedy delete. Thetruthbelow (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Its an add. We have a consensus lets just do it. jbolden1517Talk 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – under CSD G4, assuming it is a recreation of deleted material, otherwise delete as a non-notable website – Gurch 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a ad, she/he isn't someone from it, if you seen the VMK article though they have a link dosn't mean it's a actual ad, and spams just actual made up stuff I think here, might be just scrambled up letter or words that don't make actual sence, and how to you make a delete thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.195.228 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do NOT Delete - This article has been vandalizated and it hasn't been fixed. It's supposed to be batter. Many people had worked on this article, which isn't short at all. I suggest not deleting it. 83.130.44.24 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4, if different from deleted version, then it fails WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I remember this from the last nomination. If it HAS been been vandalizated and it hasn't been fixed, it really should be. It was an advertisement last time & failed WP:SOFT, and both apply now. If any anon editors want this retained, please fix the vandalizatation, ensure that notability requirements are met, then advise. Colonel Tom 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I've made no jokes re penguins in 'batter'; I'd ask you not to either Colonel Tom)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. Cool3 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite The rise in popularity of MMORPG's is a very notable topic and this game is a part of it, providing one of only a small handfull of MMORPG's safe for younger (pre-teen) kids. That said, this article is written more like an ad for the game. If it were rewritten with some of the same content but also clear and upfront explanation of how this game fits with the cultural phenomenon that is MMORPG, links to related articles on other popular MMORPG games, etc., it would be worthwhile. I was researching this game in particular and found this article useful. ~Kelly 14:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I see no reason for this article's deltion, and I believe it most definetley is notable.--Corporal Punishment 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah This article has proved itself proper again and I believe it has right to stay online. --Waitor 6:42, 30 May (UTC)

  • Strong Keep The article has improved greatly, and I firmly believe it is contributive, helpful, and informative - a great overall help to players of the game, and people simply wanting to learn a little more about Club Penguin. Deleting this would be a great loss to all those interested in the game. More work has yet to be done, and the article is still to improve even more. So I give a firm request for this article to be kept on Wikipedia. Tetsumonchi 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8Strong Keep This article is trying to be improved but it keeps getting deleted. Many new players on this game use this as a starting guide. Over 100,000 people play this game.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 bull. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoBullGames[edit]

Not particular notable gaming website. Alexa rank over 600k Wickethewok 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per not meeting WP:WEB. Not even close. Reyk YO! 02:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even close to being close. -- Kicking222 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is linked elsewhere on wikipedia, so I created a stub for it. They appear to be the leader in free online browser games. --JShaw 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - I assure you they are not "the leader in free online browser games". Miniclip.com, AddictingGames.com, 2dplay.com and hundreds of other gaming sites get more traffic than this one. Wickethewok 02:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not linked to from elsewhere, or those links have since been removed. An alexa rank of >600,000=Non-notable. Grandmasterka 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, bearing in mind a couple keep votes were cast before someone pointed out a good merge target. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Human Rights Record[edit]

POV-pushery that was de-prodded by User:Robert talan who seems to have been trying to fix it. I'm bringing it here as a contested prod, and my personal opinion is that it's unfixable and unencyclopedic. Delete Reyk YO! 02:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let Robert talan try to fix it. Move to Robert talan's userspace. Armedblowfish 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMerge Turkey's human rights record is a major issue and we should cover it, this is highly notable. The current article started as POV pushing but I'd like to see us fix this, I think it is obviously getting better quickly and this AFD request was premature. jbolden1517Talk 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about Turkish Human Rights. I like the merge better than the keep. jbolden1517Talk 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Move to Turkish Human Rights, NPoV, {{cleanup}} etc Keep Crazynas 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup This article is currently very POV but the answer is to NPOV it and improve it. Perhaps a new title /move might help to NPOV, as suggested by Crazynas, above. Ande B 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We all have human rights records with stains on - so should all countries have such article in wikipedia? Medico80 08:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, absolutely. All countries should have, if you like, their 'stains' documented. The 'stains' don't have to be documented in a separate article - a merge in this case to Human rights in Turkey seems appropriate - but do belong in an encyclopedia. Colonel Tom 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Human rights in Turkey. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article discuss a notable subject, and it should be developed instead of deleted. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Savidan, Crazynas & cleanup along the way. Colonel Tom 11:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've wikified and cleaned up a bit, but there are claims here which still certainly need more specific links to reliable sources. Colonel Tom 11:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, there's no reason to have this article when Human rights in Turkey was there first . Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. This requires some care because this article has serious POV problems. It should be confined to the present Republic of Turkey and not include the record of the Ottoman Empire. Next thing we'll put the problems of the Roman Empire in an article on Italian Human Rights. Not all allegations are covered by the cited sources, and not all sources are exactly what you can call neutral. For example, the reference numbered 4, <http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/human_rights.html>, suggests in the title that we have "Findings of the European Commission of Human Rights", but it is actually a report issued by the (Cypriot Greek) Cyprus Bar Association. While all violations of human rights are deplorable, those found by the European Court of Human Rights are not nearly as serious as those claimed in the article. If it has been "suggested to some" (a new weasel-wordy formula) that it was only through strong international pressure that Orhan Pamuk was released, then these some may have been wrongly suggested so. He was actually not released at all because he was never arrested. There are serious issues, but they are treated in a much better way in Human rights in Turkey. It is misleading to list "Turkish treatment of the disabled" as a human rights issue. There are problems with the treatment of elderly in American homes for the elderly all the time, which is scandalous but should only be regarded as impacting upon the "American Human Rights Record" if this is condoned by responsible officials. In the case mentioned, the situation was promptly addressed as soon as it had been brought to the attention of vthe authorities. And so on. --LambiamTalk 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment My weasel words above, I'm afraid; previous edit was The arrest and trial of the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk has been criticized by many as proving that human rights and freedom of speech are not valued by the present Turkish government and it was only through strong international pressure that Pamuk was released., which I changed to The arrest and trial of the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk have suggested to some that human rights and freedom of speech are not valued by the present Turkish government, and ... . I changed this in an attempt to NPOV the article, based only on the text available. My apologies if this has not improved the article. (It should have been 'has suggested' rather than 'have', I see, but I'll let others improve it for now.) Colonel Tom 13:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Human rights of Turkey. --Terence Ong 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Human rights in Turkey. Lambiam also made some good points. —Khoikhoi 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Khoikhoi. --JChap 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Human rights in Turkey. - FRCP11 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage to Human rights in Turkey. Wikipedia does not keep records. We do not need a second article explaining Human rights in Turkey which appears to be a POV fork more than anything else. --Cat out 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. --Moby 10:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mix of everything possible, low quality, used as someone's axe. Use of the Roman Empire in Italian Human Rights equivalent. Pavel Vozenilek 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV push, as per nom; some content may be salvageble into Human rights in Turkey, but this may be done by normal editing. -- Heptor talk 19:33, 3 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. 5 keeps, 2 merge, 1 delete, and a couple I didn't really consider as self-contradictory, unexplained delete/merge votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korn Kovers[edit]

This album has been rumored and "confirmed" since January 2005 but nothing has happened with it at all. It seems to have enough buzz about it to be somewhat notable, but it's too speculative. Perhaps a mention in the Korn article but not a full article. Metros232 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ditto Sdphost
  • Keep The Korn article is long enough. And if you say that there is active buzz then this is notable. The main thing this article needs is some citations of where all this info is coming from. (note these cites were added after this comment was made) jbolden1517Talk 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – but only if the article is cleaned up and sourced soon – Gurch 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are sources [2] [3] [4][5]. But notice the date on all of them? End of 2004, early 2005. This is a side-project that never came through. At best, it deserves something like "There has been a long rumored cover album entitled "Korn Kovers" but this album has yet to be recorded or released as of May 2006" in the Korn article (it's not so big that it can't include one sentence more) then add the citation(s) to confirm this rumor. Metros232 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the article to reflect your belief the project is dead and included the references. Like I said above. This album is notable (given the coverage/buzz) even if it never comes to life. It never has to be released to be an article. jbolden1517Talk 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per jbolden1517. -- 9cds(talk) 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with Korn lacks citations and proof of enough notability to merit its own article.--Strothra 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per Strothra. Dead 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per jbolden1517. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Korn - not-released albums don't merit their own pages. B.Wind 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone is quoting wind I should note there is an entire category for not released albums [6] jbolden1517Talk 01:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a differance between unreleased albums and this though, as it seems to be purely conjecture at this point. I mean, the only current sources are over a year old, and one of them, I read, cites Brian Welch - who hasn't been in the band since Feb. 2005. If it ever was on, I'd say it's off now, not only because the band hasn't said anything in the space between now and when the sources were posted, but because Brian Welch left on top of that. A mention along the lines of 'In 2004 the band were planning a cover album, but no information has been release since' in the Korn article would suffice, in my opinion. Dead 10:40, 3 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 Moved to projectspace, so this doesn't belong here. --Rory096 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:FACTS/FAQ[edit]

Sort of nonsensical, and I think it violates WP:ASR. Rory096 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Creationism is nonsense but excluding that I think these editors have the right to work together to get the creations POV represented in articles. Reluctant keep jbolden1517Talk 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't referring to creationism being nonsensical, I meant the article has no context. --Rory096 07:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but why is this linked like this? shouldn't it be Wikiproject:Creationism Crazynas 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at a minimum rename. This is a very misleading title and certainly not NPOV. When is a fact not a fact? When it is asserted by your opponent. Bejnar 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree it's weird and useless, but this is the wrong place. It should go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which has different criteria than used for articles, like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:ASR don't apply. --LambiamTalk 12:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I do agree as well, this should be moved to MFD. --Terence Ong 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree. It should definitely be at MfD, not AfD. But, just throwing my two cents in: delete. -- Kicking222 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the contrary, it is in articlespace. I've re-opened this AfD for that reason. --Rory096 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Crazynas

He Yining[edit]

Contested speedy tag, looks like maybe an attack page, definately doesn't meet WP:BIO. Should still probably be speedied DVD+ R/W 04:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC) It got speedied and then recreated with a pornographic photo. Maybe it should be blocked from recreation. DVD+ R/W 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Certainly an attack page. No value. HighInBC 04:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • respeedied and protected, plus a stern warning left on the perpetrator's page. Image should be deleted too - I'm adding it and one other like it to IFD. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kail[edit]

Notability concerns of a fairly high magnitude (exactly the opposite magnitude of the actual notability, in fact). Whiffs of vanity and spamvertisement, too. The related nn bio Bengoshia is also here on afd. 125 ghits only. Grutness...wha? 04:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Conscious 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bengoshia[edit]

Chief claim to fame seems to be being a friend of Kail (also up for afd). 655 non wikipedia ghits, mainly forum sites. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003[edit]

Individual articles for each year of Romania's (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be Romania's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete all as per nom Bwithh 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep Bryce 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 per the keep arguments on the group nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006. I dont think theres anything wrong with having the top 10 bands in a country listed in one of these articles. --Astrokey44 09:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely merge per nom, and ditto for the other countries -- Hirudo 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lack of detail in the articles about earlier years is a sad reflection on the lack of Wikipedia editors at that time. Athenaeum 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable event within the country of origin, part of one of the most widely watched international non-sporting contests. Vizjim 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a big deal. ReeseM 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not as complete as the United Kingdom set and not followe "Phase 4" properly, but as the 2006 entries were voted to be kept it therefore means older years must be kept as well. The information for the national finals is avalible to get ahold of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.1.20 (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 complicated. A gentle slap with a fish to Tijuana Brass for nominating so many different articles of different areas from The Elder Scrolls, and making the closing complex. The consensus seems to be merge most of them into groups; e.g., all the animals into one article, all the characters (except Almalexia who is kept) into one article, and all items into one article. Also cull out all info that is more suited to GameFAQs. But before all this is done, projectify to somewhere like Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Elder Scrolls/articles/foo. But a gentle caress with a fish to Tijuana Brass for volunteering to remove all those AFD notices. Because I don't want to do it! Hahaha. OK, go. Proto||type 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Scrolls-related articles[edit]

For convenience's sake, I'm listing all AfD candidates related to The Elder Scrolls computer game series here, due to their similarity. Please feel free to amend these page if you feel I have erred. I've tried to redirect all AfD tags on these pages to here. I strongly recommend to the closing admin to projectfy these pages to the Elder Scrolls WikiProject before deletion so they made be copied and included on a gaming wiki — most are well-written, just unencyclopedic. Please feel free to add onto this list as necessary. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed articles for deletion:

Animals[edit]

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is not meant to list non-notable creatures from video games:

Characters[edit]

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia does not list non-notable, non-encyclopedic fictional characters.

Items, etc.[edit]

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is also not meant to list non-notable items (if any) from video games:

Discussion[edit]

Please add comments in support of or opposing these nominations below:

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, I realize the mess that such an en-masse AfD creates, so to save someone else the hassle, I'll be glad to take upon myself the chore of removing a bunch of AfD tags, deleting, or whatever else the consensus may be once decided by the closing admin. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per excellent nomination. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Bwithh 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, Transwiki, I could see having a page for each category, (eg. Items of Elderscrolls) but not one for each item, transwiki as per nom, and delete as per nom Delete Crazynas 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with appropriate transwikification) per nom. It would be nice if Tijuana could find a flying buttress to help him handle this load... :) Joe 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of these are quite good articles, some may need to be deleted, but you grouped them in one bunch, so I have to vote keep for all of the bunch. In particular, Almalexia shouldn't be deleted, because it's rather major character, and there are probably others that shouldn't be deleted.  Grue  06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you (or anyone else) has a good knowledge of these games, it'd be helpful if you could list any of these noms which could be considered major characters or themes, as it may be helpful to break a couple off into their own AfDs. Think conservatively, though. Tijuana BrassE@ 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should split off Almalexia (or just delist it). She is a central figure in Morrowind and its expansions.  Grue  08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since changing the list would circumvent the votes already here, we'll mark it as a note for the closing admin to consider — thanks for making it known. Tijuana BrassE@ 09:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Delete, and Transwiki (I think that's the correct order) per nom. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Merge where appropriate. So much gamecruft, so little time...I'm grateful that someone did the work to round them all up. In many of these cases, the main article isn't even that long, so I don't understand the need to make a ton of seperate articles. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of them, although there are a few that seem to be quite good. If moving to wikis outside Wikimedia counts as transwiki-ing, then Transwiki the others – Gurch 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, this is game guide info not for an encyclopaedia. I don't think there is cause for a 'creatures of TES' page, or for much (if any) of this info to be merged. Perhaps Almalexia could be merged to the Morrowing game page (perhaps) and likewise the Amulet of Kings could perhaps find a home on the Oblivion game page. Other than that, emphatic delete, and a thank you for the amount of work this involved. CastorQuinn 09:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, most of them should probably be deleted or merged eventually but I'm definitely against mass deleting them. The Elderscrolls wikiproject is just getting started why not give its a chance to merge and tidy up the article space before deleting a huge chunk of the content. Dv82matt 10:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most but not all of these articles.
All names for proposed articles are just suggestions. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with CWC for the most part. There are numerous articles that, taken for themselves, are candidates for deletion and/or mergers. I'd volunteer to take over some of the work that'll have to be done on that front.
However, I argue strongly against outright deleting most of the content contained therein, with the only argument that WP is "not a game guide". WP is supposed to be a contemporary encyclopedia and content about one of the most widely-acclaimed RPG video game series surely is not out of place there. For comparison, just look at the lots of content for all the numberless TV series, comics or anime/manga series. It's part of contemporary "culture" (or sub-culture), for want of a better term, and it deserves its place inside WP.
However, I also agree that there are way to many articles just containing single-paragraph content; many of them are stubs. Therefore, mergering them should be the method of choice here. As I've said, I'm prepared to do some of the work that's necessary. Cheers, Something Wicked 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to remind everyone about the widely accepted guideline WP:FICT. In a nutshell it says that minor characters and concepts should be merged into lists, not deleted. So, it seems like CWC's proposal is the most sensible way to close this discussion.  Grue  15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm also in favour of moving all the smaller and spoiler-free articles to the corresponding lists rather than deleting them outright. However, I strongly advice against Daedric Princes being merged with Daedra, for the latter describes the Daedric race and its subraces, while the former is about the pesonalities of the various Princes. To put it simpler, Daedra belongs to the races category, while Princes - to the characters cat. --Koveras 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the most recent three comments above. -- Kicking222 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The content is good on a few of them. Deleting some of the more notable (Amulet of Kings, for example) would be bad, but it definetly shouldn't have it's own article. For the less notable stuff, just list them somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyne (talk • contribs)
  • Merge - per above --Jaranda wat's sup 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Cheers. --Starionwolf 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't; we already have lots of articles about games, even if that is bad, a few more won't change things much (and it isn't bad anyway). Bryce 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Note - merge is fine with me too just don't lose content.[reply]
  • Keep: for a nomination of this size I am simply unable to vote for deletion, nor can I say merge because I am not familiar with these games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AFD will not conclude with a delete because so many articles have been grouped together, surely the nominator knew this. I have only played Morrowind (pretty comprehensively) and have some suggestions below:
    • Delete - All the creatures of Morrowind. Things like Alit, Nix Hound and Shalks were just generic enemies in Morrowind. Like Goombas but without the popularity, recognisability and lasting impact of Mario enemies.
    • Delete - Daedric Crescent, Staff of Chaos, Wabbajack. Although these are not generic items in the game, they are just one of many top tier items you can get. I can think of many such items in Morrowind alone.
  • Keep & Merge - Merge smaller articles, keep bigger ones. No need to delete anything. Havok (T/C/c) 08:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triage, then Trim, merge and delete, including the continents commented on by CWC. -- Hirudo 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep&Merge - Several of the articles should probably be merged, especially many of the animals and the more minor characters. I know from experience, though, that the Kwama article and some others are a bit big for a list (of course that's a little biased 'cause I did a great deal of the work on Kwama). --Niroht 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (except Almalexia) - Almalexia is a huge part of Morrowind and the series (and I wrote half the article ;)) but most of the others could easily be merged. -Senori 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep&Merge - Almalexia ought to have her own article. Septim dynasty should have its own article with the Septim monarch articles merged and the data regards them listed. Tiber and Uriel VII must have their own articles, being major characters in TES lore. The creatures list should be merged; either into the Daedra article, and Morrowind creatures. D-Katana 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge per others. - CNichols 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL. -- Vohod (Please login and sign Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I am logged in -- Vohod (I honest to god don't know how to get my name on this stuff)
  • Keep/Merge A lot of these articles should be merged into new or exsisteing articles like the animals and septims into one and the daedric stuff can be combined probably. Don't see a reason to out right delete it all WCX 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. However, since that won't succeed, suggest to nominator that he take the long route, using a bunch of suggested merges. Vizjim 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge keep bigger ones, merge smaller ones --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge. The details of merging will be further discussed on WP:TES, but generally are likely to stay close to this:
All animals will be merged in Creatures of Morrowind.
Artifacts in question will be merged in The Elder Scrolls Artifacts. Daedric ones stay separated.
Emperors will be merged in Emperors of Tamriel, Septim Dynasty, or similar-named article.
Almalexia is notable enough and requires a separate article.
Daedric Princes will stay, as already encompassing multiple characters.
Other characters will be merged.
This is a proposal for the final decision, based on listed articles themselves, TES source info, and the listed opinions. CP/M 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwikify. Good articles, but as the nominator said, not really encyclopedic. Would do better on obliviowiki. -- jeffthejiff 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate lists/articles per CP/M & CWC. Scoo 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think that these articles are useful for people like me, who want to learn more about the Elder Scrolls creatures and such, so perhaps the articles could all be merged, But Deleting them is a bad idea, in my opinion.
  • Merge - I agree with CWC about categorizing the content, and I agree with Something Wicked regarding the articles' relevance to the Wikipedia. The articles should not be as complete as a dedicated Elder Scrolls wiki, but summaries and overviews are appropriate for a modern encyclopedia. CrystallinEntity 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL Vohod 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per CP/M. In general, I agree with the nominator's rationale, but this is a bit much at once. Once merged, we can better assess the individual articles' notability. Sandstein 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fabulous, encyclopedic work on this game. Congrats to the editors who took the time to develop this coverage. --JJay 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per JJay, and I don't see why other series like Star Wars, Star Trek or the Matrix can have comprehensive wikipedia coverage and The Elder Scrolls can't. -mrbartjens 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Grue. --Evan Robidoux 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the characters and places, delete the items and animals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of every fictional object ever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Merge per Havok - AHMYBRAIN 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge; articles on very minor game elements, such as Alit should be merged together into a smaller number of broad articles, instead of having a skipload of stubs, for example Animals of the Elder Scrolls (for animals like the Alit, but maybe not Daedric creatures), Artifacts of the Elder Scrolls (for stuff like the Wabbajack), Characters of the Elder Scrolls (for moderate-significance characters like Jauffre and Ocato) and so forth. Major characters, such as Almalexia, should keep their own articles. Minor Daedric Princes and articles about lesser Daedric creatures could be merged into Daedra, although Azura and Dremora (although that hasn't been nominated) could get/keep their own articles, as a significant character in Morrowind; and the dominant and most significant type of lesser Daedra, respectively. The same for other minor ES articles, as per CWC above, where appropriate. As a side note, the Oblivion Wiki seems specific to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, not the whole Elder Scrolls series. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (nonstub) articles that can't be merged into a more appropriate list. A tremendous amount of work seems to have gone into organizing this, and I would hate to see it lost. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with some transwiki too much cruft, but some may be good for places other than wikipedia. Redirect/merge everything, really good stuff(that isn't appropreate for wikipedia) should get sent across the transwiki void. Kevin_b_er 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge stubs but Keep any substantial ones (Daedric Artifacts is the only one I see). Anything left over can be renominated in a smaller set. Eluchil404 05:35, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Parker[edit]

Not quite WP:CSD but does merit AFD discussion as to notability and WP:BIO J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP: Bio, the IMbD link alone is enough Crazynas 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I love Wes Anderson, I'm not convinced that this particular production assistant has sufficient notabiliy for inclusion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.Bejnar 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ever look at a film's full credits? Hundreds and hundreds of names. Fame and notability are not conferred by minor association with the famous and the notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 08:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a participant on a network "reality show" constitute sufficient basis for being "notable"? There are some very frivilous entries in Wikipedia, many of which are game show participants, few of whom will be remembered-Charles Van Doren exempted. In my opinion, Lillian Parker has a record, albeit a short one, of notable accomplishment. She has produced a feature film, as well as working with Wes Anderson. Let's look at someone like Cindy Sheehan, who in reality is no more than a figurehead used by moveon.org, and really has no notable accomplishments of her own. Why is she notable? Solely because she is on the news? Why not just start notablepedia? Cindy Sheehan, Spuds MacKenzie, and the man in the question mark suit from the late night infomercials can all have extensive entries! Is notability by itself enough of a criteria for entry? Even though I authored the original entry, I will admit that Lillian may not have sufficient notability for entry if notability is a central criteria. I do think it is unfortunate that many totally undistiguished individuals are included on Wikipedia, while those who have succeeded in their creative quests, are exmpted from inclusion because they were not on MTV's 'Beach Party Real Life Survivor Apprentice 2006'. Perhaps pop culture needs it's own Wikipedia. If you've read this far, thank you for considering my viewpoint. I will use more discretion on future entries. Yakofujimato

  • Delete - article does not establish notability. Perhaps if the previous poster would add to the article some information that would indicate more notability for Ms. Parker's work (and include references)... For the record, Yakofujimato, notability is a necessary condition for inclusion, but not necessarily a sufficient one. Please take a look at WP:BIO and see if you can show how Lillian Parker fits it. B.Wind 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Producing a film that has not yet been released or even been listed on the Internet Movie Database is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; deleted by User:Kjkolb under rationale "disambiguation page is unneeded after a page move and putting a link at the top of the article" - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eutectic (disambiguation)[edit]

Going to any Eutectic page automatically redirects to Eutectic point, which has a link at the beginning for STLCOP's mascot. Albert109 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the pickle[edit]

Prodded by NawlinWiki; deprodded by creator. IMHO this is a load of nonsense. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day, especially when they've only got about 100 Ghits M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: This obvious and absurd nonsense. Where are the reliable sources? --Hetar 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Complete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Prank page, POV, nn, vanity, total waste of time Ande B 06:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "Hey, wouldn't that be funny if there was a Wikipedia article with a picture of us drunk?" OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Note that of the 100 google results noted, a quick glance shows most (maybe all?) are not to the article subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading product verification below, still delete; a non-notable handpuppet.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – as patent nonsense under CSD G1 – Gurch 08:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup but keep, maybe. this link proves its an actual commercial product. There's a notability judgement to make here, but all the above votes assume that its just fake. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G1 --Terence Ong 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though I think I agree it's eminently deletable and Complete Bollocks, it's not Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense as it is comprehensible, and bollocks-ness is not a WP:CSD. If you want to tag it Speedy, please tag it (e.g.) "db|AFD discussion consensus" otherwise stupid people like me remove the notice.84.64.119.75 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It looks like nonsense. What is the talk about alcohol in a childrens game? --Starionwolf 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, for obvious reasons. Not a speedy. Grandmasterka 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Ozark Patriots. Prodego talk 15:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Stadium[edit]

Stadium no longer holds any notable teams, and the only somewhat notable team to play there was a very short-lived minor league baseball team. Less than 400 Ghits. fuzzy510 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006[edit]

Individual articles for each year of the U.K.'s (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be U.K.'s entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 05:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete all eventually, but that's a lot of articles. If there's useful information that would be better elsewhere, we need to make sure it is moved – Gurch 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A random sample of these has very little content. They should be combined together to make a real article that might be interesting. --Bduke 09:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to either United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds(talk) 14:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all Not encyclopedic. Fancruft abuse of Wikipedia. Bwithh 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except UK in Eurovision contest 2006, unencyclopaedic, this is not a sports event, Eurovisioncruft. --Terence Ong 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all No, it isn't a sport event, but it gets much higher ratings than most sports events. Osomec 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I would expect to see these for future years, so we should keep the old ones too. They contain useful information and biographical articles are no substitute for these articles which put things in context. Each year's contest was covered by a highly rated television programme or series of programmes that probably wouldn't have been nominated if it was separate from the Eurovision Song Contest. Nathcer 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the point exactly, these are not independantly notable. The question is not whether they are useful to someone, it is whether they belong in an encyclopedia. Eurovision has its own wiki.Bejnar 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all They belong in this encyclopedia. Twittenham 22:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nathcer. Also, its clear that national song contests are notable. Hornplease 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some have detail which would be too much for the main UK article --Astrokey44 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, per 9cds. This is just way way overkill. -- Hirudo 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, per 9cds and Hirudo. There is no problem in creating one big page for all of the UK Eurovision events. Eurovision is a strong point of European culture, so it is important that this event is recognized in Wikipedia, as one complete page. To say that it is worth having a two sentence entry on the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985 isn't worth the effort put into it. Sens08 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of wide interest. A single article would just be a future subdivision waiting to happen. Athenaeum 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all would read far better on one page. Rex the first talk | contribs 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not much detail has been added, but it can be expanded with time and information is useful to those who want to know what song was chosen and how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.4.208 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 May 2006
  • Comment Oh no: the sockpuppets are coming out now. The above is the 2nd ever contribution of that IP. Have a look at what the 1st one was. --Mais oui! 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Back I am fonzy orignial creator of the article, forgot my pass unfortunatly but stumbled upon this deletion whilst browsing anyway, yes some are 2 sentance stubs but they never had the natinal final information added in.
  • editI would also like to note merging every national final onto one country page would be a right mess! 50 years of national semi-\finals would be far far far too large and would have to be split up anyway. The information is out there (altough for early years it is missing some). -(extra edit) it seems that the other eurovision afd on the same type of article has the concensus of keep this should be kept also as just keeping the 2006 entry is daft as you would expect to find every other year as well.
  • Keep (with apologies to some fine people I see voting the other way). These are all national events, and all generate their own notable controversies etc. "Wikipedia is not paper" seems to apply here. Vizjim 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result of the other afd was keep therefor this should be kept too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge all to United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. That would be a 50 line table (not too much for a summary article), with _ALL_ biographical data merged to the respective person or band biographies (if notable). The regional event itself may be highly watchable, but it doesn’t generate information except for the names of the winners, runners-up, etc. Any special occurrences (non-biographical) can be mentioned in the text of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Biographical data does not need to be duplicated, it can be linked. Bejnar 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 lines??? there is far more information than a 50 line table. 1957 had 3 semi-finals and 1 main minal, thats just 1 year. some other years in the 70s had 10 entries for just 1 "final". all together that is more than 50 lines,
Questions Is that extra data memorable? Is it notable? Does it belong in the Wikipedia? If so why? What changes an ephermeral event, however big into something notable? Many of these singers would not be noted at all if they didn't appear in the tables, see, for example from 1957, Bryan Johnson (singer).Bejnar 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper,it can go into far more detail with every topic, national contests are a big deal watch\listened by millions of people, data is memorable (in some ways), data is avalible (altough a couple of early years do have lost data. 2006 entries were allowed so I repeat therefor older years are allowed too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miloslav Ištvan[edit]

Hoax page - this guy doesn't exist. No citations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Georgeccampbell (talk • contribs) .

If you would have paid any attention you'd notice the external link pretty obviously placed in the article: [7]. So much for not existing. Antidote 06:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The reason for nomination - "this guy doesn't exist" - is patent nonsense, as a simple google search shows. There are CDs [8][9] and his scores are published by Schott, a very respectable music publisher. David Sneek 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per David Sneek and a quick google scholar search [10].--Fuhghettaboutit 08:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, person does exist, "this guy doesn't exist" and a "hoax page" is false. --Terence Ong 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with comment that a rewrite is needed -- Samir धर्म 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marmion Primary School[edit]

Blatantly copied off the Schools Website - No Original Content Boochan 12:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite School in notable, but needs LOTS of work Crazynas 06:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I believe we still go by the precedent that all schools are notable, but this one needs a complete rewrite. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the subject is slightly notable, but a copy-and-paste is not the way to start an article. Get rid of it and let someone else do a better job – Gurch 08:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a school, it's notible. If it infringes copyright, do something about it. Copyright is beyond the scope of AfD. -- 9cds(talk) 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per all above Jcuk 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. --Starionwolf 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Reason given by nominator is not a concern of this page. Osomec 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite - I may rewrite and make it a temporary stub until someone can add relevant information. Its sufficently notable, but not a good start to rip it off the school's website. - Boochan 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DjDTM[edit]

Non-notable website/bio - Rudykog 06:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ickalanda: Please do not delete, just information about the website.

Comment - I know, but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. - Rudykog 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go , it is not notable enough for example if it was a article about slashdot no one would have any objections but i've never heard of this website and i don't really see how it belongs in wikipedia all that much Kingpomba 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it could be created before the site became super popular and the site is known in my local area (Kalamazoo/Portage MI) http://djdtm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=723#723 - DjDTM


Okay hold on I am getting a screenshot of the number of views per month based of individual IPs that looked at at least 2 pages and stayed for longer than 30 minutes. -Ickalanda

Okay I have it:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4348/visits23nk.jpg

-Ickalanda

Delete Non-notable website.. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it non-notable with 6,000+ viewers? Yes that is not super popular but it has a steady increase and is well known in my local area. -Ickalanda

Comment - Usually when Wikipedians look for notability, they look for things like Alexa Internet rankings (DjDTM.com isn't even ranked), Google testing hits (DjDTM.com comes out at a little over 700), and sometimes forum accounts (DjDTM.com has 34). Notability has more to do with something that many people around the world may know about or have heard of, not just locals. - Rudykog 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few people from Massachusetts know about it and some people from the UK if that counts. Also the majority of viewers do not register at the forums and just watch the movies.

Comment - Compare 6,000 a month with Masamania's 125,000+ a week.[11]  It still wasn't enough. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masamania) - Rudykog 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DjDTM - Just delete the site already. Wiki is an unrealiable source for information anyway.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Delete and keep voters were evenly matched here. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live Hot Puppet Chat[edit]

I had previously considered listing this for deletion, but changed my mind and decided to be nice and put a wikify tag on it so it might possibly become a slightly useful article. Someone keeps removing the wikify tag. It was replaced by another user and by a bot, but someone keeps removing it. I say chuck the stupid article. IceCreamAntisocial 06:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 50 hits on google, possible hoax Weak Keep possibly notable. Crazynas 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Here's my understanding of the story; the student-run station at UCSD (SRTV) included a program called "Koala TV" that made the news multiple times for pushing the free speech envelope and more or less getting the whole station banned (though now I think Koala TV has split from The Koala, the student-run newspaper, and is being broadcast again). I added a few external links to the story; additionally, these minutes from a meeting at UCSD include mention of Live Hot Puppet Chat in the context of Koala TV. (do a page search for "puppet"). OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, barely asserts notability. --Terence Ong 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not every local news story is an appropriate subject for an article. —phh (t/c) 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. "Local news story"? Not sure how this is related to local news, but the article is notable enough to keep, although barely. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per phh. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not that I'm against a college tv show, but this seems to have no notability outside of that considerably small community. National or at least non-regional media attention would make me change my mind. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently widely-known to be encyclopedicly notable. Zaxem 08:42, 4 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMARTCODE_CORP.[edit]

Article is an advertisement. Company is not noteworthy. Links to this article have been repeatedly added to RFID and deleted as linkspam. If you are connected to the company, or have made major contributions to this article, please disclose this when you vote. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable advertisement. Although cited as "Among the leading RFID manufacturers" by the Associated Press, not a whole lot of websites mention the company. — Tangotango 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're notable in the field. (JohnCC 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. A few PR "wins" doesn't make a company notable. The article is low quality and nobody seems interested in improving it, exactly because the company is not notable. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Keep. The apparent author has made a good-faith effort to clean up the article, and I've done what I can to help him. If you want to keep the article, please pitch in and help. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only references are themselves and a passing mention on CNN once. Reads as a coorperate pitch page. May be notable someday. HighInBC 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have over 166,000 entries in Google. Seems fine after cleanup.Shukarm 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company with an article trying to sell their product. Also, note that the two people who have voted keep on this RfA are new accounts. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- in my opnion does not meet WP:CORP. Reyk YO! 07:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of you are venting your anger against the blatant promo style of the writing. I'm the one who added the advert tag, so we agree on that. However, my reading of WP:CORP suggests the company is indeed notable. It has mention in CNN and in RFID journal, [12], the latter was cut from the article in an overzealous edit. Clean it up and keep it. OnPatrol 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been bad for a long time. If somebody cleans it up, I will consider changing my vote. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and will continue in the next days, the company is notable with Forbes, CNN, Information Week, RFID Journal and Grtner, AMR, ABI Research etc. - SC Web 02:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of Order - it seems that User:SC Web and User:Shukarm were created after this vote started.
  • Weak keep per OnPatrol. -- DS1953 talk 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleaned up the article per WP:CORP - SC Web 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn company trying to get free advertising. Tychocat 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- cleanup was admirable, but no evidence that they meet the notability criteria of WP:CORP. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and savidan. Zaxem 08:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - further to my keep vote above, the article now references stories about the co. in rfidjournal, cnn, and information week. Notability is pretty clear. (Please remember I'm the one who placed the advert tag on this.) WP:CORP specifies:
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. -- OnPatrol 18:37, 4 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 - delete is certainly in the minority (about 25%), and some of the suggestions to merge are not particularly appropriate IMHO, as Eurovision Song Contest 2006 was split because it was too large, so keep in terms of majority consensus as well as the fact that merging and moving content is not particularly feasible.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006[edit]

Individual articles for each year of France's (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for France in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be France's entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. This should be true for all countries with respect to the Eurovision Song Contest Bejnar 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these pages are very interesting and they should not be deleted!
  • Merge any and all individual per year by country articles into a series of articles in the form Country X at the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest 19XX. An overall article per year and an individual article per country are surely enough. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No point of deleting them! Empty2005 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to either France in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds(talk) 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all not encyclopedic. fancruft abuse of wikipedia. Bwithh 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is all verifiable factual information, and to include this either information in a single page per contest or a single page per country would mean those pages get very big very quickly.- fchd 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not whether the information is verifiable, it is whether it is notable, and whether, if notable, it belongs in this structure, or in the biographical structure. A media circus in one year does not make something notable, see all of the UK years 1957-2000, for what they are worth now.
      • IMO, they are certainly more notable than the subject of today's featured article, an American High School. - fchd 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, no need for them. --Robdurbar 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I must say despite voting delete for the previous Eurovision-related AFD due to lack of information. This year's contest is a current event and is expected to have more coverage on Wikipedia than before and will be updated quickly. Well, when the event ends, the main article will be very long and if all the countries pages are on the main article, it takes up excessive space on the article. --Terence Ong 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is a huge event in Europe, at least as notable as most of the pop culture stuff that is retained without challenge. There is too much to merge into one place, and it couldn't be properly categorised if it was merged. There is a template to link the individual articles, which is a far more user friendly way of connecting the material than converting it into one article - which would be likely to breach the article size limit in any case. Osomec 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia covers stuff at this level, and I don't have a problem with that. Way more notable than things like computer game characters which appeal to a narrow demographic that is over represented on Wikipedia. Nathcer 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non encyclopedic fancruft. --Strothra 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, the case for deletion was not made. These articles give details on how each country came to choose its entry into the contest. There is no reason to merge them. --Asbl 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These are decent sized articles in many cases. Twittenham 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I hold no brief for Eurovision, but a good number of these articles are not stubs, and altogether they will be too large to be merged into a single - and horrible messy - Eurovision 06 article. In addition, this is f the main article is the place for the details of how each entry was chosen - which I think it isnt. Hornplease 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely tenuous delete all per nom. But only if the other articles can be merged into a main article like France in the Eurovision Song Contest. Otherwise keep. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all some good articles there, other events have this sort of coverage on wikipedia --Astrokey44 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, passes verifiability, notability, needfulness and "fun" tests. Vizjim 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - see the other Eurovision-related Afd's. -- Hirudo 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good set of articles. Athenaeum 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article isn't that large with most of the space taken up by tables. Merge infomation into the artists own page (for example merge Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 mainly into Silvía Night and put Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 into Arsenie Todiraş) and country information into Eurovision Song Contest 2006.Rex the first talk | contribs 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was part of phase 4 of the Eurovision Project, national selections for each year are very intresting take a look at **United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967,**United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963, etc. Wikipedia is an almanac for this kind of information, the 2006 entries are more complete, but others will be dealt with in time.
    • Actually being part of a Wikipedia project is not a reason to keep. This vote is testing whether or not Phase 4 was well founded in the context of the whole Wikipedia. Bejnar 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення)
  • Keep, very notable in their respective countries. Verifiable, notable, people care about this stuff, Wikipedia is not paper, ... What would be the American equivalent, deleting all American Idol subarticles? (No, of course I'm not proposing that.) Weregerbil 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I agreed with the forking of content because the content was becoming unwieldly large in the main Eurovision 2006 article. MLA 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are not doing any harm, and some countries would need very long general articles, having been in the comp. for 50 years!!!
  • Keep They are all part of one of the goals for Wikiproject Eurovision Greekboy 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:22, 1 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:SNOW. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement[edit]

Okay this is a bit of an unusual one. The current text I prodded and it was removed without comment. Based on text, it is a "2006 feature film" but no listing at IMDB. If unreleased: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If released, imdb omission seems telling. Delete unless verified and notable based on that verification. However, in another article by this author, (Steve Aaron Misiura), he refers to a 2005 film also called The Basement. This film is listed on imdb, and is a short. Google returns only results to IMDB for the film and writer in quotes. IMDB lists everything. Thus if this is the film referred to, despite the explicit text stating it is a 2006 film, it appears, nevertheless, not-notable unless wider notability is verified (Misiura himself appears notable for another film, mentioned in the New York Times here, so I am not nominating that article).

The author has also added a related article which I am nominating as well: Sperimenta, an apparently not-notable actor/film maker ensemble ({{db-bio}} tag is placed so this may become moot). Note that a related third article by this author, SEFF, was speedily deleted, and has been reposted and tagged by another editor with {{db-repost}}. Update: Speedy tag on Sperimenta removed by ip editing all the same articles as author.

One more wrinkle in this saga: if you look at the The Basement's revision history, you'll see that it was originally an article about a vegan cafe in Manchester England that is a "key resource for activism". Putting aside the impropriety of usurping that article because it had the name this author wanted, I am nominating that previous revision for deletion as well, as a non notable restaurant, so there is no call for just reverting to prior text.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The vegan café may have been not notable, but to simply turn it into an article about a film is vandalism. David Sneek 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. If it becomes notable later, it can be reconsidered. Bejnar 09:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. I can't verify the existance of the movie. --Starionwolf 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability issues; I was following some of this last night, and noted that a couple of the related articles were deleted, reposted, deleted... bit of a mess, really. Tony Fox 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect - to discourage recreation of the movie article. B.Wind 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-existent film on the face of it, hoax and nonsense if you start digging a little. I was particularly amused by the claim of editing by the Finbonacci sequence. Tychocat 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM STEVE AARON MISIURA AND I MADE THIS FILM, I'M NEW TO WIKIPEDIA AND CLEARLY BUGGERED UP THE ENTRY. BESIDES ACCIDENTLY ERASING THE ORIGINAL ARTCLE I TRIED TO USE AS A TEMPLATE. I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA MIGHT BE A GREAT WAY TO GET SOME INFO OF THE FILM OUT THERE, CLEARLY I WAS WRONG. I WOULD LIKE EVERYTHING TO BE DELETED. I NO LONGER HAVE ANY DESIRE FOR MY FILM, MY COMPANY OR MY NAME TO APPEAR IN WIKIPEDIA. THE OTHER CONTRIBUTORS SEEM TO BE SMALL MINDED PHILISTINES AND I'D PREFER NO ASSOCIATIONS. FOR THE RECORD THE FILM WAS STARTED IN 2005 AND COMPLETED IN 2006, HENCE CONFUSION OVER THE DETAILS. IT WAS EDITED TO THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE AND IS NOT NONSENSE, A HOAX OR OTHERWISE. IT IS HOWEVER A SADLY BEAUTIFUL FILM THAT DEALS WITH THE DEVASTATION OF TERRORISM. IT IS ALSO LISTED (INCORRECTLY) ON IMDB - THAT ISSUE IS BEING ADDRESSED. I DO HOPE YOU ENJOY THE FILM ON ITS (YET TO BE CONFIRMED) RELEASE. CHEERS FOR THE SUPPRT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.6.205.22 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment to above Wikipedia is not a method of bringing forth information, but rather recording information. Wikipedia is not a device that belongs to everyone. There are simplier ways to promote a film, breaking the rules for personal gain is not one of them. Yanksox 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to above Well slap my wrists. As I said, please delete any reference

Comment I stand corrected on one point, apparently there is a reference to the russian filmmaker Eisenstein editing the movie "Potemkin" based on using Fibonacci numbers to determine how long certain scenes should run. (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#films). However, my vote remains as above in this context. Tychocat 10:42, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jackson (performance artist)[edit]

Non-notable performance artist. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Created by brand-new user Themightswissbrothel (talk · contribs) -- whose sole contributions have been to this article (Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?). Some details are, to put it mildly, suspect -- claims to have been named after a character in a 1994 movie, despite having been born in 1981. Quite a trick, there. -- Calton | Talk 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as apparent hoax (with regard to notability; I have little doubt this is a real person): 164 pages listing Bay Area Critics Circle Award, zero listing for them and name of author[13], same result for them and name of play[14]. All links in article are to blogs by author and his myspace listing. --Fuhghettaboutit 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly a big man on his campus but doesn't seem to be notable outside it as yet. Capitalistroadster 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as non-notable – Gurch 08:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as non-notable. --Starionwolf 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lame attempt at a joke (his father died in 1909, but he was born in 1981?) B.Wind 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNNTU[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 asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

Non-notable student organisation, best known for skirmishes with a similar group in another university. Google for "VNNTU" shows only 70 unique Ghits. [15] No source for the claim that they are "one of the largest Vietnamese student societies in a university outside Vietnam." Prod contested, with the explanation: "Remove the proposed deletion because i don't agree that VNNTU is not a notable student organisation. It is an organisation of about 500 bright and talented students." Delete unless they can be shown to be any different from the other 1,234 groups of "about 500 bright and talented students" in universities elsewhere. Kimchi.sg 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any of you guys here read Vietnamese? JohnT155.69.5.236 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents for deletion of non-notable student organisation articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Limerick History Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be of local interest only. Student organizations often make it into local news for pranks and the like. --Fuhghettaboutit 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about the fact that VNNTU is one of the two biggest Vietnamese bodies in Singapore?

Although the premier role of the organisation is to help Vietnamese students in NTU to get used and adapt better to the environment, it also plays an important role in bringing the Vietnamese people, which has been shut out for many years, towards the rest of the world. I have seen many good activities of VNNTU aiming toward fostering awareness about the Vietnamese culture and Vietnamese people.

4 years ago, it is surprised that although the two countries (Singapore and Vietnam) are not far away (only 1 hours 45 minutes flight), most of the Singaporeans had very little or no idea about how their neighbour country is like. When asked many mistook that the Vietnamese people are Chinese ethnic and speak Chinese; whereas many others think that Vietnam is still in war (the last war was ended in 1979)... Nowadays, I think that the image of the Vietnamese people has been more well-established in Singapore, thanks to VNNTU and its sister organisation, VNCNUS.

As for the claim that VNNTU is one of the biggest Vietnamese organisation in the world by the author, I would like to correct it as "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world". Hopefully I can find some proof to back up this claim soon..

202.156.6.54 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Would any of your statements about VNNTU be verifiable through sources other than the group's records? If no reliable sources can be found for the article, :( :( For articles about school societies that demonstrate the notability we're looking for, take a look at OUCA and Cambridge Union Society. Kimchi.sg 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Bwithh 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable, although I applaud the aims. I must add in an aside that claims re a 'classy' and 'advanced' voting system really should be referenced. (A reference would not affect my opion that this is NN, BTW.} Colonel Tom 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I speak Vietnamese if that means anything. I doubt that a uni student group can be influential in "bring the Vietnamese people .... towards the rest of the world" - can you provide sources that show many people identify their knowledge of Vietnam with VNNTU? Probably awareness between Singapore and Vietnam is due to things like ASEAN, APEC, SEAGames, etc, trading and tourism. Also - "bright and talented" is not particularly relevant unless they have won lots of academic competitions, etc, which does not appear to be the case. As to being "one of the biggest Vietnamsese organisation in a single university in the world", I'm sure this is wrong, the biggest would all be in Vietnam by a long, long way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Worldwide Lexicon[edit]

Non-notable software project. SourceForge status is "alpha"; 0 downloads in the last week. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until it's further developed and becomes notable. Kevin 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Wikipedia is not a crystal ball – Gurch 09:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is little evidence of activity since 2002, but in that year there were quite a few mentions, including some press. Perhaps a mere update of its status is in order? Ziggurat 00:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it was someone's CS research project which didn't get funded. Having a few mentions in print around the time the project starts is typical, and doesn't make it notable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, well, I'm not a fan of notability as a deletion criterion. The question of what level of coverage is appropriate to keep an article is more relevant; and I'm inclined to agree that what's present isn't enough, unless some more info can be found. Ziggurat 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rundernet[edit]

Prodded as Dictdef, neologism. That's contested by the creator who has left a note on the talk page. I don't know if it's factual or if there are racial overtones but either way it seem non-notable to me.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons stated by Dlyons493 Arbiteroftruth 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom – Gurch 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, page withdrawn. Please delete.However I must stress that there were no racial undertones implied.I'm sorry if it was taken that way.Undernet in Romania has become hugely popular and has had a noticable impact on the network, both good and bad, as would be expected from any one country joining a network en masse. Rundernet 23:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HoboWars[edit]

Does not appear to meet the guideline for inclusion of websites. Google search returns 315 unique results, none of them too impresive. While Online Game of the Week and RPG Top Sites - Top 100 Site contests at first give the impression that this may have received critical acclaim, a quick browse shows that these are in fact meaningless with regards to reliable sources. This has had one round at AfD already but the debate was less than scintillating. In the spirit of full disclosure, I've had "eviscerate HoboWars" on my to-do list for ages. That however does not have any impact on the fact that this is one among countless online games, and fails our guideline for websites.
brenneman {L} 08:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Per nom Arbiteroftruth 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom (sorry) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 09:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be accurate. It is "hobowars" with no space. 42,600 results—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.22.230 (talk • contribs) .
    • Aye, thanks for that but there is still nothing signifigant there and even fewer actual hits: 263 unique.
      brenneman {L} 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending any verifiably appropriate sources. Ziggurat 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Hirudo 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete it if you feel the need, but surely there are many other pages that need to be added to your 'eviscerate' list Mr Brenneman. You may want to start with RuneScape and Torn City. In fact, to help you on your quest I've prepared your Todo list for the next few months. You don't want people to think you're biased against one page and not crusading for the good of Wikipedia, do you? -- Weiner 13:22, 30 May 2006 (AEST)
  • Keep per nom. Quite notable as far as online games go.  Grue  19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well articulated nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:14, 3 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 eventology, Eventological language, Event-terrace, Eventological distribution, Glossary of eventology, Set of events and random set of events and Set of random events and random set of events, apparently keep Indicator function, simple function and random element. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventology[edit]

It's self-promotion of User:Helgus, author of most of publications (with a few of graduates). It's non-notable in Russia, and not cited by other people --Vladimir Volokhonsky 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It cannot be found on Google (what CAN be found on Google, besides Wikipedia, is a lot of links to a page about an event-management firm for corporations, with this name). No papers with this word on ArXiv, one paper on MathSciNet, and not by Vorob'ov. Vorob'ov himself does not appear on either of these. Since I can't find any of the cited papers, and presumably couldn't read them if I did find them (since they're in Russian) I can't verify any of the content of the eventology pages. The pages themselves don't say anything besides a bunch of recurring buzzwords, the phrase "new direction in probability theory", and a few unexplained mathematical expressions. Nothing on any of the pages tells me what eventology is, what its results are, what it's used for (barring the grandiose generalities in the introduction to this page). I suggest in addition we delete all the articles in only Category:Eventology, since they appear to be nothing more than vanity pages for Vorob'ov. Ryan Reich 13:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this AfD should be extended to cover the various subpages
  1. Eventological language
  2. Event-terrace
  3. Eventological distribution
  4. Glossary of eventology
  5. Indicator function
  6. Random element
  7. Set of events and random set of events
  8. Set of random events and random set of events
  9. Simple function
and the category Category:Eventology as these pages loose meaning if the main article is deleted. The two struck out items are in category evetology but predate the the Eventology page. No vote on my behalf. --Salix alba (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see at all how random element loses meaning if the eventology article is deleted. After all, it is just describing a random variable taking values in spaces more general than real numbers, and that is certainly a valuable notion used basically everywhere. See my extended comment on "random element" below. --C S (Talk) 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with all of the previous statements including those about extending the AfD to the other articles, for the same reasons that Ryan Reich has stated. MBob 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pseudomathematics. Cedars 10:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles[edit]

So, i'm also nominate subpages of eventological theory as non-notable and non-cited. [16]

  1. Eventological language
  2. Event-terrace
  3. Eventological distribution
  4. Glossary of eventology
  5. Random element
  6. Set of events and random set of events
  7. Set of random events and random set of events

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Volokhonsky (talk • contribs)

    • The last three contain no information regarding eventology. Although they lack sources, they discuss generally accepted terms in probability theory. I urge the nominator to withdraw the last three from further deletion consideration as they border on bad faith. B.Wind 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold the bus!!! piling article onto article into a catch-all nomination throughout a 24 hour period doesn't do justice to the original nomination and to the people who have to check each of these out. Please don't change the nominations so radically over a period if you want any serious discussion with this (or any other) AfD. B.Wind 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it wasn't piling on, but the changes over 24 hours are a bit disconcerting. B.Wind 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except possibly random element which looks like it almost might make sense if I spent more time thinking about it. The definition of random element is claimed to be due to Maurice Frechet, but I can't tell how popular it might be. Maybe I'm piling on ... but, the other nominated articles seem to use a lot of words to not actually say anything that I can grasp; they have general resemblance to topics in topology, measure theory, etc. but fail to indicate how the idea is unique. linas 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete random element, as it is a real term and topic. The Frechet paper is available here (institution subscription maybe necessary). My mathematical French is not so good that I can read this very quickly, but it's basically about random variables with values in metric spaces. In it, he uses the term "random element", and it looks like he's using the term basically as in the random element article. However that is just defining what I believe most people would nowadays just call a random variable (or measurable function with respect to the appropriate algebras). The modern use of "random element" is apparently not quite the same as what Frechet would call it, for example, see the Springer encyclopedia entry. That entry makes it clear that there is indeed something new here, e.g., random element with value in a Banach space is not the same definition as random variable, but involves the dual space. So random element should be rewritten to reflect correct usage, history of the term, and the relevant math content. --C S (Talk) 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the dual space is what the Set of events and random set of events is about, it describes a form of duality between two ways of interpereting the phenomena. --Salix alba (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've cleaned up the article and incorporated some info from the Springer link. I strongly recommend people go and check out the new version. --C S (Talk) 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whats your opinion on the last two, are they similarly salvagable, at first glance the mathematics seems sound. (actually the same article)--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think they have anything really going for them (or it, since they are both the same). Basically some definitions are given, and they appear ok, although it's not clear what the applications are (note: it appears there is at least one typo in the last half, but it's hard to tell, since I don't understand what's happening in the later half of the article). Also, the definitions are basically standard - special cases of the notion of random variable. So I suspect the mathematics is already essentially in the body of Wikipedia, whereas the terminology is non-standard. Random element has a couple of things going for it: 1) it's a real term with some history behind it 2) Usage seems predominantly for random variables taking values in Banach spaces, with a good amount of literature on this topic and using the term "random element". --C S (Talk) 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, is there any connection between Complex Event Processing (CEP) and Eventology. Thanks--67.52.61.50 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i think i'm really carried away with this AfD, because my own statistics experience in psychology allow me only suspect something wrong and para-scientifical in eventological articles... We deleted eventology and some co-articles in ru.wikipedia because of little notability, even for experts.--Vladimir Volokhonsky 06:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it is para-scientifical, just applying a novel approach. Possibly the biggest problem is the name. If the article had been called the theory of random events it would not seem so suspect.--Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist when consensus on article to be listed is reached. --Salix alba (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many thanks for very useful discussion. I am going to rename
  1. Eventology Theory of random events
  2. Eventological language Language of random event theory
  3. Eventological distribution Distribution of a set of events
  4. Glossary of eventology Glossary of random event theory
  5. Set of random events and random set of events Duality between a set of random events and a random set of events

- Helgus 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think the renaming is going to resolve the concerns people have raised. --C S (Talk) 06:15, 1 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 (db author). Tawker 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid sort[edit]

This is counting sort. The algorithm is poorly described here, and the author confessed to have invented the specific form and name of the algorithm described in this article on the talk page (a Google search - which is rather reliable in the area of computer algorithms - confirms that only Wikipedia talks about it under this name). Even if there were something new here, it definitely qualifies as original research. Also, er, for some bizarre reason the article text is an image. Deco 09:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That surely is strange. Are you sure this is just an alias for counting sort? Medico80 09:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty sure, except the description is a bit vague. The author says he showed it to a friend who said the same thing, if that helps. Deco 09:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as original research, and duplication of existing stuff. And WTF is with that image? – Gurch 10:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just found out. Its Commons description page says "Picture of rapid sort descriptino to prevent vandalism." Yeah, and prevent editing - it appears User:[email protected] is trying out some weird ideas. Deco 10:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a similar statement on Talk:Optimal_classification#Cleanup; I think this user honestly believes this is an issue. It's easy enough to replace the image by something else, either in the article or on the image page, so I don't see how this is an issue one way or another. --LambiamTalk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I've replaced the images by text, easy enough to do, which incidentally also improves the layout. --LambiamTalk 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Isn't what is described here a counting variant of Pigeonhole sort? I tried to read Counting sort and it seems different, but I find it hard to understand. After a brief and ambiguous explanation in the lead paragraph, the only description is in C code with so many intrusive low-level comments that I get lost when looking at the actual code. --LambiamTalk 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can delete it or whatever you want to do. I tried to research the counting sort after Black said that's what it was just as I did when someone claimed it was a bucket sort about ten years ago. I have no doubt that someone else has discovered it long before me but I haven’t been able to find that out either. As for it being original research as the basis for its deletion go ahead I can't prove that it is not and in fact I worked on it for a very long time before it became the sort you now see. This raises another question. I thought that no original research applied only to a situation in which the claim about the research was invalid or could not be verified versus simply the person who did the work or made the discovery not publishing it on the Wiki. I mean if something is verifiably correct then what's the problem? Oh well bottom line for me is that the Rapid sort is what I ended up with when I tried to improve another sort after many, many, many days and nights and weeks and month trying to make that other sort better. Okay so do whatever you guys want it truely makes no difference to me. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) PS By the way I just through that part in there about it being a variation of the Pigeonhole sort but honestly I have no idea. I was just in a hurry to get it posted so I could go on to something else. My guess is that you guys will figure out what to do without any further help from me. ...IMHO (Talk) 18:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pce3. I realize it's disappointing, but regardless of its veracity it really does still qualify as original research, because it's a publication of your own ideas that have never before been exposed in any other forum to public scrutiny. Also, I'm pretty much certain it is exactly counting sort, which is an O(n) time sort, and is often the best choice of sort for elements with a very small range like your 1..4 numbers. It's not used in place of sorts like quicksort because it doesn't work well for elements that take on a very large range of values, such as arbitrary 32-bit integers - the array would have to have 232 entries. I agree that the counting sort article could definitely use some work. Deco 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again if you guys want to deprive others of the knowledge of this sort then go ahead. It does not matter to me. As for previous publication I published it on the Internet in at least 1996 and the only response I got was an email suggesting it was a bucket sort and I have never heard of a counting sort prior to hearing about it here. So as tight lipped as the ACM and IEEE and other such organizations are it could very well have been created and filed away long before my efforts resulted in its creation back in 1972. so have at it. If you don't want others to know that it exists fine with me. Hide it, burry it, paint it do whatever you want I can still enjoy the very elegant result of my hard labors without any further ado. Whatever you decide will only make a difference to others and will not make any difference to me. 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC) And PS again... As for being a memory hog that it is but then imagine an Internet protocol (why they didn't think of this one back then is a stretch for me) like a the echo of time or quote for sorting on the basis of the Rapid sort such that you simply enumerate you data like converting an "A" to ascii 65 and then using that enumeration as an Internet address which when done returns a count. Doing it that way would allow you to avoid incrementing through all of the addresses that had zero count values. Call it the Sort Port! When used properly the Internet can be a great place! ...IMHO (Talk) 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also I now have a "new" category name for this sort. I now call it an address sort. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from creating redirects (address sort) for names that you invented - there isn't really a standardized name for a search that depends on indexing using element values, although maybe there should be. I would just call them "indexing-based searches" - there's a table of them at sorting algorithm that you edited. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your Internet protocol analogy, but the ideas of radix sort generalize counting sort in a way that eliminates the large memory requirement by looking at a single "digit" at a time. Deco 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless the notability of this sorting method can be shown. There are literally thousands of sorting methods, many are very obscure variants. I do not know if this is obscure or not, but the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep an article in cases of notibility. HighInBC 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Not Delete Why? It occurs to me that while I don't care for myself if the article is deleted that I do care for anyone who might want to further research the possibility of overcoming the "zero" problem such as by the method of time delay or who knows what someone might come up with? For this reason I think you need to leave this article alone especially since the sort can be implemented in hardware where the "zero" problem can be handled in a different way than with software and where even incrementing through all of the zeros will be accomplished exceptionally fast. Think in terms of a sort chip, if you will. I am also including here below the discussion with DECO he moved to my talk page. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're interested in sorting hardware, see sorting networks, which are exponentially faster than the solution you describe (O(log n) sorting time). Deco 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A hardware sort based on sending the data to the address bus of a random access memory is far superior to and different from a sorting network which is defined as follows: "A sorting network is an abstract model of a network of wires and comparator modules that is used to sort a sequence of numbers." Unlike the "sorting network" the Rapid sort (or Instant sort as is the name of its hardware version) is not an abstract model but a real and working hardware based sort routine which can blow away any other sort you can come up with whether hardware based or not. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(The following discussion with DECO is being moved from my talk page to here.) ...IMHO (Talk) 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more details on counting sort[edit]

Hi Pce3. Just to emphasize that I harbour you no ill will, I've scanned a description of Counting Sort from the seminal textbook Introduction to Algorithms. They don't cite a particular researcher who came up with it, but the book was first published in 1990 and mostly describes classical results from the 1970s. I think if you take a little time to read it you'll realize that what it describes is very much the same idea that you describe. Bucket sort and pigeonhole sort are variations on these ideas. If you'd like to incorporate some of your ideas or implementations into the counting sort article, that would be great. Please keep editing, and keep thinking about algorithms too! Deco 19:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research efforts on my behalf but I have already decided to reclassify the Rapid sort as an address sort. Thanks anyway. I will however read your material. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've looked at the material and here is my conclusion. My work on the rapid sort began with an effort to improve the Shell-Metzner sort. I wrote this up when I published it on the Internet in 1996. I may even have a record of each step that was taken but they led me to this idea of simply using the data to address memory. Although there is a similarity with the counting sort in that the data in one array is used as an index in another array which is incremented the difference is that my goal was to both maximize speed and to achieve ultimate simplicity since at that time my favorite endeavor was logical equation reduction. Since I had already started from a sort that compared data I was enthused when it turned out that what I was working with did not require a comparison at all. Furthermore since my goal was to eliminate excessive baggage I in fact recall abandoning the idea of using more than one array or even a multi-dimensional array to accomplish the sort. My goal was to reach an end point which this sort represented rather than to then expand upon this idea and add multi-dimensions or other arrays, etc. Why you ask? Again my goal was to find the ultimate sort which the Rapid sort represents. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some implementation differences - namely, you directly use the input list as it is generated instead of an input array, you print your output instead of storing it in an output array, and you don't perform the intermediate loop on the array which the book is just showing for exposition (most implementations I've seen don't have it). But these are not big differences. As you can see, they also don't use comparisons or multidimensional arrays either. I understand that you're very attached to this algorithm that you've committed a lot of time to thinking about, but it's really nothing new and it's not appropriate for sorting elements that take on a large number of values, not only because of the memory required for the array but because of the time required for the final loop. There is no simple way to "remove the zeros" without increasing the complexity. Deco 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have not read my further reply to this argument on the Rapid sort deletion talk page so I will repeat it here. Assuming that even though there may not be a client computer or server with a Sort port (similar to an echo or quote port) such capability can be provided by even the router that is home for a particular range of addresses. The idea being that the router or server or client computer returns a count that corresponds with each [identical] address that was sent. The trick then becomes how to get the counts back in sequential order. This can be accomplished simply by implementing return of the count on the basis of a schedule derived from the address [(converted data)] that was sent with a sufficient interval to overcome all types of potential delay. The same scheme could be [implemented] locally and even within the same computer that sent the data as an address with far more certainty [and precision] of the interval being long enough. Instead of an address sort you could call this a time delay sort. Also did I mention that I implemented this sort using random access memory and that an integrated chip that would do test for none zero memory and do the incrimination as well would probably beat any other method that can be implemented in hardware or software? ...IMHO (Talk) 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd prefer to discuss it here that's okay. First I'll say that even if this "port sort" idea were novel research, it still counts as original research - we describe things that are well-known (see Wikipedia:Notability), not things that we come up with on our own. For sort algorithms, this usually means they have to be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal or conference.
As for the idea itself, it's a fun idea, but unfortunately does not yield a speed improvement - the key problem is that the nodes are unaware of one another. Just think of the case where there's two values, one the smallest and one the largest. The largest could not send its count as soon as the smallest has finished, because it doesn't know that the nodes for the intervening values don't have counts to send. To be correct, they'd each have to be allocated a time slot, requiring the same time as counting sort. Besides the fact that overhead makes it entirely impractical. Deco 22:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(End of discussion move.)

Only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware...[edit]

Why would anyone want to delete an article about the only sort routine that can be implemented directly in hardware? ...IMHO (Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not. It's not even a particularly good hardware sort algorithm. Deco 03:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except? You forgot to show an actual exception much less a superior (and actual) hardware sort. You ever build a hardware sort? I didn't think so. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also everyone please comment on whether you think this method qualifies as original research or whether it qualifies as a counting sort. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just a special case of counting sort and has no interesting features. It's usefulness is limited by assuming that the data consists only of keys, and not of records that include a key together with other things. That assumption is the only reason it looks simpler. I've used exactly this method in programs since the 1970s and I'm certain that I didn't think of it first either. McKay 06:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already Deleted B.Wind 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Khah Gek[edit]

A school principal, who sounds like she's achieved a lot for the school she heads, but under the bar of notability for an encyclopedia. -- Longhair 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Pretty hot for a headmistress though Bwithh 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember WP:TOE. ;-) —CuiviénenT|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 16:39 UTC
  • Merge to Victoria Junior College. —CuiviénenT|C|@, Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 16:39 UTC
  • Merge to Victoria Junior College. --Starionwolf 18:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And don't merge (her "achievements" listed on this page are significantly over-hyped – I can't see why the Victoria Junior College page needs to note that during the tenure of its current principal they've added air-conditioning, made some largely cosmetic rennovations to the campus, and gained a certification that many other schools in Singapore had already achieved). Singopo 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Singopo. Armon 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll spring for a merge savidan(talk) (e@) 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "In the future, everyone will have fifteen minutes of fame" -- WP is not that future. I actually thought it was an alternate romanization of Chiang Kai-shek. Fearwig 23:28, 4 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Jain/Temp[edit]

We already have Meenal Jain Anshuk 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete --Melaen 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge contents (except any copyvio) and delete.--Jusjih 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: ditto as above. --Bootblack 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork of Meenal Jain. Doesn't add any sourced information to the contents of the other article, therefore a merge is unnecessary. Ziggurat 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ToneSwep[edit]

Notability problem. Appears to be an unpublished writer. His crime series is unknown outside this article[17], the person himself doesn't do much better[18][19][20]. The article cites a "Tone's Corner" which mentions the name (I can't parse the text though - "Molten. Lava."???) Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep all schools delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argyle Academy[edit]

No evidence of notability supplied, and no reliable sources either. It appears to be an online comic. Google wasn't much help either. - Motor (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of football teams by World Cup performance[edit]

Original Research. A very nice idea, but rules are rules. – Elisson • Talk 11:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, interesting but original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 13:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pity to delete it just like that. Transfer to Adhocipedia. --LambiamTalk 14:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (WP:NOR). — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It should be noted that the info in the page; except for the 'points system' is all avialable elsewhere on Wikipedia --Robdurbar 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or userfy at least. Fascinating, but OR, sadly. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to All-time FIFA World Cup results table (or something like that). Mariano(t/c) 08:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. Furthermore, I would not have used the same rules ;-)--Panairjdde 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should rank the teams by total points (2 or 3 for a win, 1 for a draw). Those are official, unlike this. Chanheigeorge 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ... regrettably as I do find it interesting but it is against policy. -- Alias Flood 00:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify Just assign 3 points to a win and one to a draw, redo table, that shouldn't be original research (correct me if I'm wrong). --Emilio floris 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still there![edit]

After this article is deleted, if anyone still wants to view the information contained in it, they may do so at my user page. Thank you. --Mark J 19:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing the update in a few weeks time! Grutness...wha? 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do so as soon as the FIFA official rankings are made available (which may take some time). By the way, if anyone knows of any place where this information could be made freely available, without people taking offence at it, please let me know. --Mark J 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is taking offence at it, it is just that originial research is not for Wikipedia. Just think about the gigantic page we would have for the ranking if anyone would be allowed to add their own system. For your question about a place where you could place the info, User:Lambiam recommended Adhocipedia in his comment above. – Elisson • Talk 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Thanks. --Mark J 08:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization[edit]

Unable to verify WP:CORP or WP:WEB via a neutral source. All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits. Related article Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals has the same problem and is also nominated for deletion. BigE1977 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for clarification's sake, I'm not sure what you mean by "All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits." When I look at the results of a search in Google for the organization, I see 360,000 results for a search of the organization's name (SEMPO), the vast majority appear to be from sites that are not affiliated with SEMPO. It sounds like you are saying that the organization is responsible for many, if not most of those. But I don't think that they are. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.Bill Slawski 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP per nom. Even their own press page has only 2 articles, one of which doesn't mention the article subject. Kevin 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some controversy within the wikipedia on the notability deletion policy. I created the entry for the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization and added to it once. Rather than others building upon the entry, I'm seeling threats to delete it. I am not a member of the organization, but I'm growing a little disgusted by deletion policy based upon notibility. Would you care to define the notibility policy for me in the context of this organization? Have you even bothered to research the topic, or is there a bias in your approach here? I couldn't care less about the amount of Google hits the organization receives, but I had an interest in trying to help improve the wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Bill Slawski 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've included SEMPO in this discussion for deletion, too. Is there personal bias in this action to delete? Would you delete the SEO article, too? I'm asking because I've been trying to add to that article in a positive manner, and from what I've seen here, it may just be a wasted effort.Bill Slawski 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've no idea what you're talking about. This the AfD entry for the SEMPO article, as you can see by the title above. In any case, if you want this article to stay you should point out the reason that the company is deserving of an article in an encyclopedia. WP:CORP spells out the notability stuff around corporations pretty well. As is often said: the Wikipedia does not and can not have an article on every single thing under the sun (I've been using the example of the nonexistant Consumed Crustacean's Left Foot article), hence the notability deletions. You just need to prove why the company is notable, using non-primary (unaffiliated) sources. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is due to the fact that someone added an additional organization and wikipedia entry to this one (Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals), discussing both as if they were the same organization. The discussions regarding each should probably be bifurcated - they are not related organizations.
Also, the WP:CORP notability requirements don't seem like a very good fit for non profits. You're unlikely to find a nonprofit on the Forbes or Fortune 500, nor product or service reviews for an industry trade group, and stock market indices don't exist for non stock corporations. Perhaps a better measuring stick for a nonprofit, consumer and industry educational group is whether or not the information they share is widely cited. The list of external resouces I created below is only a small listing of many of the places where SEMPO's information has been disseminated by non-affiliated organizations. Hopefully the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Business Week, Red Herring, and the others I listed are non trivial enough. This seems to fit the first requirement of the WP:CORP notability requirements Bill Slawski 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nominator is correct in that the subject cannot be independently verified to be notable. Kuzaar 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would references to the organization in places like the Register make a difference? Just curious? Not familiar enough with the practices here enough yet to know. cheers. Bill Slawski 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some non-trivial resources for SEMPO (If you would like more, let me know):

Since the group is a non profit organization, it is impossible for them to meet any of the criteria under that prong of the non notable test.

Thanks. (sorry - thought I was logged in) Bill Slawski 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your sources are misleading. The first article I clicked, for example, the CNN article (Google: Biting the Hand that Feeds It?) not only failed to establish SEMPO's notability, but also consisted only of the president of SEMPO talking about a notable company. Additionally, note that WP:CORP requires the company itself to be the subject of the multiple nontrivial publications, not that the publications contain material quoted from said company. Kuzaar 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment: It's not my intent to mislead, and I don't believe those resources are misleading. CNN wouldn't choose a non-notable organization as a subject matter expert in instances like that, nor would the New York Times, the New York Post, Business Week, the Register, Red Herring, and so on. The surveys that SEMPO has released over the past couple of years have been covered as newsworthy material from notable sources, on topics such as click fraud, online advertising spending, and developing trends in online use and advertising. A number of the sources I listed above include information about those.
They are a nonprofit, and a large part of what they do involves the creation and dissemination of information like that, and in providing a voice for people active in internet advertising. It's the equivalent of being a member of the Fortune 500 for an organization like them to be included in places like CNN, speaking on topics like that. I am not a member of SEMPO, and I likely won't become one. I have no bias, and if you decide to delete this article, it's more your loss than mine. Cheers.
Two thirds of the criteria for the three pronged test for notability under WP:CORP are not appropriate, and do not apply to a nonprofit organization. Perhaps a new standard should be created to judge whether or not those organizations should be considered notable or not, for purposes of inclusion in the wikipedia.
Let me also add that I bothered to try to do some research, and provide some sources that may be deemed trivial or non trivial instead of just making a statement that there were no independently verifiable sources. You may not like the resources I provided, but I'd ask you to consider them seriously instead of just dismissing them out of hand.
One sad fact about this process of pointing to printed resources that are available on the web is that those resources often have gated walls where material is hidden behind subscription based archives. So, for instance, I didn't look at the full text of the article from the New York Times, nor did I include a couple of other articles from Business Week or other resources where one would have to pay to access that information. Perhaps this comment is more appropriate as a comment on the notability requirements at WP:CORP, but it's still a valid criticism here, too.Bill Slawski 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated by my comment below, I am "on the fence." Are there any independent articles which have SEMPO as its subject instead of "on background"? You mention the New York Times and the Business Week, but if there such an article in those (or Washington Post, etc.), the name of the organization would appear in the summary. Find one or more of these and it's very likely that I wouldn't be the only one convinced that the article should stay. B.Wind 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I did an extensive post for SEMPO (Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization) over 2 months ago - which was subsequently removed. It was about the history and impact the organization has made in the timely world of search advertising (ie Google and Yahoo and MSN PPC). This non-profit organization has helped make marketers understand that the world of search engine marketing a visible and viable method of advertising. The term SEMPO has entered into the lexicon for 'what Google sells'. It is a classic non-profit industry or trade (if you will) association that deserves an entry into Wikipedia. The research conducted by the organization alone is reason for entry.

More Marketers Concerned About Click Fraud

Search Engine Ads Garner 5.7 Billion in 2005

US Search Engine Marketers Spent $5.75 Billion in 2005, Says SEMPO

It is a worldwide presence - SEMPO Japanese Research Report

Even if the entry is just a pointer to the industry it represents, that would be valuable. The original extensive entry was deleted and now lost in the 'deletion land' thus depriving wikipedia of this important knowledge. Sad that we have come to this.

Other industry organizations have a presence in Wikipedia and this should be no exception: [Direct marketing association], [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers], etc.

  • Comment. I'm not sure enough on this subject to vote a "keep", but the fact that SEMPO's studies are being picked up by various independent news websites (and IIRC one made it through Slashdot and the like) does seem to indicate some notability under WP:CORP. They weren't merely press releases either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Petros471 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think WP:CORP was written with non-profits in mind, but in any case the coverage they get in leading news outlets is enough to convince me of notability. If that is not enough, isn't the SEMPO's being sponsored by no less than MSN, Yahoo!, Verizon and Google a sure sign that this is not grandstanding? --LambiamTalk 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral while the article doesn't truly indicate anything but its sponsors (and notable sponsors do not necessarily mean that the organization is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia), I am not sure one way or another if this nonprofit organization is supposed to have an article here. What makes the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, NAACP, JSTOR, FIDOF, Enough Is Enough, or Boys and Girls Town separate enough from the other nonprofits to merit articles? I don't know; thus the neutral vote. B.Wind 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:CORP criteria for companies/corporations 1, among things. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lambiam and Consumed Crustacean. -- DS1953 talk 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. A great big thank you to all the Cholmelians who made Highgate Deletion Day 2006 such a rambunctious success! Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate School Muck Up Day 2006[edit]

Non-notable event, unverifiable. -- Tangotango 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Per nom Arbiteroftruth 10:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn event. - Longhair 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteHow can you delete this?! It's an historic event, and well known by many in the London fraternity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete an unofficial event at a single school could never be notable. Might actually be a subtle form of attack page by implicating those named at the end of the article in being involved with vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost BJAODN? DarthVader 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 16:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true. --Starionwolf 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable school event. It might be worthwhile on having an article on Muck Up Days as they are a common custom at least in Australia. We had one at our school for the final day before the NSW High School Certificate at Mulwaree High School. Capitalistroadster 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd point you to the article, but I don't want to violate WP:BEANS. --Rory096 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I like DarthVader's suggestion of BJAODN. Molerat 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I feel, along with many that this is a valuable page, not only is it informative, it had no vandalism involved within it(as all events were tidied up that same day), and the school were fine with everything that happened, and even sponsored many of the events that took place. This should remain on Wikipedia, as it is educational for other schools, and in order to inform those who do not know about or what a //Muck-up Day// is. Please do not delete this as it represents a memorable and historic year for Highgate School and it's history.The event is clearly true, and can be further proven by the photographs. why is this a non-notable event or an article that falls under "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense"? Having read both articles for both notability and BJAODN, it clearly doesn't fall into either category! within our school, and most other public schools in the country, a muck up day is common for every final year on the last day. The day consisted of fun, no vandalism and pure enjoyment between teachers and students. Within the discussion section, people are arguing for their desire for the article to NOT be deleted.jackp59
  • Do not delete -- Details about this event should be published for others to read about. There is very limited information available about Muck-up days on Wikipedia, on the internet or even published anywhere. Could I request that User:Starionwolf classifies his comment that "I do feel bad for the kids if the event is true". Also that User:Starblind classifies his comment that it is a 'subtle form of attack page', and where he thinks any vandalism took place? -- Payneo 01:16, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable event (before someone comments that I only have a few edits, please see my talk page as this is a new account, thanks) --Tim1988 09:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete -- How can you even think about deleting this?! This is a notable event for thousands in the North London area! Many people want to hear about this event and other muck-up days in general - and at the moment, there is a serious manque (as the French would say) of informative articles. This is a very important event for many people, and the fact that some people are considering this for deletion offends and frankly disgusts me. -- Dave 12:02, 30 May 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete. Non-notable event. Markb 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteDon't know why this would be deleted, its all factual and will be read by thousands of people.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.80.86 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteIt was an important day for all who were involved and deserves to be remembered in history. It really was special... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.kennedy (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deletePersonally I feel that the contribution is worthwhile, and will be widely admired, read and is a brilliant article describing a truely memorable occasion, please fo not delete this article, User: Jackp59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteThis item tells much about the changing nature of the British Public School (oddly in the United Kingdom Public Schools are Private Schools for historical Reasons.) We have all been left with an impression of the dark and dingy days of the Public School in the days of "Tom Brown's Schooldays." Here we see a lively and vibrant community. Don't delete such an informative piece. ivanalias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteFollowing the statement "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.", changes have been made to this item in order to improve the introduction. Does it require more alterations and aditional comments??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteA memorable day that has been celebrated throughout London's school community, an example of this supposedly unofficial event practiced throughout the UK should not go unnoticed on an online encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiej (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteThis is a truely worthwhile page and links nicely to Muck-up day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackp59 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteAs another comment states, all that is written in this article is factual account of the day's true events. None of the material is crude or explicit, merely a record of a day that means so much to so may people. Deleting such a page would therefore prove to be unnecessary and unfair on all those who wish to reminice about such an enjoyable occasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.169.188 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not deleteSurely the number of comments on this page demonstrates the 'importance of the subject matter'. It was not only an important day in the history of one of the oldest educational institutions in Britain, in the history of the tradition of muck-up day, but also hugely important to all those who witnessed the day and were involved in it.b
  • Do not delete -- I am a keen wikipedian and one who was a witness of the event. In my, humble, opinion, it has a right to be on wikipedia as it was the most successful muck up day for a long time and the culmination of 13 years of highgate for many students. However, perhaps what makes it stand out most is that it marked the first completion of a co-educational 6th form- something which defied hundreds of years of highgate's history and made this day so monumental. This is certainly a notable event. Seb. SebM 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete-- An important memory for all those involved. The actions that took place on the day were in no way insulting or demeaning to any party and the spirit of the day was enacted in a manner which was light-hearted and regarded well by both teachers and students alike. Given the significant amount of time and effort put into the events of the day, i do not see why the event should not be recorded on this website. It offends no one and those wishing for it to be deleted need to understand that the memory of the day is important for the students, for the teachers, and for the future Highgate School pupils. This article is not promoting or advertising an act of vandalism, but an act of celebration and unity amongst the pupils. 86.142.25.244 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Dean M[reply]
  • Do not delete -- I cannot see any good and justifiable reason for deleting this page - it is far better constructed and referenced than many other so-called "legitimate" events pages on wikipedia. The event was very real, and marked an important milestone of the first cohort of girls to graduate from highgate. It was also a very special day for all involved. This is certainly a most notable event!! Luc
  • Do not delete -- Definitely a notable event, and one which a site like wikipedia should record the history of. Would be a shame for something as enjoyable and fun as this to be lost in the sands of time. Worthy of record. SidVonDagger87.80.30.125 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not verifiable, and too POV. Great material for a personal page; inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Best of luck to the authors in moving it elsewhere. --William Pietri 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muck up. Delete. CalTech Ditch Day is much more verifiable and notable, and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interesting to note that all these 'keen wikipedians', with their strong views on what should, or should not be included, don't know that the convention is to argue for keep, NOT do not delete. Markb 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oddly, a lot of anons and whatnot who come to WP for AfDs say "do not delete." I wonder why. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke it to the moon. High schools are barely notable, their pranks certainly are not. --Rory096 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm awestruck of the effort you put in to the whole thing, and the potential deletion of the article doesn't negate that. You have plenty of memories already of the event, however. Try not to stress too much about it. --0zymandias 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete IT WAS JUST A BIT OF FUN! LET US CHOMELIANS HAVE A WAY TO REMEMBER OUR LAST EVER DAY OF SCHOOL! Hugo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.102.1 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I see no reason as to why this article is up for deletion. Wikipedia, in essence, is exactly what its slogan says it is i.e. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Encyclopedia's are a source of information and tend to be useful resources. However, Wikipedia, as highlighted by Payneo, has limited information on Muck-up days in general and I see absolutely no reason why this article cannot be used as a prime example of what muck-up days should be about: having fun, having a laugh and making it one of the most memorable days of the school calender. This particular muck-up day is a milestone in Highgate School's history, as it is the first time that girls have participated in the tradition and this surely makes it a notable event, as not only does it mark the start of the evolution within Highgate but also shows how far Highgate has come not only as a school but as a community. I beg to differ and would like to ask User:Starblind where and in what form the "vandalism" actually took place? Also, User:Starblind goes on to say that Muck-up day is an "unofficial event at a single school". However, this statement is false as A) it is a traditional event at Independant Schools in the UK and so B) occurs at schools nationwide and internationally as User:Capitalistroadster points out that they had on at Mulwaree High School in Australia. I hope that all these factors are taken into consideration and are acknowledged when deciding the outcome of this article. Alem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.93.98 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The muck up day was purely a day of enjoyment between friends and teachers, and anybody saying that this should be deleted is appaling because it hasd nothing to do with them and the names for-mentioned have done nothing that would incriminate themselves.DON'T DELETE!!bassyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.28.95 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Entirely accrurate site. Provides Factual list of Events, Menus and People. No names that have been mentioned have done so without consent. Photos prove accuracy of comments, and the fact that the day happened. Link to general muck up day information provided. Notable event for general population of North London, notable event for all public school pupils in England,notbale event for the OC Society, link provided. Inoffensive, Accurate and Notable. Surely this meets all criteria. Also please notice that the people creating the page have acted entirely honourabley in producing it, and also made every effort to meet criteria, notable adding footnotes on your request, adding sources, adding tiotles and clarity and now offering 3 paragraphs on the importance of the event. Thegreatbriton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatbriton (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid it's not a site, it's an article in an encylopedia. It seems like it belongs on its own website, many companies offer free hosting for this kind of stuff. I can see you made an effort, but unfortunately the event does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. Molerat 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Wikia might even host an entire wiki just for your school, if you want. --Rory096 16:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above "Do not delete" votes and per nom. feydey 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is historical man. these bois r top top jokerz. this is crapypedia if they don't let this article stay up. dis is d bombest article on d ole of wiki(d)pedia. it only wikidpedia if u let dis article stay up boi- or else it's crappypedia n i wont eva chat to u again. Seriously i wil terminate my relationship wit previously-widi(d)pedia. Trust boi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.115.251 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Right. Must not have been too much of a relationship, since this is your first edit. But you are always welcome here. Anyway, delete as a totally non-notable event at one school. Grandmasterka 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so some ppl think this is a joke, however, i've said on numerous occasions that this article shouldn't be deleted, and fair enough you may think it is a non notable event, how can I prove that it was? Some people are taking the piss, but in all seriousness, how can we keep this article on wikipedia? jackp59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.47.250 (talk • contribs)

  • It doesn't belong here. However, if you don't want to lose all your hard work (and a lot of effort has been put into the article), I recommend you save the article on your hard drive (to keep a copy after deletion) and resurrect it on an external website. Rory096 suggested Wikia hosting an entire wiki just for your school. I think that's a good idea. Molerat 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteWhile this article may seem to be of limited importance I would argue that this is not the case. From reading what is frankly a very well written and witty account I have a number of observations. Firstly with over 100 people involved in the proceedings it seems that this page is not without a solid base of interested viewers. Secondly, coming from England I am well aware of the tradition of muck-up days and it is in this light that I believe this page is of great use. Many pupils take the opportunity of leaving school to cause violence to the local community, run riot and generally create unberable havoc. However the ideas used by the Highgate pupils were neither destructive nor troublesome to locals or staff. Therefore if in future years pupils searched wikipedia for inspiration for their own muck-up days then Highgate school seems like an exemplary example to follow. A final point I would add is the standard of written English in the article would no doubt also act as something which more unruly pupils (who would have already been disuaded from dangerous actions) could learn something from. Well written and commendable, i hope this is not deleted.86.138.120.15 14:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept of a muck up day is a historic and traditional one that has very few articles written on it. This article provides an excellent account of a muck up day that is valuable for all. The event can be verified and the article is informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.3.52 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comment. This event happens at schools worldwide annualy. This event is not made up in one day, its got centuries of history behind it, as is explained on the site Thegreatbriton 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The greatbriton[reply]

  • This is not original research, it adds detail to something that is already present on Wikipedia.Payneo 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and have fun closing this monster. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all above delete votes. Zaxem 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zaxem, I would like to remind you that this is NOT a vote.Payneo 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Votes" was a bad choice of words. What I meant to say was that I agree with all the comments made above in support of deletion. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every annual "muck-up day" in every school around the world – and nothing in this article suggest that this muck-up day was more significant than the many thousands of others. Zaxem 09:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article provides a prime example of a successful muck up day. Other than this article Wikipedia has less than 100 words about muck up days - events that are part of a tradition for many secondary schools in the UK and across the world (in particular Australia). There is very little published information anywhere for those wanting to find out more about muck up days; this supplys those interested with a great illustration of one. Payneo 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This would be a good argument for expanding the Muck-up day article on Wikipedia to include more general information about the type of things that commonly happen at muck-up days around the world. But it's not a reasonable argument to justify why Wikipedia should have an article about one specific muck-up day at one individual school whose muck-up days are not any more significant than those at any other school around the world which has them. Zaxem 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The event is unverifiable by the standards of Wikipedia (it cannot be verified by a reputable publisher), and it is not notable (I doubt the event concerns thousands of people, and anyway, many other events concerning thousands of people do not have articles). Molerat 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cannot be verified"??? 500 pictures will not have been faked 'Molerat'...your argument seems to revolve around the fact that other, more significant events do not have wikis - this is a non sequitur. The article itself also points out that it is of interest to both the many thousands of Old Cholmelians and much of the North London community. It is time to remove the chip from your shoulder and get rid of your prejudices against private schools and their 'traditions'. It is only by working from the bottom-up that Wikipedia serves its purpose. This is my vision of the Wikipedia of the future.Keep129.67.43.240 23:39, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cultural Revolution (webcomic)[edit]

An Alexa ranking of almost 5 million [21] and the first two hits on Google are this article [22] with no other relevant hits until the second search page and then nothing after that. The one site other than the homepage that it is featured on, The 7th level, was recently deleted for being non notable. IrishGuy 12:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Cecil[edit]

I don't think an obscure Shabutie song that few people have heard of really warrants a page of it's own page. Only the most die hard Coheed and Cambria fans would even care about the song. Possibly falls under vanity too. Also seems to be full of unreferened facts/rumours. Prehaps some of the info could be merged to Plan to Take Over the World? Rehevkor 13:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Massacres[edit]

I have neither particular historical knowledge of, nor interest in, the Armenian-Turk, Greco-Turk, Bulgarian-Turk etc. conflicts, and the associated historical grievances. This article, though, is a mess of propagandistic and of course blatantly POV invective regarding alleged massacres in the course of these conflicts. The sources cited are either not online or clearly partisan, and are at any rate not specific to the individual allegations. I realise AfD is not a content dispute forum, but I think that this sort of text cannot be usefully NPOVed (or merged), and that the article itself is a POV fork of the existing articles on the history of these conflicts. An article on "Turkish Massacres" (or rather, "Massacres of Turks", which is what is meant) during many very different conflicts has no systematic value to the encyclopedian, only to the propagandist. (Contested PROD, of course.) Sandstein 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the more notable cases that can be properly sourced into Genocides in history while assuring NPOV treatment (which I think is quite possible if you have access to the sources, which I do not). --LambiamTalk 14:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article is a bit too one sided and serves to counter the claims made in the Armenian Genocide article. There's information that reads that Armenians attempted to assassinate the leader of Turkey in 1901, Sultan Abdul-Hamid. However, it doesn't include as to why they did it (see Hamidian massacres) and leaving that information out is like writing an article on Germany and stating that in July 1944, some Germans decided to arbitrarily assassinate Adolf Hitler -- as if for no apparent reason! This article can be tidied up by using better references but in its current state, I motion for it to be removed.--MarshallBagramyan 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bombing of Dresden in World War II is an uber Holocaust compared to any resistance against Turkish/Kurdish forces done by either Greeks or Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This is most definetly a pov fork. I suppose an article about the resistance should exist but not in this ridiculous state and with this absurd title.--Eupator 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the article is just a list of grievances without historical context or explanation. --Benorim 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article has presented a set of largely isolated incidents as a series of atrocities committed against the Turks. While they did happen, this article is inherently POV as it only presents one side of things. I think an article like this is redundant, but if one should exist, it should list all atrocities committed in the area - by Turks and non-Turks alike. --Telex 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, especially blatant unsourced statement for Bulgarians killing (rather than more likely displacing) 2 million Turks, even greater conspiracy than other known genocides?  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. And a comment: perhaps the editors of this article tried hard to find massacres committed by the Greeks, that's why they listed even a battle (Dervenakia) there!!! The words 'massacre' and 'genocide' have definitions that cannot be compatible with this article... --Hectorian 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hakob 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. I have to admit it provided entertaining reading. These guys try to spin the unspinnable. We all know the massacres happened the other way! --   Avg    09:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't a shred of truth to that article.--Moosh88 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I was the PRODer). Not fitting into structure of articles about Turkish history as a start. Pavel Vozenilek 02:18, 2 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. Flowerparty☀ 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Plot Sequence of House (TV Series)[edit]

I was going to speedy this as OR, but then I noticed that the page creator has previously been involved in a dispute on the main House article about this exact section: namely, whether or not it counts as OR. After all, he says on the talk page, it's observable fact - you can get this information just by watching episodes of the show.

But it really doesn't feel right. What say you, o brethren? And as importantly, what are your reasons? DS 13:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmmm. As an avid fan of this superb show (and I spend less than 3 hours a week watching television....) I would have to say that it appears to be true but the article's main problem is that it lacks citation; to be "typical", 50% or more of the shows would have to follow this pattern exactly and the article would have to show this. That could make it very, very long indeed. I don't know either actually - I agree that it feels unencyclopedic but I find it hard to grudge. Meh, a weak keep with citation required but I'll get back to you. Interesting nomination. Ac@osr 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- 9cds(talk) 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading about the original research/no sources, I think I'll change my vote to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge This is absolutely Original Research if the only reference given is "its obvious if you watch the show". Also, it is Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a fan forum Bwithh 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--StevenL 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - This should be dealt with in the main article. ScottW 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious stuff that it is okay to get from watching a TV show would be things like a character's name, appearance and maybe background. Analyzing episodes and coming up with a formula for the plots is clearly original research. If it is fairly accurate, that just makes it good original research. -- Kjkolb 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amusing, but definitely original research, and POV in that it insinuates that the program (which I have never seen) is predictably written. —phh (t/c) 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Merge per WP:NOR. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With the main article about the series. Bryce 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. If the creator cited third party sources as references, that would be a different story. 23skidoo 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This is information pertinent to the series and reflects valid criticism and thematic structure. NeoThe1 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh -- Hirudo 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the show but come on, this is fancruft at its finest. The house page branches out into too many silly articles as it is. Policy based reasons include: POV, original research. --TrollHistorian 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; but if it actually cited a list of episodes which followed this "Typical Plot Sequence" (and the Unnecessary Titular Capitalisation were removed) to prove that it is indeed typical, I'd vote "keep". --Jacj 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of House (TV Series); This article is very accurate - and that is obervable if you watch it. I find it difficult to call it 'Original Research' when all that has been done is highlight specific details of the show. It is thus difficult to find sources for (hence I sway) - it could be prefaced with some caveat about being subjective (some viewers believe...) as long as reference to some episondes that follow this trend are added, I see no reason to delete it...
  • Delete and place a brief summary of the article in House (TV Series). Cigarette 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge This is clearly Original Research. It's content created by an editor to illustrate their point and has no place in an encyclopdia. If you could find a reference where David Shore explains the formula for writing House, that would be acceptable. This isn't even close. Elwood00 T | C 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge The entire article is original research and the authors point of view. It should be deleted and not merged with the House article. dposse 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no real point in merging: it's an unlikely search term. The obviously OR-ness of this article aside, I'm torn over the question of whether the original article could contain somewhat of information about the typical plot. I'm not that familiar with House but it seems like, for example, elemements that are common to each episode can be notable and verifiable. For example, each Simpson's episode starting with Bart drawing on the chalk board. But that doesn't appear to be the level of magnitude that we are dealing with here. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:20, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JUGSU[edit]

delete non notable internet phenomenon, prod tag removed Melaen 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete This page was blanked by creator [23], and IMO can be classed as a creator's request to delete. Computerjoe's talk 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Jusjih 15:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom - Erebus555
  • Delete per nom. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - blanked by author, restored by computerjoe with popups. B.Wind 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per others. Grandmasterka 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty☀ 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reception (astrology)[edit]

Frankly, this article seems nonsensical to me. However, I think that there may be wikipedians who want this kept (at least one, as it was written, with some effort expended), so rather than speedy nom, I ask you, my fellow wikipedians, to accept (or otherwise) this article. My suggestion - Delete. With thanks, Colonel Tom 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you found the article I wrote on reception to be nonsense, except that (reading it over) it is rather technical, and I imagine it might seem obscure. If the problem is that it's written in a way that someone with little background in astrology might understand, fair enough. I'll try to make it more accessible. But it's not as if it's some wiggy idea that I dreamt up. The concept has been around for two millennia, and it's always been called "reception." I'm assuming there is no bias against astrology involved in flagging it. NaySay 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's totally unreferenced at present. If convincing citations showing this is a well-known concept within the field can be added that would be an argument for keeping the article Dlyons493 Talk 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All astrological articles seem nonsensical to me, but it is not patent nonsense. The concept appears to be in use by astrologers.[24][25] --LambiamTalk 17:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lambiam. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to merge this somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. --Metropolitan90 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Astrology. B.Wind 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunately inappropriate to merge this with strology because that article is far too long as it is and has need to reference many smaller articles for explanation of more detailed points. The article on Mutual reception would seem more appropriate, but unfortunately mutual reception is a category of reception. However, the term is much more commonly used in twenty-first century astrology than "reception." What I will do is to add refs to the article if that seems feasible and make it more accessible. NaySay 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NaySay and Lambiam. - CNichols 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if references can be provided; delete otherwise. I see no other problems with the article, other than the offchance that somebody just pulled this out of their ass. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:22, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acno's Energizer[edit]

This is a how-to guid to a specific game, Including level codes. This is not what wikipedia is meant to be Felixr 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete WP is not a game guide J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not notable. It looks like an advertisment too.
  • Delete - seems to be a somewhat fun boulderdash clone, but nn. Site has a 1M+ alexa ranking too. -- Hirudo 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etternorsk[edit]

non-notable, very few hits in Google; WP:CORP Ioannes Pragensis 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn record label. Punkmorten 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here, except an external link. Shenme 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shenme. B.Wind 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rent Is Too Damn High Party[edit]

  • Strong Delete non notable political entity. --Strothra 15:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Article Has Existed For Too Long Delete But it's almost a BJAODN candidate. -- Kicking222 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All traces of these people are fading from the internet, there is not demonstratable notability. HighInBC 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above reasons. --Starionwolf 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kicking222, don't you mean "this article has existed Too Damn long." --Dakart 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is totally non-notable. Grandmasterka 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already given. DVD+ R/W 19:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Stubblefield[edit]

I do not believe that this officer passes our criteria as listed at WP:BIO. We recently deleted an article on one of his fellow officers, who holds the same rank and has a very similar biography, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell F. Roark, III. Rje 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does a fine job, I'm sure, but lacks cited notability. Tony Fox 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and per Tony Fox Bejnar 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tony Fox. Being a highway patrol officer is an honorable position but not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per withdrawal of nomination -- Samir धर्म 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Levin[edit]

Delete non notable film maker. no notability established in article. vanity, WP:VAIN, and advertisement. Fails to meet WP:BIO for notability guidelines. Strothra 15:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Strothra (withdrawing nom per cite additions and award. meets a minimum standard --Strothra 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of this individual as a sundance winner was not established in the article. Further, this does not make him "obviously" notable. --Strothra 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cited now. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Strothra 21:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayjg. —Viriditas | Talk 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find him notable, but I am disappointed at the lack of biographic data about him. Bejnar 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again this man is obviously notable enough for an article. I really do not understand what criteria you are basing your claim on, but it is clearly nothing normal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough, altough the article is underdeveloped and his movie "SLAM" should have a Wikipedia page if it is notable in and of itself. --Ben Houston 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a winner at Cannes is notable enough. Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent comments. MikeWazowski 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Director with extensive IMDB page [26]. Should be expanded, not deleted. There is nothing to debate here. Nom should withdraw this pronto. -- JJay 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surely notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There's probably a good article waiting to be written on this historian, but it won't come out of this morass. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESTORNES ZUBIZARRETA, Idoia (historian)[edit]

looks like nonsense, but probably isn't Will (E@) T 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete author doesn't seem to know the english language very well. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recommend cleanup. She is a preeminent historian of the modern Basque region (Euskadi), and undoubtably not as well known to English speaking audiances as she should be. See, for example, the review of her 1990 book at Center for Basque Studies, Univ. of Nevada, Reno Bejnar 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accede Delete per Lukas Bejnar 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trouble is that large parts of the article seem to be verbatim copies from just that review. Plus, the book it talks about is just a doctoral dissertation - even if it was a very good one and seminal within her narrow field of specialisation, I guess that alone would hardly make her a notable academic for our purposes here. I vote for delete in the present form, not least because of the apparent copyvio, but without prejudice - if someone can produce a better article with some more data on her career and importance for her field, that'll be fine. Lukas (T.|@) 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a copyvio and almost unsalvageably incoherent anyway. Grandmasterka 19:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll spot you the copyvio, but there doesn't seem to be a notability problem. Could be a very herculean AfD save for *someone*. Wasn't there a time where we just removed the copyrighted text and didn't delete the article? I'd be willing to give the creator some time to clean this up. You guys seem to have the tagging of it under control. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:26, 3 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 as the article provided little context. Royboycrashfan 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cazana[edit]

Delete non notable individual. notability not established in article, cleanup tag has been in place since October 2005 but no one seems to even want to edit this article. Strothra 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one sentence article, but not because of nn. He was a wrestler for the now-defunct Smokey Mountain Wrestling organization who deserves a complete article, not this unworkable, out-of-context... (censored). B.Wind 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. {{Nocontext}} would apply here. Grandmasterka 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Samir धर्म 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi hunter[edit]

Deletenon notable group. No such group actually exists, or at least as an organized entity and thus is fictional. doesn't seem to be any real organization just a term coined by the author to refer to individuals who have a similar cause. Violates WP:NOR, borederline violation of WP:NEO as it refers to the concept as if it were actually an established group. Lacks verifiable sources.Strothra 16:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :I updated the article per the discussion below to make it more a description of the term. No matter what changes are made, however, still makes the article no more than a dicdef which should not be included in Wikipedia. Such articles belong in Wiktionary. Thus, my Delete vote stands. --Strothra 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this nom again as per discussion below and with another user. Article should be Deleted and moved to Wiktionary but a new list should be formed for Nazi hunters. --Strothra 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless any reference can be found which backs any of the claims. --soUmyaSch 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe Wiktionary, but not here. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "Nazi hunter" is certainly well established, and not just coined by the author of the article. Searching "nazi hunter" at amazon will yield dozens of books around this title, even a "nazi hunter series".
Still, a category might be more appropriate than an article. --Aleph4 18:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a coined term which does not generally appear in the dictionary. See WP:NEO and WP:NOR. --Strothra 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO ("neologisms") certainly does not apply. The term has been around for decades. Amazon.com and the Library of Congress both list a 1968 book "The Nazi hunter" by Bynum Shaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleph4 (talk • contribs)
The term may exist as a grouping of individuals, yes. Nazi hunters however are not an established/institutionalized entity. They are, rather, a concept. This usage of Nazi hunters aims to portray them as if in an established organizational entity which is borderline NEO because it is not a common use of the term. --Strothra 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Many ghits and a number of people tagged with this label for their efforts in this regard. I believe the topic is quite worthy of its own page. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits should not establish notability. Verifiable sources and references help to establish notability. Notability should be established in the article itself. You seem to be promoting the creation of this topic as a category rather than keeping the article. --Strothra 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very well known term that readers might very easily search for. Contrary to the claims made the article does not say that they were a single group. Nathcer 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very common term for a well-defined and significant activity. A search for "nazi hunter simon wiesenthal" in quotes yields more than 30,000 hits. The article explains the subject very well and does not in any way suggest that Nazi hunters are an organized group. —phh (t/c) 20:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per phh, Nathcer, and RJH. Article has potential for expansion. DVD+ R/W 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per phh, Nathcer, RJH. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Pecher Talk 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. They may not have had numbers but hardly an insignificant group in brining Nazi's to justice. Bryce 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't a group, they're a concept. --Strothra 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a definition of a term. According to Wikipedia's customs it belongs in the Wikitionary and not as an article. If you wish to make a list of Nazi hunters then that deserves its own list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strothra (talk • contribs)
It wasn't "a definition of a term" until you made it so, in your edit of 16:20, 28 May 2006, a few hours before you nominated it for deletion claiming it was "just a term". I have now changed it back. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the article, yes, but it's still a term. How are arguing that it's not? That's rediculous. I already proved that there is no such organization as "Nazi Hunters." It is not an established institutional entity and thus it a conceptual grouping of people. Nazi hunter is the term ascribed to these individuals who belong in this conceptual category which is precisely why this article should be a category and not an article. --Strothra 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a term, and it's a conceptual category, like cardiac arrhythmia or man or Jew. And like those subjects, it's not an organization, and still it needs an article. Keep. - Nunh-huh 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Clearly a subject of major importance for any reference work. -- JJay 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phh.--Shlomke 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, they are a group, a concept and a "term," and their efforts (in the aggregate, not just as individuals) belong in a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. 6SJ7 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. --Ben Houston 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, merits expansion Elizmr 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. - CNichols 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an obviously notable concept, I'm suprised the article isn't much longer. Grandmasterka 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ezeu 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Machine[edit]

Non-notable page almost devoid of content for an internet game. R.E. Freak 06:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is a sad little thing, but as far as flash toys go, this is one of the better known. A Google search returns 62,700 hits for me, and paging through the listings, most of them seem to be about the game itself. I noticed its home page has a poor Alexa rating, but that might because it's been copied all over the place, such as UGO [27]. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two sentences do not an encyclopedic article make. If Hero Machine is worthy of an article, it should be an article or at least a stub. B.Wind 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; at least in the current state. If it is rewritten with more information, then I'd vote keep. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not expand or merge Non-notable Bwithh 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems some of the above do not understand procedures. If an article needs to be expanded or rewritten or cleaned up, there are places to list it for that purpose. Deletion is not the correct response. Articles should be deleted if we should not have an article on this topic, not if you just don't like the current version of it. McKay 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this article in order to ascertain a consensus. Rje 16:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity World Cup Soccer Six[edit]

None-notable celebrity football tournament; no television coverage such as Soccer Aid and no real suggestion of relevance other than 'there were some celebrities there'. Not an enyclopedic topic. Robdurbar 16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable enough for wikipedia... 131.111.203.154 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. And I'm confused by 131's vote/comment The JPStalk to me 09:19, 3 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. Ezeu 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Voice[edit]

Delete non notable news letter. no claim to notability. vanity and advertisement. Strothra 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google search for +Dissident +Voice gives this site as #1. Note that it is used without citation. That speaks a lot about notability. Reading the article, i wonder if nominator has done the same when reading "no claim to notability"--Striver 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did Chomsky, Fisk, etc... explicitly make these pieces for this news letter or are they just copied on from other sources? Because if the latter is true then there really is no claim to notability.--Jersey Devil 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking as well. I found no proof that it was directly for this source and it doesn't sound like their style. Usually if Chomsky publishes something it's a book but if it's an article it's in a publication with a household name or academic journal.--Strothra 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Site has an Alexa ranking in the top 100k (88,432). 2.1 million Google results for +Dissident +Voice. That's notable enough for me. Search4Lancer 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that all of the following articles have also be proposed for deletion at this time: Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, Prisonplanet.com and What Really Happened. __meco 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, website promocruft, not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew 23:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice article on this radical publication. Name contributors make this a keeper. --JJay 01:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --The Brain 16:58, 3 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. Sango123 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Engel[edit]

Delete non notable author/journalist. notability not established in article. Does not meet Wiki guidelines. Vanity article fails to meet WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Strothra 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The average journalist no more merits an article than the average lawyer. Nathcer 18:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 08:56, 4 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, bordering on keep. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rajiva[edit]

Delete non notable (WP:NN) prof and author. fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. Vanity article - notability for authorship also not established in article. Strothra 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not conforming to WP:BIO right now. --Bootblack 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak delete. The book listed in the article is at at amazon.com here, and appears to be of general interest, fulfilling the first criteria in examples listed on the WP:PROFTEST. She gets two hits through google scholar [28] and returns 91 Unique google hits, which may seem like nothing, but is not bad for an academic.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That does not qualify for WP:PROFTEST at all. The criteria are:
  • 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 well-known academic work.
  • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  • The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
  • 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.
None of those things are proven in the article. Further, the notability for authors requires four published books. --Strothra 17:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does listing [all of] the above respond to another blackletter listing on WP:PROFTEST that "An academic who has published a book of general interest, a widely-used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is notable as an author, regardless of their academic achievements (emphasis supplied). The problem, of course, is how to define "general interest." That appears to speak to subject matter, i.e., not a textbook or treatment of arcane matters, but listing all the criteria in the first section there, and not treating the one I am obviously citing, is not responsive. I am always willing to consider new information. In this case I am changing my vote, but for a different reason, having checked other sources I see that the above section I have cited is poorly drafted (and needs to be reformed). In the main precedents section it is stated that: "Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." That criteria she appears to fail and I agree with to an extent, though I do think the criteria for academics is out of balance with the too liberal standards which allow the keeping of all manner of cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, general interest is a subjective term thus I do not discuss notability based on that criteria but a work certainly isn't general interest simply because it's on Amazon.com.--Strothra 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the change I have made to the subject example section at Wikipedia:Notability (academics).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 hits on google scholar and 91 google hits is a very poor score for notability for an academic. An academic's main function is to publish and engage in discussions, and the internet typically plays a major part in this, so one should expect a higher google count for a notable academic. Also fails PROFTEST as per Strothra Bwithh 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
Lets see... being in CounterPunch.org, Dissident Voice, doublestandards.org, and MRZine, including writing a book fullfills both "mutliple" and "independent" in my view.--Striver 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Lila Rajiva for advice on how to expand the article.--Striver 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also fails proftest and notability is subjective which this individual does not seem to meet. --Strothra 23:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
even if she did fail proftest, she is notable for being on multiple independent magazines. That is more than enough. --Striver 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's subjective. Let's see how the discussion unfolds because we're clearly not going to agree on that. --Strothra 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails proftest miserably. I'm sorry, but teaching "at" a university without any indication of tenure-track is a pretty shoddy level of "academic". Grad students teach at universities and are published regularly....however, we do not consider them to be professors. The "General interest" criteria is for someone like Brian Greene, who has popularized a subject by being prominent to the media and having a best-selling book (hence having an impact on the "general public" (despite a lack of academic notability), not simply any teacher who's written a general-interest book. --Mmx1 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep author. Article was an overwhelming keep in previous AfD just a few months back (nom should have mentioned that). -- JJay 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the rule which says that I should mention that. Besides, anyone can see that the article is being nominated for a second time. Please WP:AGF--Strothra 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a rule, but it is standard practice- and no one on this page can see that this article has been renominated. I'm sure you will agree that there is little utility in endlessly debating the same articles. -- JJay 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not debating it. I am willing to discuss the AfD because, afterall, this is a discussion. But all users who come to this page see that it has been renominated because they see the large article title at the top which reads: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (2nd nomination)" The 2nd nomination part is clearly visable to all users who come to this AfD discussion. It is also clearly visable in the AfD tag on the main page of the article which tells the users it is a 2nd nomination. All users should read the article before they discuss it in the AfD discussion. There's absolutely no point in me stating that it's a second nomination. It would be simply redundant and silly. --Strothra 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I guess you should continue not to link to earlier AfD discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva. Nor should you attempt any explanation for why it was massively kept on AfD not so long ago, or why we should ignore the earlier debate (effectively thumbing our noses at all those previous participants). Meanwhile, I will continue to indulge my silly, redundant habit of pointing out those sorts of pointless links every time. -- JJay 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be evaluated as author rather than academic, and passes on author criteria. TruthbringerToronto 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes author test as frequently-published journalist in notable publications. —optikos 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be just barely notable per above arguements. Also, its always a mistake not address the first nomination in a renomination. Failure to address it, suggests, there's no flaw in the first, and no new reason, but merely a dislike at the outcome. --Rob 02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to me that some arguments for deletion here would generally apply to stubs. The fact that an article is a stub in itself cannot be regarded as a criteroin for deletion. It should also be noted that NEITHER WP:NN, WP:PROFTEST NOR WP:BIO are Wikipedia policy. __meco 12:05, 6 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. Mailer Diablo 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortive Toronto Sketch Boom[edit]

This is either OR or NN. The phrase googles only pages which clearly originate in this Wikipedia article. The phenomenon is somewhat unverifiable, and even if it did happen, is not a notable histoical occurrence. mgekelly 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keith Seeley[edit]

non-notable/vanity page Chris 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Possibly a user page? Doesn't appear notable. — RJH (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A bit hard to tell from the content if this is a vanity page or not, but it does appear to be a non-notable biography according to WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does seem to simply be an attempt to turn a 'user page' into a main article. Dbertman 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious vanity bio. ("Theatre credits"? Gimme a break...) Grandmasterka 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --InShaneee 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27th sea scouts[edit]

non-notable local Scout group (citation "primary activities are those of a standard sea scout movement") jergen 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Withdrawn. — TheKMantalk 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Virtual Library[edit]

Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria for notability of websites. Strothra 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was AfD closed as article now properly listed under [Redirects for Deletion].  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York City infobox[edit]

Appears to be an unsuccessful attempt to create a template. The template that it redirects to is unused. The NYC article uses Infobox City instead. harpchad 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at request of author. Capitalistroadster 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSSSA How Do You Feel?[edit]

An article about a cheer of a barely notable students association? Utterly & completely non-notable. Also unencyclopedic. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definitely non-notable. It's not specific to this one organization, I've done in numerous student organizations/conferences before but don't think it's notable. Change to speedy delete as per G7, lone author of article feels it is no longer of use on Wikipedia per Snake_Chess_5's comment. Metros232 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of this article, I have recently read up on the the verifyability of Wikipedia articles and have concluded that this article is indeed unfit to be existant any longer, however as the author of this article I know that the facts are true, so I will persue publication from a reputable source so that this article and be redone with the knowledge that it is both true and verifyable. I thank you for addressing your concerns to me and will do my utmost to ensure that future articles made by myself follow Wikipedia policies. Snake_Chess_5 17:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poop shakes[edit]

  • delete probable nonsense , the user has also vandalized my userpage Melaen 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, double checking now to see if this fits WP:CSD somewhere. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, user rv past any attempt to put the prod on the page. JHunterJ 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Continuation Theory[edit]

Complete hoax theory. Per WP:NFT & WP:OR Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wills-web[edit]

Non-notable website, possibly a vanity article. - Rudykog 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traxologism[edit]

Probable hoax. Definitely OR & non-notable. No google hits at all. Author removed speedy tag & has admitted that "Traxologism was explained to him by a friend" on the talk page. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Traxologism is the naescent science of pairing synergistic ionic outputs with inverted tachyonic derivatives." Well, quite.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we delete this article. My friend may have been screwing with me. Aaronproot


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, article was also altered to standards. Yanksox 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rusk[edit]

possible nn footie player Will (E@) T 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problems with theis editor for Paul Ellender and Lee Canoville ; I've marked them up for possible speedy deletion. (Prev unsigned by me, Mr Stephen)
Keep per following. Mr Stephen 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just rewritten this article, so it is no longer a copyvio. He has played 100+ matches as a professional, so the article should not be deleted on notability grounds. Oldelpaso 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any professional football player is notable. --Pkchan 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a professional football player. That's enough.--Givern 20:57, 1 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 kept no consensus to delete Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Only Inn[edit]

I've realized that we've nominated this article before for deletion, but it's non-notable and fails the Alexa test pretty badly, with a ranking of 899,838. Besides, it was deleted once before. Delete. SushiGeek 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep It's a retired comic, so yep, it's got a terrible Alexa rating. However, it meets WP:WEB. It's won a WCCA (as referenced in the article). It's also hosted on Keenspot (I realize this one is contentious because it went on hiatus soon after). –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was successfully AfDed once last April when the article was little more than a scrape of the comic's site. It was recreated sans copyvio, and then survived the next two AfDs, the last with an unambiguous keep. The previous deletion is irrelevant. And now it's under the gun again for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. It has a poor Alexa score, but Alexa is an unofficial indicator at best. It meets WP:WEB unambiguously. And I quote: "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis not mine). One of those criteria is: "2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]" The footnote for this item is: "Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" (emphasis mine). Elf Only Inn won a Web Cartoonist's Choice award, as specifically described in the article. Thus, assertion of notability is met. That really should be the end of the debate. I'm sorry if this seems testy, but were this any other comic, I would have speedy kept it as a trivial nomination. The only reason I didn't was because I have a history with the article, making it a conflict of interest. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Abe. The notability of this strip has been established several times over. GET OVER IT! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, this ought to be at most a sentence in the Keenspot article. When it comes to notability, Keenspot isn't even close to Moving Shadow let alone Virgin Records. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are more like the Trannies then the Grammy Awards. If this were a band that won a minor fan award and then almost got a shot at recording for Moving Shadow but somehow blew it, then we wouldn't be having this discussion even once, let alone four times. We should require some reliable sources, like some newspaper or magazine articles, when it comes to writing encyclopedia articles. -- Dragonfiend 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're selling the WCCA short. I understand the temptation to compare it to the Pia Zadora era People's Choice Awards, but the last time the New York Times paid any attention to webcomics, it was through analysis of last year's WCCA.[29] (registration required - yadda yadda yadda) Yes, they're controversial, but I think the decision to include them as a qualifying factor for WP:WEB was a good one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very familiar with that NYT story -- I've used it as a source for a few a wikipedia articles (Narbonic and Drew Weing come to mind). I think that story combined with other sources (we don't want one-source articles) can help make a pretty good case for the notability of the webcomics discussed in the article and even the WCCA themselves, but not each and every webcomic that was ever nominated for or won a WCCA. -- Dragonfiend 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand that people don't like this comic, I don't care for it myself, but the repeated calls for deletion is just ridiculous. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Abe Dashiel. - CNichols 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's no legitimate reason to kill this other than a seemingly general crusade against legacy webcomics --Khaighle 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah, if we were to delete completed serials then we wouldn't have anything on, say, Sherlock Holmes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) .
      • Oh come on. Surely you recognize a difference in the notability of Sherlock Holmes and this webcomic. Being completed or not has nothing to do with it. --Rory096 05:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Being completed has everything to do with the poor Alexa rank that has been cited as a reason for deletion by the nom. I really think that this is a flawed nomination, with the only points being that 1, the Nom does not want it here 2, a poor score on the massively flawed Alexa and 3, yes it was deleted, then recreated as a better article. Read the history. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying it should have a lower standard set for it because it's completed? That doesn't make sense. If it were truly notable, it would have an acceptable Alexa rank even after it was completed. As it is, people are just forgetting about it, and who wants an article in an encyclopedia about a site that everybody has forgotten about? --Rory096 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alexa is not part of WP:WEB, and there's a good reason for that. The Internet as a whole has a very short attention span. Wikipedia doesn't. It is the rule, not the exception, that Alexa ratings drop for comics - and other sites - when they've completed their run. It doesn't matter how wildly popular they were, they always fade. Does that mean we then delete them? No. There's plenty of precedence in AfD for that, and it's why WP:WEB reads like it does. Alexa and Google hits are sometimes good indicators, but their numbers don't trump much of anything. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • True, Alexa is not the most reliable source for data on websites (though 1.1 million is invariably rather bad), and it's not part of WP:WEB, but who will remember this site in a year? 5 years? 10 years? Probably very few, and there is little reason to keep an article about something only a handful of people know about. --Rory096 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I respect your right to have that opinion, but it's not the prevailing sentiment on AfD as a whole. Don't believe me, take a look at this AfD. Mirsky faded from view ten years ago. Its Alexa score is now over 6 million. Or how about Tristan A. Farnon's AfD; his webcomic has an Alexa score in the same range as EOI despite appearing on Salon and CNN. We kept it, and that was the correct decision. In Wikipedia, once notable, always notable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed things that are notable once are notable later. However, I dispute that anything that will barely be remembered 5 years after it ceases to exist is notable at all. --Rory096 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You do have a point there. There are a few webcomics that have vanished entirely off the net and I am very ambivalent about whether we should keep articles for them or not. Some of them were popular when they were around, but having gone totally dark, it's hard to verify anything about them. EOI is on Keenspot, though, so that isn't likely to be a problem. Unless the author pulls the material from the site, then it will stay there indefinitely. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's fifteenth edit. --SushiGeek 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Yay for assuming good faith and being civil! --Rory096 05:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that that was redirected at the original comment. --Rory096 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought it was deleted several times already.  Grue  19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know virtually nothing about web-comics... but I know this one. The only reason I became aware of it was because I kept seeing references to it elsenet... "It hurts and stings!", "the Lord of Dorkness", "Lord Elf commands!", et cetera. When the influence of a web-comic becomes pervasive enough that it becomes known to people who pay no attention to web-comics... that strikes me as 'notable'. --CBDunkerson 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been contributed to by many people and made into a fairly comprehensive covering of what was at one time a very popular webcomic. "Poor Alexa rating" seems a thin excuse at best to attempt to delete it, especially considering its retired status. Saying that it's not notable simply due to a single rating site, or because it's finished, or because someone doesn't think Keenspace (a fairly revolutionary concept at the time of its creation) is notable for whatever reason, is borderline, if not wholly, ridiculous. -RannXXV 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn - keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komal kothari[edit]

Has been listed for speedy deletion before but failed to meet criteria. Article has been without editing for some time, and does not appear to meet notability requirements. --Impaciente 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hard to tell if the subject is notable or not, the prose is so opaque. Cleanup as a minimum. If this can be done, the notability or otherwise of this person will emerge. Any takers?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and while you're at it Move to Komal Kothari). Kothari was a well known folklorist and an expert in his field. The article was, however, copied entirely from [30]. I have rewritten it using a range of sources. --Robdurbar 09:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work. Nomination Withdrawn. --Impaciente 23:24, 2 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 kept clear consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deptford Fun City Records[edit]

Has only been edited by one user throughout its history, and has been a stub throughout. Google search results in roughly 41,000 hits, with the first page of hits mostly copies of this article. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Would have PROD'd the article, but would most likely be contested. --Impaciente 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search returns 67 unique hits, not 41,000 [31]. No assertion of importance in article and unverified. By the way, an article that has been sporadically edited by one user, with the last edit 2 months ago, seems like a perfect prod candidate, and much less likely to have its prod removed than a brand new article. Afd taxes resources to a much greater extent than does prod.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact that it's only been edited by one user means that user would most likely contest it, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind. --Impaciente 07:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1970s UK punk label. Does seem to have had a handful of notable releases, such as most of the early output of Alternative TV. Also notable as the label where Squeeze got their start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is a substub. I would expand it with Andrew Lenahan's comments above and the fact that Miles Copeland, a significant figure in music history, founded it see [32]Capitalistroadster 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand, and mainly because I'm a Squeeze fan. -- GWO
  • Keep Plenty of labels with much less significance have articles, somebody just needs to write this one. -- Mrmctorso 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Faulty Products and tag {{r with possibilities}}. No point having a one-liner on the subject, but no prejudice against a proper article being created. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risk, the movie[edit]

Is at this time non-notable. It is a student film which only appeared in a student film festival of a University and not a nationally/internationally recognized film festival. Prod tag was removed by 72.155.27.128 at 11:47 on May 28, 2006 Zepheus 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it can be sourced for now. RN 19:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with RN. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MikeWazowski 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a link to the film itself on google video. Is that sufficient as a source? --Tmorrisey 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think so. The sources you need should be non-affiliated to the movie or the persons making the movie (for example an Imbd entry or a review in a major newspaper) -- Hirudo 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Hirudo 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora (Golden Sun character)[edit]

There is already a List of characters in Golden Sun page, so this page is not necessary. Erik the Appreciator 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are town articles that are already covered in the Weyard article:

  • Delete as derivative, duplicative cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is all covered elsewhere. Erik the Appreciator 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all. It discourages recreation and points the very unlikely searcher in the right direction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete but I like the recreation argument for redirection -- Hirudo 15:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for duplication and covered elsewhere, but redirection also sounds good. -- Kyarorain 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect savidan(talk) (e@) 23:28, 3 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 to Czech beer. Ezeu 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holba[edit]

Non notable beer brand. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Royboycrashfan 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Wears Prada (band)[edit]

Non-notable band on a vanity label, send it back to the fiery depths of hell. Peyna 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. Another Myspace candidate until they satisfy the WP notability criteria.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline speedy delete. The albums may count as asserted notability to some, but there's no clue that they were anything other than self-released. Grandmasterka 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead, Gorgeous[edit]

Non-notable band on a vanity label. Peyna 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Delete Not notable. Somebody copied the description from allmusicguide.com into the article. --Starionwolf 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hardly notable, according to their biography. {{db-band}} candidates until they satisfy the criteria on WP:BAND. Stick to Myspace for the timebeing.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band appears notable enough for mine. As starionwolf notes, they have a substantial article at allmusic.com making them notable enough for mine see [33] However, the article is largely a word for word copy of that article so is largely a copyvio and has been reported as such. I would be happy to see a non-copyvio article created on this band using the Allmusic.com article and other verifiable sources. Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rise Records (the record label fro Drop Dead, Gorgeous)is not a vanity label, but a notable indie that has signed many bands who have gone on to bigger labels, such as Ever We Fall (Hopeless Records) and Fear Before The March Of Flames (Equal Vision). Those who submit opinions into this section should really do their research before they randomly ad their thoughts. The band Drop Dead, Gorgeous is well known throughout the country, and has been receiving favorable writeups in the music press. Whether you like this style of music or not, Drop Dead, Gorgeous is a notable force of the indie music scene and deserve a page on Wikipedia. I vote to KEEP. Respectfully submitted, Ken Morton, Editor, Highwire Daze
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ezeu 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dadashri[edit]

Delete non notable individual fails to meet WP:BIO. No claim to notability made in article or verifiable citations given. Strothra 19:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote for keep, because

1) he is listed on Answers.com! [34] That in and of itself is PROOF that he deserves to be here. 2)he founded a new Hindu Sect Akram Vignan, article on the way, assuming this article doesn't get deleted. 3)he appointed a succesor. I don't think this organization is going to go away anytime soon 4)the organization has their own temple/compound in India [35]; 5)large number of TV broadcasts and round the world traveling and teaching by members of organization; [36] 6)he is big enough to be mentioned in Sarlo's Guru rating, nobodies don't get listed there- only those with somewhat of a following [37]; 7)This organization has a monthly magazine [38] 8)Whether it is true or not, he claims that he had the power to give anyone a taste of enlightenmentMoksha, and that he passed that power onto his succesor via a special ritual. 9)This was my first article I ever wrote all by myself (btw #1 is a joke, #9 is true and a joke). Sethie 19:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that this is not a vote but a discussion. --Strothra 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't know that Sethie 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Answers.com is worthless. They copy all the articles from Wikipedia. That article even says, right at the top, that it came from here. Fan1967 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did know that (hence my comment, #1 is a joke). Sethie 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trying to have an article on every guru would be like an article on every priest or rabbi. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. There are many gurus who found new schools or sects. He is one of them. Fan1967 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - huge following; Indian equivalent of televangelist. 71.132.146.15 22:35, 5 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. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bauer[edit]

db by Mark Rosoft as "attack page", hangon by Yanksox. Both tags removed by author. Just doing my duty and bringing it up here. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if attacks are removed, since she seems fairly notable with 47,000 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is in desperate need of cleanup, but should not be deleted. Yanksox 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up JulesH 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information can be documented. It shouldn't be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFSassenach (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google. The agent is one of 20 others in a list. Wikipedia is not (yet) a dumping ground for obscure lists. Nonnotable. Listcruft by implicationBwithh 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think it's fair to call a list produced by an important professional association 'listcruft'. The list is, in itself, notable because of who produced it. JulesH 08:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Royboycrashfan 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with most of what Bwithh says, but a Google search [39] suggests that this article could be expanded. If Bauer has been discussed in reliable sources which can be identified in the article, I would support keeping the article. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Appears to be a notable internet incident/phenomenon, however I can't find any offline sources. —Viriditas | Talk 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the incident that prompted a large proportion of the discussion about her only happened at the end of last week. I think that's too recently for any offline sources that are likely to be interested (e.g. publishing trade or free speech related publications) to have had a chance to discuss her yet. I'm pretty sure we'll see some, and a number of important online sources have featured articles about her. JulesH 08:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep clean up, definitely, but the Barbara Bauer saga will become much bigger in the coming weeks and months.--Shinto 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I wrote some of what was deleted, trying to explain context of why this is here without it being an attack. If Bauer was merely one of twenty agents on this rather important, widely-disseminated list, I would agree that she's non-notable. What distinguishes her from the rest of the 20 is that she has allegedly tried to have an editor fired, successfully campaigned to get a web community with thousands of members (Absolute Write) shut down on an hour's notice, and generally threatened many of those who initially disseminated the list with spurious claims of illegality, specifically that publishing her email address (which she has publicly posted elsewhere) constitutes copyright infringement and spamming. This is well documented on Making Light and probably elsewhere, from several sources (check the comment thread in ML). I expect this will spill over into print media eventually. It was this campaign of intimidation that caused many, many writers and bloggers to write on their blogs about her, and to Googlebomb her in retaliation. So basically, she's notable for having allegedly a) overcharged for services without producing producing professional sales, b) caused inconvenience and in one case economic harm to her perceived enemies in her attempts to suppress the list, without any legal basis to do so, and c) for being the victim of retaliatory Googlebombing. I suspect this article was originally written on this basis, but I think there is an element of notability, especially if an actual lawsuit arises as a result of the Absolute Write debacle. That has, by the way, a much larger story than just the Bauer part in it.Karen 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Documented information about a public personage. A. J. Luxton 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, probably by undeleting the original, since it was better sourced and better written than the current incarnation at the time it was unceremoniously dumped. --Calton | Talk 08:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least in the short term. There's been credible evidence presented else-net of unscrupulous behaviour by this person, and we probably have two opposed factions here. Delete the article, and one side wins. Keep the article, and its history, and keep the content verifiable, and maybe everybody wins. I'd agree that being on that 20 Worst Agents list isn't enough to make Barbara Bauer notable. Her apparent involvement with the Absolute Write shutdown, which raises issues of free speech, the security of user data on websites, and possibly much more, tips the balance. I think this page could be a part of a little thicket of linked pages, as the situation develops, and all of them may need guarding against biased and unscrupulous changes. Zhochaka 09:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Calton. Additionally, the news about this was notable enough to be given reference in Publisher's Lunch, a daily service of Publishers Marketplace (subscription required) in May 25ths newsletter.dawno 13:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Calton. The original article used reliable sources and is easily verified DigitalMedievalist 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - the whole affair is still non-notable in my book. Lukas (T.|@) 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Agreeing with Calton and re: notability, Dawnobryan. --Bringa 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calton. Clean it up, sure, but it's worth keeping around; as others have said, this story is likely to grow. Dori 21:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add such positive/neutral material as may be available: for example, who else has she represented.? Septentrionalis 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is rather the point. There appears to be no documented evidence that a single client has been paid for his or her writing as a direct result of Ms. Bauer's activities. If such a person does exist and can be discovered, the article should include that information. Also on the positive/neutral side, and not yet present, is Ms. Bauer's PhD, which has been researched and found to be legitimate, and any other biographical information of note.
      • There's a list of clients on her website. Unfortunately, as you might expect, none appear to be notable, the same sort of problem you'd run into if you listed the "Notable alumni" of diploma mills or the "Notable authors" of vanity publishers. I agree that stronger documentary evidence is called for to bring this up to snuff. BY the way, where is her Ph.d from? Not even her website mentions that. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Writer Beware and the SFWA are reliable sources. Anyone with knowledge about the publishing world will know enough not to call the 20 worst agent list listcruft. It's been established by professionals Anne Crispin and Victoria Strauss. Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry changed vote. Made mistake when using the voting script. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this lady is well-known—notorious, even—on various writing-related mailing lists. One might suggest that the reason that finding notable clients is difficult is that anyone who knows better would run a marathon rather than sign up with her, and this would presumably include most if not all "notable" writers. Also, it might be as well to bear in mind that not only Google<>Internet but also Internet<>the World. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calton.--SarekOfVulcan 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable, but not for reasons she wants publicized... :) MikeWazowski 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks. 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(Above vote was posted at top by 207.119.69.237 with forged datestamp.--SarekOfVulcan 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep per Shinto. --Nnp 15:20, 2 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 moved to user space; redirect deleted. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aby Watson[edit]

Vanity/nn JByrd 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. HappyCamper 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prebbleman[edit]

"responsible for the extinction of the woolly mammoth"? -- obvious hoax. Aleph-4 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam A. Moro[edit]

Author removed speedy delete tags. Does not meet WP:BIO, is vanity, NPOV, etc. N. Harmon 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with comments made to expand -- Samir धर्म 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malmudden[edit]

Not notable, ad for town JChap 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Change to keep, per Grutness.--JChap 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the town is inherently notable as a town, but there's no real content here. Delete unless someone makes it into a serious encyclopedia article. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Sunday, 28 May 2006 @ 20:33 UTC
  • Keep I've made it into a serious encyclopaedic article - a tiny stub, but still an article. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sensible real-place stub, thanks to Grutness. Lukas (T.|@) 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 2 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  RasputinAXP  c 03:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle Software[edit]

Delete. Here only because the prod tag was taken down by the creator of the article. Spamvertisement. EdGl 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'delete' per nomination Melaen 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Isn't there a speedy category for this? (Though I suppose the author's deprod would prevent a speedy anyway) -- Hirudo 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 1 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. Ezeu 01:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OXES[edit]

Seems to be an nn-group. It was previously a speedy, but was declined. I changed it to an AfD instead. Now, the author of the original article has told me that they would like to work on it a bit more, so in the event that it's deleted, please let me know - I don't want their editing efforts to go to waste if this ends up being a solid encyclopedic article. HappyCamper 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not a great article but they appear to be a notable group - Oxxxes, a word with no other usage, gets a pretty generous number of GHits [40] and their website archive shows them to be (or at least, to have been) a regular national and international touring act[41]. Ac@osr 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shows from 2002-2004 not listed for security reasons"? (check the last line of [42]). This smells of hoax to me. Delete B.Wind 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - definitely not a hoax, the group, album and EPs are all verified to exist. Ac@osr 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say the band is notable enough for inclusion. Celardore 17:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random bad band, see also the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sure if you used that self prescribed "test" you could probably delete 75% of the bands on Wikipedia, given the gaping ambiguity of the term "main online home" as a result of the majority of mainstream bands also having Myspace pages, which many people can attain tour info, listen to music, buy merchandise, and do so exclusively. OXES have a page on their label, in addition to their official page, so I'm not exactly sure what the point of this arbitrary test was, and why it was put here.

Aubin 23:26, 1 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Scaela[edit]

This is NN fancruft - no ghits whatsoever. There is no evidence showing that it is even real. -Dakart 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guttæne FC[edit]

Ok, let's put this clear. This article survived a first nomination some months ago. The club was said to be notable because it was "probably the worst team in Norway" (finishing last in the 9th tier of Norwegian football the 2005 season). No chance in hell that is a reason for notability. There is a new "worst club in Norway" each year (actually a lot of them every year since there is several "lowest divisions" spread over the country, and there have been loads of them over the decades. Being "probably the worst" in something is not notable (in 99% of the cases, including this) and thus this should be deleted. – Elisson • Talk 20:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I totally agree with Johan Elisson. --Angelo 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator the first time. Punkmorten 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Finishing first in the 8th division wouldn't be any better in the notability department. B.Wind 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A club within the league structure of any national league system is notable. --Pkchan 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what reason? – Elisson • Talk 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I take a wide view of notability for football clubs and players. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and as such should not be restricted by the volume of its collection: if a topic is real and genuine, meets the requirements of Verifiability and is in general well written, I do not see any reason for us to delete it, or even to draw a line as to which topics falls within the boundary and which topics do not, simply because such boundary needs not exist at the first place. Also remember that WP:NOT is an official policy while WP:N is only an essay. --Pkchan 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But also remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As Eivind says below, by going with your view, the only thing needed for an entry in Wikipedia is 11 people and 11 shirts of the same colour. Then any store or coffee shop or restaurant or school or almost anything is more notable because it takes much more work to create something like that, and a random coffee shop in for example Gothenburg would be much more notable to the general Gothenburger than an 8th division team... A collection of such info is not what I want Wikipedia to be. – Elisson • Talk 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is that Wikipedia is not for a senseless dump of information which does not add to knowledge -- eg how-tos, telephone directories, quotations, that sort of thing. Here, however, we are talking about a football club in existence, which has history (participation in a known league) and achievements (well, perhaps not the most glorious one in this case). It adds to our knowledge of the lower level of club football in Norway. Indeed, most football clubs do.
    As for the coffee shop in Gothenburg: indeed, I do not mind its inclusion here as long as it is written in an encyclopedic manner and offer more knowledge than the senseless dump of information. --Pkchan 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Delete To qualify for one of the many regional Norwegian 8th divisions, all you need is 11 people (preferibly male, aged 16 to 40) and eleven shirts of the same colour. These guys are five divisions below non-notable. --Eivindt@c 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete The worst team in Norway doesn't play in any competition probably, and would be unencyclopedic anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete agree with Johan Elisson--Givern 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well written article. Its harmless and quite funny; I think we should keep it for sure. Minfo 03:27, 2 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. TheProject 06:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorox Entertainment[edit]

delete non notable website that hosts episodes of television shows. - Melaen 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete  RasputinAXP  c 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruising In The Van Productions, Musician for Hire[edit]

Delete - Vanity entry for non-notable production company. Only 25 Google hits. MikeWazowski 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Musician for Hire, a film from Crusing in the Van Productions, because of similar notability issues - Google search on "Musician for Hire" +Everman (to bring up more relevant returns) brings back only 14 hits. MikeWazowski 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both NN. They've made quicky 16-mm and DV (Musician for Hire) productions. Come back when you actually make a movie. Fan1967 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both nn - if the film were indeed "award-winning", the award would have been mentioned in the articles. Sorry, the film festival circuit is not sufficiently notable enough without winning an award or sufficient notoriety in a major film festival like Cannes, Berlin, or Sundance. B.Wind 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above - also, article creator In Defense of the Artist has removed AfD tags from Musician for Hire article and replaced valid info in the Independent film page with his own info. TheRealFennShysa 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per B.Wind. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 1 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. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alcott[edit]

Weak delete. There are a lot of things in this article that appear to make him notable, and he may become notable in the future, but in the end it fails WP:MUSIC. EdGl 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Future and hopeful signing?" I don't understand the appeal of trying to live a wikidream. Yanksox 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE, HE WAS JUST SIGNED TO INTERSCOPE RECORDS TODAY.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by A3dez03 (talk • contribs)
  • Prove it. -EdGl 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete  RasputinAXP  c 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Trotters[edit]

Delete non notable unencyclopedic minor web series. WP:NN. WP:WEB probably also applies. Strothra 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series DOESN'T exist at all. Total fan fiction. See this - http://www.geocities.com/willkknight/faq.txt The author of the page admits there is only one episode, which everyone knows anyway. Its just that most people have jumped on the bandwagon of lunacy supporting this nonsense. Creative, funny article, but DOES NOT belong here in Wikipedia. Delkart 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: As I have pointed out to Delkart in the past, GameSpot has already spoken publically about weighing the options between someday re-releasing the complete Time Trotters: Season One set on Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD. The thread in question can be found [here].
Delkart, as someone who thoroughly enjoyed all the conversations on internet message boards that were spurred by the release of the latest episode of Time Trotters every week, I know a lot about this series. Anything concrete I have to share has been researched and posted in the Wikipedia article you're lobbying to have deleted. If there's something more you'd like know, please feel free to suggest improvements to the article in the "Discussion" page, or to go straight to the source by posting something on the GameSpot community message boards. Either way, I'd encourage you to find a more constructive way of expressing yourself than posting personal insults in my User Talk page. PattonPending 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patton, In the gamespot thread you provided, AndrewP says:
"Why yes, Time Trotters is the name of a video feature produced by GameSpot's video group that stars such GameSpot staff members as Jeff Gerstmann, Ryan Davis, and Rich Gallup." which refers to the only episode that there ever was. No series, no more episodes, just the one episode here: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6117778/index.html
Besides, why are there no relevant results when I search in Google for Time Trotters. 0 relevant results. 0, ZERO, do you understand this?? If this article stays here in Wikipedia, then it means that all kinds of fictional articles can be created here. I guess I should start writing that article about the green monkies living on the moon. *sarcasm*.

Submitted for Wikipedian Consideration: When films, television, and videogames first appeared as forms of entertainment, they were dismissed by "mainstream society" as frivolous short lived fads which did not measure up to existing forms of entertainment. In retrospect, information on those earliest fledgling steps into what would grow into tremendously popular new cultural expressions is widely respected as a part of our historical record. Original internet programming may seem like a hobby or a pipe dream to some, but it is a fresh form of entertainment premiering on the world's #1 fastest growing new medium. A successful web series like Time Trotters -- one of the first of its kind! -- which is produced and distributed by an international web company like GameSpot deserves a place in the encylopedic record. PattonPending 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patton, you didn't address my question. Why are there 0 results when I try to find anything related to Time Trotters in Google? If Time Trotters was a REAL series, there would be at least some discussions going on in blogs, forums etc, and it would show up in google. But there are no results on google!! Why are you not addressing this issue? You talk all kinds of stuff, but don't address the issues that are the reason this article is considered for deletion.

Delete The info in the article appears to be fictional and made-up, as there are no real references or sources. Besides major internet search engines yield absolutely no results, which basically confirms the fictional nature of the article. Alstudio 10:35, 2 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  RasputinAXP  c 03:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teams Sponsored By Umbro[edit]

Delete. Totally unnecessary list. Violates policy. EdGl 20:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Edit Voters, please see here and here for similar AfDs. EdGl 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support vote by User:King konger because:
    • Support I do not agree with this deletion as this page provides details on teams sponsored by umbro. I piece of informtion lacking on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King konger (talk • contribs)
    • Do not delete as this is an encylopedic list. Also usful in fining football teams.— Preceding unsigned comment added by King konger (talk • contribs)
    • Support there is no need to delete this page as it a very resourceful page and does no harm to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King konger (talk • contribs)
    • Addidas has the same list so why hasn't that been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by King konger (talk • contribs)
      • Good; I'll put that one up for deletion too. (King konger, please sign your posts) -EdGl 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this is not for umbro promotion it simply lists what cannot fit on the original umbro page. King Konger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.74 (talk • contribs) (note to admin: this vote was signed "King Konger", who already voted)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This page provides a database of information that is tried to be shown in the main umbro article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. I've also grouped King konger's multiple votes together under one bullet point to make things neater. -- Hirudo 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its sole purpose is promotion for Umbro. Listcruft. B.Wind 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic listcruft. lowercase 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per my reading it doesn't violate policy. Is a very useful list in the correct circumstances. aLii 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (from WP:NOT). Violates policy to me. -EdGl 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much every article on wikipedia could be argued to breach that, if you were so inclined. The policy is very specific about what kind of lists shouldn't be allowed:
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
aLii 08:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Umbro?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:44, 1 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tha membuzz[edit]

Non-notable gang/band

Tha Membuzz are a true rap group and gang, and it is important that documentation of urban and suburban culture is seen and not overlooked on wikipedia, one should not be racist.
I don't see how proposing this article for deletion can be construed as one being racist. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well regardless they are an undeground rap group/gang, and you imply they have no credibility mostly based on the fact they are white and I bet you believe white people cannot be "gangsta's" or rappers, I understand many may not be familiar with such an act, but I'd appreciate if this article was not deleted, and if you could allow me more time to expand upon the people and the history involved, as they are an important part of the culture in northeast ohio, and underground rap scene--GreppMD 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I made any mention or implication about credibility (or lack therof) relating to race. Tha membuzz have no google hits, no record deal, etc. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well they are quite underground, so give it some time.
As of right now, they are nn hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree conrad, I disagree, and, youre almost born in the 90's, anyone born in the 90's or near 90's well, enough said.--GreppMD 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a mess of unsourced statements. There is no evidence that this is not a hoax. Ziggurat 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go to www.myspace.com/michaelgrepp I am one of tha membuzz, and I have one of our rap songs on there

Its not autobiographical as it was the work of several different authors, come on, this is ridiculous--GreppMD 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Funny, about 95 percent of the non-tagging edits are by one User:GreppMD , who, not so coincidentally, is a member of the band (the other is the most recent one, by an anon). Delete per Metropolitan90 and vanity. B.Wind 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


less keep diss shit its tite man I like it, props to da membuzz!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G7. Naconkantari 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Communist Robots[edit]

Non-notable guild. Naconkantari 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep World of Warcraft is a game with 5 million players and this is a very notable group of players. No single guild caused as much debate and contaversy as Giant Communist Robots. I do agree that guilds or clubs usually don't deserve an Wikipedia article, but this is an exception. I was actually suprised when I found out Wikipedia didn't have this article. Titwatcher 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did it cause any influence or significance outside the gaming community? Numerous things cause "controversy" within small communities, rarely are they worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if it did not... the controversy is understandable by those outside of the gaming community, and opens an important debate that transends the gaming community. Again, I am not a member of this guild, and don't personally know it's members. I came to Wikipedia to FIND information about this issue for a paper on Video games and censorship. No information was found. Titwatcher 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. A brief mention in an online article is certainly not notable. This article has already been speedied a few times, so speedy again if there is relatively quick consesus. Wickethewok 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what exactly is notability in Wikipedia? I am not even a member of this guild and I heard of them. My intent is to get this article to FA status just to prove how much notable this guild really is. Titwatcher 21:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being an FA doesn't prove notability, it proves article quality. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No significance outside the gaming community, not worthy of coverage in a general encyclopedia. Delete.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the sort of thing you can create a personal webpage about. Adam Bishop 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G4 and A7. I don't care if he doesn't like that; it falls under those criteria. --Rory096 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft. There's something similar there about gay/lesbian clans. Do not speedy delete - reposting does not apply, as it was only speedy deleted, and this makes a claim to notability. (I'm assuming that's what your letter-number combos mean.) --SPUI (T - C) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as per above. I don't think the guild itself is inherently notable, but the controversy around it is. I've never heard even played World of Warcraft but I remember hearing about this from somewhere Masterhomer 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WoWcruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "used to be"... "was disbanded"... Not notable and not getting any more notabler. (What? It's a word!) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft Bwithh 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing controversial; the guild was in violation of the game's naming policy, and was treated accordingly. MD87 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft per User:SPUI. robchurch | talk 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, no. Nuke it. robchurch | talk 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak tie[edit]

article is no more than a paragraph of original research based loosely on a phrase extracted from an obscure sociology essay Apollo58 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sounds like a perfectly good sociological analytical tool, but not one that is yet notable. Bejnar 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i say delete too. the author spammed me to get me to come see it.

  • Don't Delete i totally disagree -- the concept is pretty useful in sociology (explaining political campaign success, business performance, success in finding jobs) and also to explain the logic and varying performance of social networks (LinkedIn tried to be a strong tie network, but it is a network of weak ties, therein lies its success)
  • Don't Delete I disagree as well. The concept of a weak social tie seems logical and tangible to me. The article on the weak social tie should be expanded instead of deleted. I would prefer one paragraph to no information at all. Anatoly IVANOV.
  • Delete. Summary: A weak tie is a tie that is not strong. Apologies for being blunt, but anyone to whom that is not obvious will not be reading about it in an encyclopaedia. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, on the basis of no content. It says weak ties aren't strong ties... but beyond that there is nothing. I don't know if the concept is notable but right now the article says nothing about the concept. gren グレン 11:03, 2 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.  RasputinAXP  c 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protomen[edit]

Original version of article nominated for CSD-A7 and deleted. Immediately recreated by in a more expanded form. Immediately nominated for CSD-A7 again. I'm not so sure now, so it comes here instead. No opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Quite non-notable band. Wickethewok 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't meet WP:MUSIC in word, although there has been some discussion of its spirit of late. I note that their self-released album is in its third pressing, which indicates expanding popularity but there's no evidence of strong media interest or a national touring schedule. That makes it a delete for now. Ac@osr 22:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreation of recently deleted material, meets speedy criteria--152.163.100.130 22:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recreation of previously speedied material does not meet speedy criteria unless the article qualifies under another criterion. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a vote, so an anonymous entry of "keep" has no validity here. However, if you could come back and give an explanation of why you feel this should be kept under our WP:MUSIC criteria, we would certainly take your opinion into account. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. RadioKirk talk to me 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted Blood[edit]

Only assertion of notability is a 47 word blip on NPR. No scientific analsys, no fancy scientific notation, just gamecruft. Should not be included on Wikipedia. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have no interest in World of Warcraft or in fact any game but I do find this page fasinating. I also have a great feeling it will become far more relevent some time in the future, possibly the reaction to pandemics and other world catastrophies will be tested on these MMORPGs and computor simulation and this particular event could be cited as one of the idea's main origins.
  • Keep Although it has it's flaws, it's still a great article and should stay. It has been featured on Portal:Warcraft aswell. Instead of voting for deletion, you could have voiced your concerns with the article, or even help work with it. Havok (T/C/c) 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an in-game storyline, and, while it may have a significant effect in WoW, it won't anywhere else. It is also my no means innovative or notable in CRPG terms - so a big MMOPRG decides to give its players the plague; many MUDs have done this before, and it wasn't worthy of an article. Ideally, the content would be moved to a WoW-specific place, although I fear the fanwikis will have already covered it in greater depth. --Sam Pointon 22:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the notable thing about this is it wasn't a case of "a big MMOPRG decides to give its players the plague," the outbreak was not intended nor expected by Blizzard. --Stormie 04:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have articles on other game events and plot details. --Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - here are some stories from the media: BBC, The Register, Wired, Ars Technica. Many more news outlets covered this. jaco♫plane 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. while, normally, this would be a somewhat useless blip about a video game, this is actually a fairly monumental thing, and the media attention more than allows for its being kept. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Your argument defeats itself. Having NPR, being a respectable news source, covering something helps to establish it's notability. Corrupted Blood is an excellent example of unintended consequences in software engineering. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and unique incident. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Viriditas. --Falcorian (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem with articles about WoW, is while they may be gamecruft, WoW has such a huge following that it is inself not evovled to a game but some sort of hyperreal culture. It should be documented. Masterhomer 01:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly significant, and it had a lot of coverage, it's also a little too specific to be merged anywhere. - cohesion 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination's claim that "only assertion of significance is a 47-word blip on NPR" is nonsense. Noting the mainstream media coverage that Jacoplane mentions, and the huge impact this has had on the World of Warcraft community, this does not appear to be a well researched nomination, and indeed looks to be a trademark use of "cruft" to mean "I've never heard about it, so delete". All in all, looks to be a major keeper. Iff that fails, I'd suggest splitting off the "Hakkar the Soulflayer" entry from List of Warcraft characters and merging this, producing a nice solid, if rather confused article at Hakkar the Soulflayer. Regardless, I think this should be kept and that issue dealt with seperately, if it needs to be dealt with at all.--Sean Black 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's 40 words on NPR. Not a article, not a particulary selective news source. With some shows I could get the same if I said I was a fairly common listener on his birthday and played my cards right; Does that make me notable? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? Its been demonstrated clearly that its far more than just "40 words on NPR." Please stop blatantly fabricating the media coverage of this topic.--Sean Black 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be notable to you, but it is notable to the six million World of Warcraft-gamers out there, aswell as the countless millions of MMORPG players and even regular console and computer gamers. Even if you don't see the notability in something, does not make it any less notable for everyone else. Havok (T/C/c) 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If one were to examine the article in question it is actually a synopsis of the accompanying audio file, a roughly 10 minute segment. I found it to be rather insightful for a non-gaming media source. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who has never played Warcraft I heard about the plague through Slashdot. Adam Y. 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not play WoW, yet I still found that article interesting and relevant. Miguel Cervantes 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's part of the Warcraft history and thus, lore. And I don't really understand what you mean with "No scientific anal[i]sys, no fancy scientific notation...", cause this disease is NOT a disease in our world, it's a virtual disease, so it can't have any of those pretty ICD-10 and ICD-9 boxes, where did you get that from? Move the article to /wiki/Warcraft Universe/Plagues, also add an article of the other, more known and actually greater historical Undead plague. --Shandris 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never played WoW, and I only found the article by random wiki-hopping, but it was still interesting and informative. ralian 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only an article describing an interesting chain of events inside WoW, but a rare insight into human behaviour during pandemics, as well - and i clearly recall global media detailing the event, with some interest shown by psychologists as well. Besides that, Corrupted Blood is an integral part of the non-fictitious or external history of WoW. Deletion would be an error. Jirziczerny 01:50, May 30 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep I dont play WoW, but concede i'm a fan of the Warcraft Universe. But that aside I found this fasinating, and granted enough exposure I can easily invision this incidient apppearing in a sociology paper on MMORPG subculture, or even in a paper on video game dynamics. - UnlimitedAccess 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not typical gamecruft. Notable. Bwithh 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. - CNichols 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very good article describing a freak occurrence in a video game world that accidentally ( as in wasn't scripted or planned) was very logical and helped make the game world more immersive and "realistic", making it something that the developers of future games can learn from, either to prevent something like this happening again, or to implement more possibilities of such occurrences... - Ifrit 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Ifrit et al. Aboverepine 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, a unique phenomenon, and very well-covered. Grandmasterka 19:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interest outside Warcraft. However, more research & text please for comparative purposes regarding disease/virtual disease.Santaduck 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It had some impact outside the game and is an interesting article WCX 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — while it's very Warcraft-specific and somewhat gamecrufty, I say keep because of its significance in disease research. Also, it's interesting and provides proper context, which allows a non-WoW player to understand the article just fine. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEINSTEIN, Irving[edit]

No indication of notability, very few relevant Google hits. Should not be confused with a cancer researcher of the same name, or Irv Weinstein for that matter. Punkmorten 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I could say more, but I just woke up... - Bill (who is cool!), 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability verified. Google with name and separately each of etching, drypoint and woodcut returns few results.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphan article (only links to it are three AfD pages and the user page of the creator of the article... with a request from another editor to expand it and provide context). No notability demonstrated in this unwikified, unformatted, unsourced article. Scrape it clean and start it again if this Irving Weinstein is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. B.Wind 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Comment: I moved this page to the properly named Irving Weinstein. Amalas =^_^= 20:03, 1 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. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Pseudo-Jews[edit]

When creating the article, the creator left this edit summary: I'm not hating on Jews this is just somthing I've noticed. Which, in other words, means that this entry is based on original research. Punkmorten 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Ezeu 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconceptions in probability and statistics[edit]

Original research. It never becomes clear what the point is the essay attempts to make; there is supposed to be a "widespread delusion" but no connection between the vaguely described delusion and what follows. An earlier prod tag was removed by the author. LambiamTalk 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think it comes close to an encylopedic entry. Yanksox 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as original research. The title "delusions" sounds pretty bad as well.--Jersey Devil 22:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Even the title is strange. Something like Common misconceptions might have been better. Keep under better title or Merge. --CSTAR 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Now that it's been rewritten maybe a title chage: Causality and stochastic independence?--CSTAR 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful with probability theory, then delete, no redirect. —Viriditas | Talk 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing I can see that is worth merging. Cedars 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original article was so badly written that I don't think it was possible to make a neutral judgment about it. I've rewritten it well, to bring out the point the author was trying to make. Perhaps it will still be delete-worthy, but I hope now the debate is better-informed. People should go back and read it again now that it's comprehensible. Ryan Reich 01:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yes, I agree, it is “original research”. Though attempts to explain definition of independence of events by means of “knowledge” and “information” are widely widespread in the probability literature but while I did not manage to find publications on the theme of these delusion. Only the simple Stoyanov's example where it is shown, that except for probability nothing operates independence of events. Thank you for help and editing:) Excuse me. - Helgus 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. Helgus is the author of the original essay. --LambiamTalk 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should apologize for my wording; I wasn't trying to be mean. It just needed cleaning up. Ryan Reich 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep or merge with statistical independence. After thinking about the article while rewriting it (and reading a comment Helgus makes on his talk page), I've come to realize that it's not especially different from a page like An infinitely differentiable function that is not analytic, or any of the other paradox pages we have. Although those have names like Sleeping beauty paradox. I haven't read the book Helgus quotes, but if the example is indeed from there it is not original research. Perhaps the article should simply be emphasized as a paradox of statistical dependence. Ryan Reich 01:55, 29 May 2006
    It appears that there's some support for merging, and I don't want to split the vote if it comes to that. I think the content belongs, wherever it may land. Ryan Reich 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd merge it with statistical independence unless another "delusion" is added, but that is not important for the AfD debate. Many thanks to Ryan for teasing the meaning out of the original text and rewriting it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: I realize that I haven't explained why it should be kept. Firstly, the reference casts doubts on the OR claim. Secondly, the point that statistical independence does not always agree with the intuitive understanding of (causal) independence is important and should be noted somewhere, but I wouldn't find it yet mentioned in Wikipedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained by Helgus, the lead paragraph is OR, but he took the example from the reference. Only, it is not clear what it is an example of. In Helgus words: "it is shown, that except for probability nothing operates independence of events". Maybe Ryan Reich can translate this for us. I don't discern any delusion or paradox in the example. See also Helgus' comment below. I've written something on the talk page of this page, where I propose to take any more technical discussion. --LambiamTalk 11:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why split the discussion? An AfD debate is a discussion in itself; no reason to have part of the discussion on the talk page.
    Anyway, I don't understand your remark on the talk page at all. The article does not talk about information after Ryan's rewrite. Perhaps you could cut out the sarcasm if you want a technical discussion?
    The point of the example is that the events A and B are independent in the sense of probability theory, if p = 1/2. However, they are not independent in the usual sense of the word, as both depend on the throws of the coin. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understood it when I did the rewrite, the phrase "it is shown, that except for probability nothing operates independence of events" was intended to mean that in a mathematical (as opposed to physical) probabilistic experiment, events are "shallow": the only pieces of information are the descriptions of the events and the probabilities of each outcome, which are independent of the events themselves. This is the (or one of the) sentence which led me to believe that Helgus was talking about lack of causality and hidden information. Ryan Reich 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article states that the terminology "independent events" has the unfortunate side effect of implying that "non-independent events appear to embody some kind of information one about the other", and this is then presumably a form of the misconception of the title. I tried to show by a very simple example that this is not a misconception but that indeed they do. The article also states as another form of the "misconception": "both [independent events] are constrained by a third, underlying variable". In the example of the article, both A and B are constrained by the same triple of outcomes of other events. It is almost as if the example was produced to illustrate that the presumed misconception is in fact not a misconception. The article was originally written with the purpose of showing that the lead paragraph of Statistical independence was based on a delusion. This was later reiterated by the author on the talk page of Statistical independence. I assume the example given is indeed from Stoyanov's book. If it is not a counterexample to the "misconception" identified in the article, then what is it a counterexample to? I can only guess, but my best guess is that it is a counterexample to the following false claim, which is precisely the converse of the alleged misconception: "If two events are statistically independent, they are also independent in the sense that they are not constrained by a third, underlying variable". That this claim is indeed false is shown by Stoyanov's example for the case p = 1/2. I don't know if this is a common misconception, and I don't know whether Stoyanov claims it is one, but in any case it is not the misconception from the article. If the example is merged into Statistical independence purely as an example of showing how you can compute for this case whether the events A and B are independent, that's fine (although as an example for that it is needlessly complicated and not particularly appealing). If it is incoporated as a counterexample, we'd better find out from Stolyanov's book (which I don't have) what it is a counterexample to. The "misconception" from the article is unverifiable "original research" as far as I'm concerned. --LambiamTalk 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that the concept is original research, just as any example in mathematics, appropriately accompanying the theory it's a part of, is not original research (up to a point). It is not unencyclopedic to give examples of what something is not as part of describing what it is. This content should go in statistical independence in this capacity. The example is not worthless either, as it illustrates part of the irrelevance of causality to statistical independence. Would it be original research to provide one or two more as illustrations of the rest? Ryan Reich 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The above sentence contains a switcheroo from "concept" to "example". The example is not OR. The concept is. The concept is not the example. You write: "appropriately accompanying the theory it's a part of" — but that's at least a big part of what is at issue. The example is not an example of what is described in the lead paragraph. What is described in the lead paragraph is not illustrated by an example contained in this article. But even if it were an appropriate example, is the theory it is supposed to accompany and be a part of (presumably that which is described in the lead paragraph, or else what) a notable concept in probability theory, or is it just someone's misguided pet peeve? How do we know without reliable source? I can write an article about the common pitfall of making a copying error, replacing a "2" for a "z" in a formula, and illustrate with a valid example how that leads to an incorrect result. Is that then not original research because there is an example accompanying it, even though it cannot be properly sourced as per WP:V? --LambiamTalk 01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a huge difference between swapping 2 and z, and swapping causal and statistical independence: the first one has nothing to do with anything more general, but the second one is an important part of understanding probability. To be clear: I think the "concept" is that of statistical independence, and I think that the allegedly original idea in this article is a clarification, similar to a statement like "In number theory, (a,b) refers to the greatest common divisor of a and b rather than their inner product or their ordered pair". It's a necessary clarification because when people conceptualize dependent events they think of causality, just as in the previous sentence, it would be necessary to clarify for an analyst that a commonly used symbol does not have the accustomed meaning. Before we enter another round of this, please indicate whether you think that such a clarification is necessarily OR. Ryan Reich 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't think it is necessary to state that statistical independence is not implied by causal independence. I'm not even sure what that means and if it is true. If you feel it is a welcome addition to the article Statistical independence, please edit it, citing your source for this claim, of course; we don't need this deletion debate for that. If you then further wish to claim that this is a common misconception among non-mathematicians, please cite your source for that as well. And if you go on to provide an example, laudable by itself, please find an example that indeed illustrates the issue. --LambiamTalk 09:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then we disagree on how mathematics is to be taught, but that has nothing to do with this debate, so I'm through. Ryan Reich 14:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Statistical independence, and delete redirect as unintuitive. (I apologoize for the possibility that this will mean a history merge by the closer; but this does seem the thing to do.) Septentrionalis 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have read the Stoyanov’s book. He speaks nothing about “delusions”. I have used his academic example only by way of illustration the main idea of considered page about “delusions”. I continue to insist, that the main idea of this page (“delusion”) is OR and consequently page should be deleted:) - Helgus 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems from your explanation that, now the "delusion" bit (and what you call the main idea) is removed, the article is not OR. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A title of section in Stoyanov’s book is literally: «About a role of probability in independence of events.» Only he results this example of three Bernoulli’s trials and makes a conclusion that only probability defines independence of events. Unfortunately I have Stoyanov’s book in Russian only:) Of course the Stoyanov’s example only is not OR. - Helgus 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Helgus, also after Ryan Reich's rewrite. --LambiamTalk 11:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is an opinionated essay by the author. The first part is already in Statistical independence; the rest is pointless as it fails to give context or purpose of the article. (Note that the author's Eventology article is also up for AfD - see above). B.Wind 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd vote weak keep except that the article is fairly weak as it stands. I agree with the move to "common misconceptions' instead of "delusions", since the latter word connotes psychosis. Potentially this is a worthy topic, but the article needs a lot of work, to say the least. Michael Hardy 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be something there to merge into Statistical independence, but the title is also bad. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think, that Ryan Reich could write very necessary paper under the name "Causality and stochastic dependence?" (see offer of CSTAR) in which this Stoyanov's example for an illustration is used:) - Helgus 04:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Lambiam that the "misconception" debunked by the example is in fact the converse of what is described in the article. Apart from that, I tend towards merging. JPD (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good article and good mathematics. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Parts worth keeping are already in statistical independence. Gandalf61 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the notion of self-independence to both this article and the statistical independence article, since this notion more briefly illustrates the difference between statistical independence and vernacular notions of independence. Calbaer 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it misleading to write, just like that, "an event is independent of itself"? Here is a less dry everyday (literally) example. The event of the sun rising today has no bearing on the probability of it rising tomorrow (assuming that probability to be 1), so these events are statistically independent, even though having a common underlying mechanism. I hope this example is illuminating (pun intended). --LambiamTalk 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That example is not as paradoxical in my opinion, since it does not address actual events of probability zero nor does it address the odder notion that something can be statistically independent of itself. I think the notion that an event can be independent of itself is powerful due to the seeming paradox; it gets to the heart of what the original author was saying, that independence is only statistical not philosophical or absolute. I have the example of picking 0.5 out of the unit interval in the statistical independence entry (to which I could add the Durrett reference if needed). Unfortunately, nontrivial real-world examples are hard to come by, since possible but zero measure events imply infinite divisibility or infinite time, either of which is arguably not a given in the current universe. Even the sun rise example need not be an almost sure event (e.g., what if the earth is destroyed by a comet, etc.). (Perhaps a physicist could come up with a simple-to-understand real-world example where zero measure does come into play, one that both expert and layman can understand and agree upon, but I'm no physicist.) Calbaer 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support any of the merges listed above. Obviously an ill-chosen title, but the information here would almost uniformly be considered notable and verifiable in another context. Note the references; I don't know if they have been there teh whole time. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:30, 3 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. --Ezeu 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto_Kuiper_Express[edit]

this page is nearly an exact copy of the link included at its "external links" section. Veevee 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this a copyvio issue and not an AfD issue? Yanksox 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well this certainly could and probably should have been listed at WP:CP, but I don't know of any reason policy rule making it inappropriate to delete it through this process, and it is not uncommon for an article here to first be listed for notability issues, but ultimately to be deleted for an intervening copyvio discovery. Possibly the text should be blanked, as is done with CV articles while this debate brews.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry guys, i guess it should have been listed as copyvio- except i didn't know copyvio existed until now...i'm still a n00b.Veevee 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to be sorry! I was just asking out of curiousity. Yanksox 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright. It is intent, not perfect process that matters.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Note that there is no non-violative version to revert to; first edit summary in history is "copied from [url]...--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness' rewrite and that the subject is patently notable.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, interesting question and wish I knew. The page does have a "publication information" link, which lists "Price, H. W., et al., Pluto Express sciencecraft system design, Acta Astronautica, 39, No. 1-4, 207-215, 1996." As listed on your link: "Note that many publications of the U.S. government may contain protectable works authored by others." Still very hard to tell from the webpage who it is authored by. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publication in Acta Astronautica is a technical article, not this page of summary information written for a general audience. I found this on the NSSDC web site: "In fact, NSSDC cannot copyright images or data, NSSDC distributions are in the public domain" [44]. I'd say that settles the matter. --LambiamTalk 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When the comment was written above, I was already halfway through a substantial re-write. I think it's far enough removed now not to be considered a copyvio. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of Grutness rewriting it so it's not a copyvio. Certainly the mission is notable enough to warrant an article. I'm surprised there isn't already one since the mission has been underway for months -- I recommend double-checking to make sure this isn't a duplicate. 23skidoo 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this mission hasn't been underway for months - it was canned. The one that replaced it is (or will shortly be) underway, though. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myevent[edit]

This is not a real article, but an ad. It appears to have been created by an owner/employee of the company. --JChap 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rowing[edit]

An original research article by a schoolboy Average Earthman 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge some of the statistics into Sport rowing, if verifiable and appropriate and Delete. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stub, delete OR material. --JChap 06:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its entirety. I have been rowing for 31 years. The statistics contained in the article, for the most part, are verifiable, but not particularly meaningful. Rowing is similar to most other sports where men enjoy a physical advantage: Men are on average faster. But so what. Men and women compete in separate categories. The premise of the article, that women's rowing is inferior to men's, and that there is a "substantial difference in standards and technique" is false. (On an elite level, women's crews row at the same cadence as men's crews, and they employ the same technique. There is no fitness deficit). The article is likely a joke. At the same time the author created this article, he created a second article entitled "Assisted Drifting" which is just a redirect to "Women's Rowing." The author thereby infers that Women's Rowing = Assisted Drifting. Swlenz 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a coda to my entry above, most of the statistics are already available on Rowing World Records. To the extent that there is something noteworthy in the remainder of the article, it is covered by Sport rowing and by Women's sports.Swlenz 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons given by Swlenz. johnSLADE (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Swlenz. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite completely unless you're willing to delete women's lacrosse and Women's football (soccer). Just because this article is crap (and it is) does not mean that a worthy article could be written about this subject. Certainly there's space for a history of women's rowing that would probably result in a content fork if it were in the main sport rowing article. OK, maybe I'm prejudiced because my wife rowed in high school and college, but abusum non tollit usum. Delete the redirect, give the creator a good spanking (note: not biting on his talk page, but keep this. Daniel Case 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Daniel Case that women's rowing is an important and worthy endeavor. My view is that the section on women's rowing in Sport rowing needs serious clean-up and growth, and when that gets big enough, move it to a separate site such as here. Until then this article should rest in peace, i.e. Delete. FYI There are several rowing articles with a strong women's rowing bent, namely: NCAA Rowing Championships (its all women) and Henley Women's Regatta, also College rowing (United States) is about 50/50 on men's and women's rowing. And there is a growing list of female Olympic competitors. Swlenz 03:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the section on women's rowing in sport rowing needs cleanup and growth, why wait? Be bold ... do it now and move it all here. If we delete now, even without prejudice against recreation, someone's going to say "But we already deleted this one ..." Save some admin the effort. Daniel Case 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing mathematically wrong w the article. It's probably correct in that sense. However, if you're going to delete this article because it just isn't different enough to deserve its own article, get to work - there must be 100,000 other articles in Wiki that meet that standard.67.164.212.239 22:30, 5 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 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Tsitika River Provincial Park[edit]

Such a small park does not require its own page on wikipedia, little or no information is available online about this park MBob 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This is a stub in need of attention, not deletion. The website was recently moved, with some information appearing here. Notable. Designated IUCN II. [45]. —Viriditas | Talk 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all state/provincial parks, including this one. Certainly "notable" enough. --SPUI (T - C) 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Shizane talkcontribs 06:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Provincial Parks of British Columbia Athenaeum 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  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 asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

From The Wilderness[edit]

  • Delete and merge with Michael Ruppert Behold! another one of wikipedia's non notable publications which seems to make no assertion at all to notability. Strothra 23:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep certanly notable in its own context. --Striver 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Outlandish as it may be, this website is well-known and deserves an entry, even if it is a notorious conspiracy theory page.--Cberlet 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is an important web site and often cited reference. __meco 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Granted, those works should be cited on the page. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible merge with Michael Ruppert. Again, the nom needs to better examine existing coverage before nominating on AfD. -- JJay 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I go with what the article gives me. If it violates, WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, I nominate it. I don't rely on outside resources, just what's in the article. If it's not encyclopedic and if that fact isn't supported by references, citations, and firm research then it's junk. --Strothra 02:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand that, and I don't doubt that Strothra nominated it in good faith. It looks like any other knot of conspiracist cruft, this one just happens to have been discussed by some reputable people. The page as it was didn't demonstrate that - I added a cite to David Corn's article. I think after the AfD closes, a merge with Michael Ruppert should be considered. Tom Harrison Talk 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, thank you. Apparently my standards for inclusion are a little too high for some in the community and I will admit that. I just feel that the backbone to a good encyclopedia is strong research and well cited evidence. I changed my nom to delete and merge as I do agree with the merge.--Strothra 02:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - DEFINATELY DESRVES OWN ENTRY SEPERATE FROM RUPPERT'S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.81.88 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. as per Tom Harrison. —optikos 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unimportant and unencyclopedic. We already have a Michael Ruppert article. His newsletter deserves a once-sentence mention in that article, not its own article. KleenupKrew 23:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Site notable: Book summarising site content on 9/11 ('Crossing the Rubicon") in Harvard Baker Library (Business) and non-fiction bestseller. Information verifiable, rare resource. Research articles by date: claim of being a year ahead verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.15.13 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep: Per above. Ombudsman 03:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep: It's information. Good or bad, it is something which exists. I would certainly like to know why this is even considered something worth deleting... so my question is, why on Earth was it marked for deletion in the first place? --TaranRampersad 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* This is a very honest and informative newsletter. L.K. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.229.235 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop nominating stuff that's not going to be deleted. Zocky | picture popups 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep of course' Anyone calling for the deletion of such a page should be banned from Wikipedia and sent to China to experience "freedom of speech". Shame on you! According to two polls conducted by Zogby , roughly half of the American population wants a new investigation of what happened on 9/11. You are trying to censor half of the American population. I repeat: Strothra and censors like him should be banned! They are enemies of democracy. Enemies of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.68.236.68 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 9/11, freedom of speech and democracry are not the point here - the point is checking if the website meets the criteria for inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems to be passing, and by a margin too. --Kizor 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, Whatreallyhappend.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.84.160 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete I also find it strange that Wikipedia is seeming to delete some of the most controversial sites like From the Wilderness. Mike Rupert’s observations are based on facts; facts that have basis in mainstream reports. Although I disagree with his peek oil hypothesis, it is a viable argument and one that should not be silenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.54.32 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is seeking to delete? This was the action of a single user and doesn't appear to be working anyway. --Kizor 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Ruppert, as this newletter is not notable enough by itself. A significant portion of this article is about Michael's company anyhow ("They also sell many books and videos ..."). --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep john 07:17, 5 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, defaults to keep. Naconkantari 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Really Happened[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 asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

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

I am refactoring this discussion. Established editors and anonymous comments will be split for the sake of clarity for the closing administrator. This is pemitted per the deletion guide, "It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin." This does not mean, however, that your comment will go unread. The closing administrator will read every comment before deciding. Please remember to sign your contribution by adding four tidles ( ~~~~ ). Please remember also to be civil and not attack any other contributor. Please do not edit anyone's comments other than your own. Thanks Naconkantari 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: If anyone calls another editor or group of editors "terrorists" or anything else inappropriate, they will be blocked from editing for violation of WP:NPA. This is your only warning. Please keep your comments civil at all times. Naconkantari 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I find it strange that Wikipedia is deleteing a lot of controversial web sites like Infowars.com, From the Wilderness, What really happend

Established[edit]

  • Very Strong Delete non notable website. conspiracy cruft. Strothra 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note about my deletion nom. This was done per WP:NN, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:WEB. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism (a term which I do not agree with myself - look up the definition of Semitic which is quite diff from its popular usage.) or Bush hating or whatnot. I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so. Wikipedia is not a compendium of pop-culture, rather, it is (or at least attempts to be) an encyclopedia of encyclopedic topics and facts with notability that is substantiated through well grounded research. The article was nominated for deletion based on the merits of the article alone without regard to the politics or content of the WRH website. --Strothra 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been useful for you to note that in the first place. People have put effort into this article, and they deserve more of an explanation for its deletion than just "conspiracy cruft". 210.10.240.16 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad that all of that "effort" doesn't show up in the article. --Strothra 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is plenty notable in its own context. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is ok. Compare to the poke cruft or star wars cruft. --Striver 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From Wikipedia:Notability (web), Criteria for web content, do people see this as satisfying the first, second, or third criterion? Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. nonnotable. cruft. Bwithh 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not pass WP:WEB. We have lots of conspiracy cruft, and that is detrimental to the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. The conspiracy soapbox is way out of proportion to its importance. Weregerbil 09:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Name of the website is a bit to mundane to be a good indicative of how popular it is, it gives 4 milion hits, but the creator gets 59 000 hits, more than notable enough, accounting that he is mostly known through his site. --Striver 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michael Rivero the artist, the movie visual effects creator, the computer book author, ... Those are just from the first five Google result pages. Are these all the same Michael Rivero? Looks like there are a bunch more encyclopedic Michael Riveros out there than the conspiracy blogger. Weregerbil 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)..... Yes it is the same guy as the movie effects creator. Rivero used to work in Hollywood.[reply]
for the record: Michael Rivero, the movie visual effects creator, and Michael Rivero, the computer-graphics book author, and Michael Rivero, editor of WRH, and Michael Rivero, repeated guest on Alex Jones radio program, and Michael Rivero, true American patriot advancing democracy via WRH—all of these Michael Riveros are one and the same person. —optikos 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy any of the criteria for web content. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an unfortunately popular website. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conspiracy theory cruft.--MONGO 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep,changed my mind, a popular and amusing website.--The Brain 01:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover | (talk)(contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong unqualified delete with extreme prejudice This flood of users is in itself all the more reason to delete, per Naconkantari. Also, fails WP:WEB per many other users; seems to be a disorganized blog about, well, nothing. Delete delete delete. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable conspiracy theorism Makgraf 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Large, relevant and popular enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, Wikipedia should list facts, all of them, everything however controversial, however disgusting to the one or the other, read the entry on censorship.--Ratatouille 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB, per nom, contra sockpuppet claque. -- Karada 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Egads, people! I could see why this page was up for deletion if it was on the Chinese Wikipedia. I suppose it was only a matter of time. Not that it's a great article, it isn't. But deleting it should be a last resort. R Harris 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has about 10-15 edits. --Rory096 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As long as the article can be/stay non-POV, I don't see why it can't be kept. If the mainstream media can have articles describing their operations, why can't WRH? - EmiOfBrie 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean up--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If a website has to flood the AFD with visitors to get it kept, then it is not notable. Also, the site has an Alexa rank of over 9,500. Naconkantari 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You treat Alexa rank as though it is a statistically-representative sampling of the population at large, where the % of WRH readers who have Alexa installed is approximately the same as the % of the general population on the WWW who has Alexa installed. Alexa counts page rank only via those people who install the Alexa toolbar. The Alexa toolbar is spyware (as fully described in the terms of use: "COLLECTS AND STORES INFORMATION ABOUT THE WEB PAGES YOU VIEW, THE DATA YOU ENTER IN ONLINE FORMS AND SEARCH FIELDS, AND, WITH VERSIONS 5.0 AND HIGHER, THE PRODUCTS YOU PURCHASE ONLINE WHILE USING THE TOOLBAR SERVICE" [capitalization due to Alexa, not me]). WRH is a website whose primary purpose is to disseminate evidence of how various powerbases are acting in ways that are contrary to the individual liberties that were supposedly protected by the founding fathers via the U.S. Constitution. The typical WRH reader is a person who (I claim) is inclined to entertain the possibility that some government agencies and some corporations are acting badly. Wouldn't such a person be concerned about an Alexa terms-of-use agreement that in plain language announces that the Alexa toolbar collects information about their every activity on the Internet, where a (possibly foreign) government could tap into that collected information? I claim that the typical WRH reader would not install Alexa because the East-German-STASI-like possibility of current or near-future abuse of that collected information by FBI, by NSA, by the military, by foreign governments, and by corporations with which Alexa has contractual relationships far outweighs any perceived benefit of Alexa to the individual. Thus, Michael Rivero considers the Alexa page rankings for WRH to be skewed to under-representing how many hits that WRH has per unit time.[46]. Think about it. If a person were to believe the news-reports published every day on WRH of abuses of power, then wouldn't that person be fearful of abuse of the vast collection of personal information that Alexa harvests to the point that the Alexa toolbar would not be installed on that person's computer at all? Alexa page rank for WRH would be counting only A) those careless regular WRH readers who did not read the Draconian Alexa terms of use and B) those casual interlopers who are not the regular WRH readers and C) those who became regular WRH readers after their first several visits with the Alexa toolbar installed and then decided to de-install Alexa for abuse-of-power concerns. —optikos 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. -- Daniel Davis 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean up WRH is an essential resource for a great many people. Its relevance is clearly shown just by the number of people engaging in ad-hominem attacks on its editor, not to mention its huge readership and relevance.flyingCoyote
    • User's first edit in a month, and about 40 before that, nearly all to David Peel. --Rory096 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Does not satisfy any of the categories for Notability re: web content. Bastique▼parler voir 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I knew when I saw all these articles pop up on here that the shite would start to fly... Weak keep - seems notable enough to survive, and if we keep it maybe that ever-growing rancid meat smell will go away. So, is Wikipedia a lefty bunch, or a righty bunch, or what? Someone please make up their mind so I know which political leaning to put in my edits, okay? Tony Fox 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind. Merge to the author's article sounds reasonable. Tony Fox 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Clean up User:Twinpinesmall This article is in dire need of constant policing by Wikipedia members, so as to ensure a neutral point of view, and no political leanings. If this article were to be deleted, just because a few immature people cannot stand to see any information on those they disagree with; it would COMPLETELY defeat Wikipedia's entire purpose and raison d'etre. The problem is not this article, but rather the misguided belief many Americans have; that there should be one set of morals, ethics, and laws for people with a "D" after their names, and another for those with an "R". As long as ANY article is unique in its subject, does not make unsubstantiated claims, and is not one-sided, then it must DEFINITELY be kept, as part of the world's one true wealth: knowledge.Pine 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has a handful of edits over a couple months. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Naconkantari. Note that the Alexa ranking is around 10,000. --Rory096 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. All lies, but notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain how it's notable? --Rory096 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain exactly how it's "all lies?" Earpol 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep appears notable in the realm of conspiracy theory website (an admittedly small and unstable realm). - CNichols 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this is pop-culture, so is half of Wikipedia. Just because you personally don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for other people. Opposition to the mainstream view is certainly worthy of retention. Octavius 0901, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable, and appears to satisfy WP:WEB just fine. --Hyperbole 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up This site is notable, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. It is popular enough, and has been around since the Clinton administration, when it was created shortly after Vince Foster's death. The fact that its popularity has only increased since the Bush administration makes it a notable website. However, it needs definite clean-up, expansion, citing of sources, and as many viewpoints (pro, con, and inbetween) fairly presented as possible before it will be a decent article. Right now, it is currently a partial mess. --CGally81 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michael Rivero for now. After doing some in-depth LexisNexis and NewsLibrary.com stuff, I was unable to find a single reliable source which discusses WhatReallyHappened, as you would expect for a blog this popular. However, there is no doubt that Rivero is a notable conspiracy theorist. Information about his blog could be included there. Ashibaka tock 03:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michael Rivero for now - per Ashibaka, does not assert its own notability, but Rivero himself manages to eke out a tiny bit of notability for being interviewed by Alex Jones. KWH 03:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep One of WP:WEB's criteria is awards garnered. Here are the awards that WRH has earned over the years: http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm with links to awarding organizations. Also if WRH is an article that becomes deleted, then perhaps slashdot and truthout and Drudge Report should be deleted as well. Which awards has Slashdot or Truthout or DrudgeReport earned that are more substantial than WRH? (Please do list them below. Nobel? Pulitzer?) As a daily reader of both WRH and DrudgeReport, I find that the view supported by WRH is one of fact-finding by commonfolk American citizens trying to practice democracy the best that they know how, whereas I consider DrudgeReport a propaganda machine that serves well to figure out which emotional froth du jour that we sheeple are to be worked up to. Thus I find it offensive to hear labels of "conspiracy theorist" lobbed against WRH, when what WRH is attempting to do is expose facts and evidence that do not fit with the prevailing conventional wisdom. I hold WRH up (as do the awards) as brave patriotic activist democracy in action by the little guy. I hold up Wikipedia as much the same. Also WRH is congruent to Michael Rivero as much as Drudge Report is congruent to Matt Drudge. Without their mouthpiece blog, Rivero or Drudge is a nobody. The only reason that Alex Jones interviews Michael Rivero is because of the WRH blog. Alex Jones doesn't interview Rivero for Rivero's technical business conducted in Hawaii. Furthermore, Rivero's WRH-centered interviews by Alex Jones syndication itself qualifies as "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content. Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it. I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time. Looks like censorship to me. (me? 2,500+ Wikipedia edits.) —optikos 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh please. The "awards" WRH has won is as non-notable as the site itself. May you please cite these Alex Jones interviews that you refer to? And even on the assumption that this is notable, how is this "multiple non-trivial published works"? Please don't bring other articles into this; we are voting on the merits of THIS article only, unless these other articles are precedent for keep or delete. We are not interested in destroying more content than we are creating as a policy; we are interested in deleting that which doesn't fit into wiki, that is all. "Rather than debating how to write a good WRH article, we are debating how best to destroy it." Why yes, yes we are. This IS an AfD - debating how to destroy it (or not) is the entire purpose of this function Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are 10 11 such interviews published by websites not affiliated with Michael Rivero or with WRH, including video.google.com, podcast.net, PrisonPlanet.tv, AlexAnsary.com, mininova.com, and fourwinds10.com:
Google video about Oklahoma City Federal Building sourced from WRH,
Google video about illegal domestic spying within USA featuring Rivero whose only claim to fame on the topic is solely through WRH,
Google video about evidence of government involvement drug smuggling sourced from WRH,
Pentagon Footage,
What Really Happened? Michael Rivero,
WhatReallyHappened.com Michael Rivero,
podcast #3,
podcast #5,
Richard Stallman and Michael Rivero or perhaps FSF is as un-notable as WRH, and
Israel versus Iran.
2002 transcript of interview with Rivero regarding the WRH phenomenon with introduction of WRH as "one of the most talked about websites to hit the web in a long time"
Note that in each introduction of Michael Rivero in those interviews, he is introduced as editor of WRH as though WRH is more recognizable/notable than Rivero himself.
Here are two articles on NewsMax from 1999 and 2002 that site WRH as a notable source:
Operation Mockingbird
TWA Flight 800
Here is a 1997 NewsMax article that showcases in two paragraphs WRH as a notable/substantial source regarding a Clinton-era scandal:
Starr, Foster, Fiske
Regarding other AfDs of the same ilk, it is obvious to me that there is a campaign afoot to censor on Wikipedia the political movement and nonMSM journalism that WRH & Michael Rivero, Rense.com & Jeff Rense, and PrisonPlant.com & Alex Jones represent. A multiple-AfD campaign of sweeping censorship of an entire political movement and of an entire branch of nonMSM journalism is very much worth exposing and very much is a matter worthy of debate on each of that political movement's AfDs. Re:"Oh please." So where is the list of awards the DrudgeReport has earned that I requested? Any Nobel or Pulitzer or Peabody in Drudge's list? So far WRH has entered numerous awards into this discussion whereas DrudgeReport has a big fat zero awards presented here for comparison. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the same reasons Optikos states above. While I am not a paragon of Wikipedia content creation by any means, I do contribute when I can, and I choose to voice my opinion here. JubalHarshaw 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry for changing my vote back and forth like this. (rm'd earlier edits to clean up) I have to concede the site is notable, and while this article may be targeted for vandalism and POV-pushing, that is not a reason to delete it, but rather a need for it to be improved. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we are going to remove all web sites from the Wikipedia. Rivero puts up news items that often scoop the mainstream media by a year. He is an important resource, even if one has to perform some mental filtering. The charges of anti-Semitism are hilarious, but I suppose anything that offends any Jew, true or not, must be anti-Semetic. Sukiari 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just another nn blog. Tychocat 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Just another 'blog that has been on the WWW for over 11 years! as evidenced by this 1997 news article on newsmax.com. (What other 'blog dates back that far?) WRH is the mother of news-headline/article 'blogging outside of MSM (mainstream media). WRH predates the term 'blog. WRH's blog WWWsite predates the DrudgeReport blog WWWsite (ignoring Drudge's early email-distribution-only phase). Indeed, WRH predates Wikipedia as a notable phenomenon in the history of the WWW. WRH defined from scratch the concept of blogging throughout the latter half of the 1990s that became popular this decade. These achievements alone make WRH notable. —optikos 05:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - there's something wrong with that newsmax article which claims to be from 1997. Even according to Rivero's site archive [47], whatreallyhappened.com was not formed until early 1999. It previously was his personal site, "Rancho Runamukka", which evolved from prior personal ISP websites. My assumption is that the 1997 newsmax article linked to Rivero's personal site, and then someone edited the newsmax article to replace the dead link with the newer whatreallyhappened.com. KWH 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - You don't have to accept something to realize it deserves a page...it's clearly notable, meets standards for keeping websites...this is kind of silly.--Tothebarricades 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, massive sock flood. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • request for policy quote/ref Please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a "massive sock flood" occurs on an AfD, that article is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated see last sentence of first paragraph -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, WRH is being implicitly claimed as a vanity article due to the meatpuppets and thus as a matter of official Wikipedia not-to-be-tolerated policy "deserves" automatic decapitation/deletion. Wow! What an excellent tool for censorship of whole articles, especially for topics that are popular with Wikipedia-outsiders! Now all Wikipedians know how best to rig up an automatic deletion outcome for nearly any AfD: just make sure that Wikipedia-outsiders are aware of the AfD of their popular topic so that many defenders with edit-total less than, say, 100 can all be declared meatpuppets that in itself precipitates automatic deletion. Hmmmm, sort of like a hypothetical "justice" system where if too many general citizens show up in the audience of the courtroom, the defendant is automatically guilty of a capital-punishment crime. Welcome to the brave new world! (Perhaps even state-authoritarian Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) himself would not have approved of that level of capricious injustice.) —optikos 15:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WRH has been around for more than a decade, a notable feat in and of itself. It also does a fairly good job of listing its sources, something that even we here at WP sometimes have a problem with. As far as the supposed anti-Israel bias, I notice we have articles on Free Republic, Rense.com, Prisonplanet.com and the Drudge Report, which have been known to engage in a little "Elders of Zion" nonsense themselves from time to time. Hey, we even gave Sollog a page, so... Inky 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup - Reading the arguments here, it looks like the site does have some notability, if nothing else than for its longivity, but also becuase it's cited elsewhere with a certain amount of regularity. On the other hand, the article as it stands is pretty ugly, and in need of help. But we don't delete articles because they aren't good, we improve them. This one is in need of help, but the subject matter is worthy of inclusion. Fieari 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, website promocruft. KleenupKrew 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a bit crazy, but notable none the less. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Ashibaka. Lachatdelarue 01:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Zocky | picture popups 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous/New[edit]

  • Please note that the AfD was listed on the What Really Happened website and as a result has brought many anonymous users to this discussion. The website has engaged in what may be seen as a subtle form of vote stacking from their readers/visitors.--Strothra 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, you got to be kidding. Ever experienced what happens if anybody dares to submit anything on Wikipedia that is only remotely critical of Israel or Zionism? Within a matter of minutes, the entry is plastered with 'Neutrality disputed' and 'Article is up for deletion', with dozens of oh so neutral 'editors' - I call them censors - attacking the article as anything from 'non-noteworthy' to 'anti-Semitic'. They call WikiPedia 'Ziopedia' for a very good reason!!! -- Andrewwinkler 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very well aware of that. More than you know. That's all I'm saying on that subject. --Strothra 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am putting this article up for deletion because the article does not establish notability or cite verifiable reliable sources in order to do so."Strothra

Oh, I'm sorry strothra, I must have FORGOT the guardian, telegraph, bbc, cnn, fox and pbs as unverifiable resources, silly me! [/sarcasm]OWNtheNWO 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the article?? The article cites NONE of the sources you mentioned above. Perhaps you should attempt to improve the article by adding citations from those sources. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • request for policy quote/ref Strothra, please list below the Wiki policy that says that, if a website announces that its article is AfDed, that the website is to be punished by the Wiki-capital-punishment: deletion. —optikos 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see rules against sockpuppeting in the AfD. Deletion is not a punishment it just looks very bad to admins when this situation occurs. --Strothra 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Does it really matter that they posted a story about this "challenge" of a wiki article written by a WRH reader, not Rivero himself? This challenge on the osama video article re-write is baseless. Look at the articles being used to verify the Osama video piece. 95% of them are BBC Telegraph or Guardian articles. There are two articles from informationclearinghouse, which is nothing more than an RSS feed site anyway. Look through the data in the links given and let it speak for itself. Whoever wrote the original article did a shoddy job to say the least. Mabey on hotly contested issues, that are heavily debated you should allow dueling articles on them and let the readers decide which proves their case better based on the evidence presented? Have headers on "hot issues" that link to the opposing article that way until somthing is laid to rest in the majority of wiki users minds the debate is preserved. I think thats the true beauty you guys have as an online encyclopedia that is open source to the public it could allow an up-to-date preservation of current debates. Do what you know is right in the intrest of free exchange of information.

I would add that hobslover seems to have an alterior motive on WRH as he is the only prominent voice against keeping WRH on wikiOWNtheNWO 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • REMOVE: It is clear that WhatReallyHappened.com doesn't belong on Wikipedia and that its content does conflict with the editorial policy of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to maintain consistency then references to substantial resources presenting alternative *conspiracy* versions of history should be banned. If you keep the article on WhatReallyHappened then you are inviting an edit war as people try to edit out the necessary bias from the official article that equates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is better for all that Wikipedia stand firm on its principles. REMOVE the site!
  • Keep The article needs to be improved, but 1) the subject doesn't seem to be any less WP:WEB than The Best Page in the Universe or other similar pages and 2) if WP is whittled to just popular, common subjects, it becomes much less useful. 67.20.67.252 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)proberts[reply]

KEEP: While it may not meet the criteria, neither does Drudge Report. My understanding of Wikipedia is as an information source, and the article, while it could be improved, does provide information defining the site.

  • Keep To my mind, deleting WRH from WP smacks of censorship. I'm not a newbie to WP or Wikia and I'm worried by the attitude of some of those writing above. WRH is a very popular site among all sorts of people, its shortcomings notwithstanding. Although Rivero has strong opinions, some of which sail close to the wind, he's far from being a nutter and he provides one of the best news digests out there. But that's not really relevant, is it. The site is significant, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.204.146 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see anything about this page that would warrant deletion. I view WRH at least twice I day. Even though I disagree with Rivero's comments on several issues, I still regard it as one of the best ways to find interesting new information on the Web. So I think the article is useful if it helps other people find out about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.229.21 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment We are ZOG in a world that hates ZOG. This man is trying to escape ZOG. He does not show correct "Groupthink". Delete him forever! 24.95.110.80
  • Keep!, Who will benefit most from the deletion? I read WRH nearly everyday, it doesn't mean I agree with everything in it, I don't see the any anti-semitism. The word "anti" is being thrown about too much, if you don't suport Bush, you are 'anti American' whatever that means, and critisize Isreali policys and intelligence gathering tactics - you are branded the mis-nomer that is 'anti-semite', looks like censorship to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.102.82 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep If I enter whatreallyhappened in google, I get a return of about 284'000 pages which mostly link to the site. Seems important enough to be listed. Removing information about this site on wiki would seem as censorship or maybe a political decision to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.44.15 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Whenever administrators elect to censor the popular types of expression, it always backfires. It may take a bit of time, but it will happen. Some people just can't take a little constructive criticism, can't they? As usual, it is the 'Traditional Enemy" of truth. Whatreallyhappened.com is a premier blog, and absolutely useful.
  • Comment dear administrators and 'wikipedians': somewhere on this wiki it says "[d]isagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures", yet it seems equally important for you to stress above that "the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". thanks for pretending that the opinions of the general public users actually matter.
  • All but the last three paragraphs are responsible enough. It is at that point that the article becomes partisan. Just delete those last three. User:Nadienonyma
  • Keep Whatreallyhappened.com is the most well known website of its kind. World wide. Just because people think the website is anti-semitic and only contains 'conspiracy stuff', which i think are a false acuisitions, shouldn't be a reason to remove this from an encyclopedia. Q: Is whatreallyhappened.com worth mentioning? A: Yes. Period.
  • Keep, This would be an act of censorship to delete this entry. 90% of the articles posted on Whatreallyhappened are mainstream news articles. How can you call that conspiracy theory cruft?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.132.68 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, might not be liked by most of us, but that's not a reason to deny it an article. Definitely notable per popularity, as others have stated. --Ultimus 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Truth hurts some people, but we need a lot of truth right now. Our country is in the worst situation of its history on many levels and the mainstream media is gutless and cowering against the real evil-doers. If it wasn't for Michael Rivero's WRH and other unpopular truth-tellers we would be completely in the dark.--Protean7 08:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The site does a good job finding articles of interest, but the site is not credible and everything is either a Jewish or American conspiracy. I have no problems with the site, but I dont think its worth recognition of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.204.71 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, This site gives the red coated truth about what is going on in our world. You may not like the truth but facts are facts. I'd like to know who it was that even suggested the removal of What Really Happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.20.95 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Are you kidding me? There is a difference between Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theory.. do not delete this. Do you fear the truth? Nothing is directed at the Jewish population, it is prone to attack Israel, with good reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.8.197 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Useful news site. Also the article should be rewritten to remove all the POV stuff about anti-semitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.130.231 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.193.3.46 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, It is not a question of theory or fact. but a question of judgement. WRH does not pick any story just because it goes against the mainstream media. We do have a balanced view of the various opinions. The aim is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.88.249 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, WRH site is where the REAL news is. This is the only website I can rely on for the initial news. Then I go to other websites for further news items. Main Stream Media is the worst place for news. Go there for entertainment only! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, We need to find what is theory and what is fact! Also what is a conspiracy, and what is not. This site will give the answers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, All Rivero does is provide links to credible wire service, magazine, and newspaper articles available elsewhere on web, and he occasionally comments underneath the date given for the article, which is his right under the First Amendment. The charges of anti-semitism are ridiculous. Who is making this charge? Identify yourself. Is this why Rivero's site is up for deletion? I suspect it is. [If you really want to ward off anti-semitism, spend your time making sure the US does not attack Iran and cause WWIII. That will produce anti-semitism at the Joe Six-Pack level the likes of which we will have never seen in this country. Abdicating our judgment, foreign policy, and treasury for the express nationalistic needs of a foreign nation to the detriment of our own is constitutional slaughter, and when that produces the senseless death of American soldiers as a result, as it most assuredly will, American citizens will react in their own interest. You aint seen xenophobia yet. And there is no fundamentalist Christian fantasy that could possibly override it...and while you're at it working to stop WWIII, why dont you ask the US govt to give the $6 BILLION oil reserve for Israel -- $3 BILLION in 2002 prices -- back to the US taxpayers who paid for it. There are common working folk in Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska currently pawning their household goods to pay for gas who need it.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.49.17 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, If the WRH site is deleted, it will certainly give me an idea where Wikipedia is coming from. Wikipedia should not exist, if the WRH page is deleted. WRH is definitely #1 site on the net! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.189.5 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep A lot of effort spent over 'cruft'. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.4.92 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Well, it seems we already have people deleting these comments, as mine was. Don't give into the unscrupulous censors. They are true freedom haters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fozzy1015 (talk • contribs) .
  • This user's second edit, both to this page.
  • KEEP!!! what are you thinking, man? This entry's a keeper! Everyone knows What Really Happened! What's wikipedia without it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.171.157 (talk • contribs) .
  • Change To, WhatReallyHappened.com This site has been in existence for a noteworthy length of time. It is controversial, and therefore also notable because of that. Frankly there is no good reason to exclude it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.65.177.185 (talk • contribs) .
  • MUST KEEP*** this is a valuable source of information. Whatreallyhappened.com sorts through the disinformation that spills out of Washington DC and around the world and puts real facts instead of propaganda that spews out of the politicians mouths. T.M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.233.20 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep In the interest of free discourse WRH and Wikipedia should peacefully coexist. Its deletion sounds suspiciously like censorship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stratacat (talk • contribs) .
  • User's second edit, both to this page.
  • Keep You list the Daily Kos, Instapundit, Drudge Report and AmericaBlog. Give me a break. At least it has a better layout than Drudge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.221.131.245 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep The site certainly qualifies as a news compilation site. Many of the news sources on the site are well established newspapers of record, such as The Guardian. I'll agree that some of the sources have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the site still is noteworthy.Zerotsm 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's fifth edit
  • Keep an informative site that gives a viewpoint from the mainstream media that is not really heard on any other source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.203 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment The references to Jews are too general in nature, think if they were stricken or changed to Zionist it owuld be more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowenmark (talk • contribs) .
  • User's second edit
  • Keep I don't understand the problem with WRH. It's a great source for news, especially in this day and age with a monopoly on mainstream media. If it is a supposed anti-semite related problem, I don't see it it all. I clearly see anti-zionist, but that is obviously different from anti-semitism.
    I mean, for real, I live in Brooklyn with a plenty of orthodox Jews, I could line up a thousand of them who are anti-zionist. Does that mean these orthodox Jews are anti-semite? I don't think so. Afterall, these orthodox Jews heed and worship G*d and gain inspiration and insight from the Torah. The Zionist worship a piece of soil, which just so happens to sit in the middle of what a number of religons consider their Holy Land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.149.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: Of course, the fact that you're contemplating this act of censorship simply validates Rivero's point: Any questioning of pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian orthodoxy can be safely eliminated by claims of "anti-semitism". Deleting the WRH page would cast suspicion on the rest of Wikipedia's content: What else is being censored by the zionist standard? Andy 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit
  • Keep: When I first discovered Wikipedia, I realized the discovery of a website that truly empowers an individual's right to freedom of expression as well as an individual's right to freedom of dissent. Wikipedia serves as a reference board, which allows individuals to make up their own mind after rationalizing the opinions/facts others present. By deleting this as well as any other similar article, the utility and power of Wiki is marginalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.13.147 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: WRH is one of the best resources on the web. WRH links to mostly to mainstream news sources. Rivero's comments, sometimes ridiculous, and can be ignored while the links mined for gold. I avoid "conspiracy" sites and would not go near an anti-Semitic one -- WRH is not one of these. Vincent.fx 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's second edit
  • MUST KEEP: I am a reader of WRH since years. To delete the article about WRH would amount to nothing more than censorship. The article is relevant and objective, except the almost obligatory smear of "anti-semitism" which these days is applied to anybody not willing to accomodate the lies of the wannabe-semites any longer. I propose that the part about Mike being "anti-semitic" be removed in a subsequent edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.161.83 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: This is where I have been getting most of my news from for about 3 years. I have learned of countless other news outlets because of WRH. Delete it if you want but as long as it keeps providing news I will keep reading. Screw if Wikopedia doesn't have it in their database. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.225.77.139 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: WhatReallyHappened.com will continue to be an important source of information, depsite the virulent Website Denial that is rampant on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.134.11 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: What is this? Communist China? Why are you trying to delete something just because its of a different opinion then the minority? Why not delete Alqaeda. We all know who's relly behind alCIAda.... The good thing about America is that we can say what we want to say right? Say what we believe and be free to express our opinion... Why is this country and a lot of web sites against free speech that doesn't "fit-in" to what the they think is right... No wonder people still think Bush is a good president.. All the post about him that are not good are being deleted...
  • Please Keep: These are brilliant excerpts from the mainstream media from all over the world! 70% of all my verifyable informations in the past 5 years come from this site! If you want to avoid censorship, keep it! Only it should show the full Domain-name.com and should be written accordingly. I love Rivero's clever and humorous comments on all his excerpts and links! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.27.90.147 (talk • contribs) .
  • No matter if one agrees or disagrees with the contents present on the site of WhatReallyHappened.com. That is irrelevant in this respect. For Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is tasked with providing any visitor with information regarding any subject. That alone is a sufficient reason for this particular page to remain in existence. 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.238.245.50 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Of-course keep .. The WRH entry is exactly the type of information which should be on Wikipedia .. if someone thinks it is biased or non-neutral point of view, then let them propose an alternative/correction/addendum. Deletion sounds like the USSR removing someone's image from the Kremlin photos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.22.97 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Improve: As a longtime newsreader with no personal connection to WRH organisation, my view is that WRH is a diverse, eye-opening and sensible link page to ALTERNATIVE NEWS MEDIA OPINIONS that would otherwise not be found. The site is an enormous resourse that I am gratefull for. Over the last 2 YEARS (that I've been reading WRH), the Editor has been true to an unwritten editorial ethos of fairness, exposure and education. The site is obviously and consistently guided by these principles. There is an often colourful "introductory comment" aside many of the link pages. While these comments are often passionate, I while have never seen any tainted by unreasoned vitriol, bitterness, blind promotion, etc. I salute this fine resource and recommend it - especially to those who are only familiar with the standard, sanitized press that so typifies the media. I cannot imagine any reason why Wiki should delete the reference, short of arbitratry censorship or possibly even pressure from quarters that may not like exposure of many unpretty things.... Rick Bryant, UK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ol'Rich (talk • contribs) .
  • User's first edit
  • Keep! If Wikipedia is to remain a community-based service facilitating free speech and avoiding censorship it must keep this site. If you throw out whatreallyhappened you will soon be forced to throw out hundreds of articles on intersting authors and individuals R. Sandman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.48.16.45 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: In dispise of the us of a and it's so called virtues, a fake country which only exists through hollywood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep: Pretty new to Wikipedia, but I would consider donating to you guys if you keep this page. I will sign up. apart from the fact that there is no basis to delete it, the truth as shown by a free press is not "anti-anything" it can not be it's just the news silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, but vastly Improve: The typical unsubstanciated implications of anti-semitism need to be purged and far greater emphasis placed on the site's primary purpose of challenging "official orthodoxy" as "reported" by a so-called main-stream "press". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.149.44 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep this entry and Improve.; If this entry is deleted, then many readers, like myself, will understand that censorship is driving this. I have no connection to the WRH website. I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia and What Really Happened. I believe What Really Happened is an excellent alternative news source and not some "conspiracy theory" site as some obviously non-readers of the site have claimed here. And even if one considers it as a conspiracy-theory site as their reason for removal, then that isn't a good enough excuse. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA IS TO BE INFORMATIVE. Entry deletions should not be based on whether an entry is "important," "relevant," or "notable" because those categorizations are subjectively and arbitrarily determined by the person who's searching for information at any given moment. If you're going to have superfluous entries on cartoons, anime and local politicians that I wouldn't necessarily include in ANY wiki, let alone encyclopedia, then there should be no problem with keeping WRH's entry. Nor does the WP:WEB notability does apply, because even USER's PERSONAL INFO are included as Wiki. Nor should Wikipedia acquiesce to those who want to press for censorship of an entry based on reasons of political, religious, or governmental affiliation. If you disagree with info posted on the entry -- isn't that what the edit function for? Those who press for WRH's deletion are doing so based on censorship reasons -- just as what happend with Rachel Corrie's play in New York City. If someone doesn't like WRH, then don't read it - and that goes for the site's entry on Wikipedia too. All voices and sources of news need to be heard and maintained -- not just those "sanctioned" by the elitists. And in addition, WRH's entry does not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, No Original Research or Veribility policies. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)USA 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarah smiling again (talk • contribs) .[reply]
  • User has four edits, all to this page.
  • Keep: Unless you're trying to promote cencsorship. -- Stewabumer
  • Keep!!:I've been reading WRH for years now, and I've never seen anything else than very good information that you won't find in the mass media, things that need to be known.

Rivero is reliable, has a very good analysis skill and is a threat to the Establishment, the Elite. KEEP IT! User:http://lesnouvellesinternationales.blogspot.com/ 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)barakagaia, reader, May 30th 2006, Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.130.38.52 (talk • contribs) .

  • KEEP I visit the WRH site twice a day. And Smirking Monkey. A good alternative news source. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanbuskirk (talk • contribs) .
  • User's first edit
  • Keep WRH is a popular, active, and controversial website. Just by virtue of that, it is worth being included. For all the people that consider the site to be anti-semitic, they should especially want to keep the article, since people who get referred to WRH can look it up on Wikipedia and at least be aware of the allegations and controversy surrounding it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the article the way it is - whether or not Rivero is anti-semitic is a matter of opinion, but that the allegations have been made is a matter of fact. It just needs to be clearly stated that they are allegations. With the explosion in alternative news websites, It would seem that it would be important for Wikipedia to have information on them of this nature, so people can at least be aware of what biases the website may have, especially when the sites have a large audience. For instance, I have read WRH occasionally for a while, and I never knew that Rivero was a Republican, or that the site was that old. That said, I don't see the point for a second article about Rivero, since he is only notable for WRH. Senatorpjt 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP Well, if you delete it, you may. But I WILL NEVER AGAIN USE YOUR RESOURCE, since I'll consider it heavily biased one. And BTW, WRH will not go away, but you eventually will if you continue to censor ideas or free speach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.4.2 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP If you delete this entry and expand your ABCNNBCBSFOX entries then you will lose a huge audience. There are many people on the net that rely on uncensored news and non-corporate news and by deleting this entry you are only supporting the official propaganda of the state. Good Day Sirs/Ma'ams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.219.170 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP I am astonished WRH is even being considered for deletion. It is very well-known, both to friends and foes alike. Criticise by all means, but to ignore it entirely should be anathema to Wikipedia. I'm an English leftie - not at all anti-semitic or racist - and I have WRH set as my homepage. NB: WRH comment on the likes of David Irving and Ernst Zundel tends to focus on the 'they might be wrong but that's no excuse to jail them'. Quite right too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.177.8 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP It's my major news source on the web. It's updated frequently has interesting links to news articles and some science articles from around the country and even internationally, that I would otherwise not be able to find. The site's interests parallel mine, and I'm grateful for its generosity in taking the time to inform me of news that otherwise is largely ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muisy (talk • contribs) .
  • User's first edit
  • KEEP Do not remove this entry - though I would condone the removing of claims of anti-semetism. It is not anti-semetic to point out the blindingly OBVIOUS influence jewish lobbyists and jewish owned media has upon the US Government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) .
  • User's first edit
  • KEEP You also need to add to Lord Northcliffe's bio, his most famous quote, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.16.57 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP The websites owner simply comments on the news stories he links to, so his views are not important. What is important is the news stories that are linked, 90% of the material that is posted on WRH is not available in the mainstream media or easy to find in western countries who's agenda the stories do not support. Considering the lies we get fromt he media, this website is a essential resource for anyone wanting to know the other side of the story. To say this website is a conspiracy theorist website is simply wrong, because many people are still asking questions that the mainstream media refuse to touch or answer we are compelled to find the answers elswhere. And this website does that in abundance. Sam, Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.176.115 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP Out of 51 article links posted today, 29 relate to war and war crimes. Hardly "cruft," unless that's what you call uncomfortable current events, or work for the Pentagon.--204.96.170.186 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Note: this comment deleted in past 24 hours. Thanks, vandals! --204.96.170.186 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment DEFINITELY KEEP IT! The TRUTH must be spread.
  • REMOVE WRH or Michael Rivero have nothing to lose if they are denied a befitting entry on a website where anything contrary to the pseudo patriotic goupthink is considered "conspiracy cruft". RiverSide 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is one of the most valuable websites that I know of. Though I think that sometimes Rivero has exaggerated ideas, I feel that I can winnow the articles myself, without the good graces of a self-appointed censor, I've noticed that any article in Wikipedia tending to reflect negatively on Jews or Israel, whether the article is true or false, may be vandalized by cyber hitmen, and this seems to be the case here. Thomas Keyes (no tilde on my keyboard)
  • STRONG Keep, While I disagree strongly with a lot of things Rivero has to say, his site is well known and a valuable reference for a lot of people (though I often wish they would cross examine his sources better), and I am adamantly against the current demagogic pogrom of VfDing any article that the fasco-liberal ruling cabal want to suppress. I stand with Voltaire on a strong keep.Citizenposse 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. WRH has been a minor phenomena in the web sphere. A good resource for daily news of the the evil empire's activities. I don't see any bias accept towards logically correct moral positions, hence Israel's inclusion based on their own stated goal of a race-based society and the effects it causes. From a wiki point of view, even if one disagrees with MR's viewpoints (he does not editorialise all that much), WRH has been pivotal in forming one of the sources for anti-war, anti-neo-con movement. A definite keep. djr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.148.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, This site exposed "extraordinary rendition" long before the mainstream media even knew it was happening. In fact, WRH is often months ahead of stories which eventually get accepted by the main stream media. Rivero is an intelligent man who does a good job separating wide eyed conspiracy nonsense from legitimate matters of public concern. I do, indeed, have concerns about the stridency of his anti-Israel stance. Rivero states that being against the policies of Isreal is not the same as anti-semitism. I think he is correct about that. However, the site attracts anti-semites and that does indeed bother me. Nonetheless if Wikipedia supports freedom of speech they shouldn't even consider deleting WRH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.0.183 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep, Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever if it deletes articles like this one. If you disagree with Riviero, make your case on the article itself -- don't resort to censorship. It's not like Riviero is making up news out of thin air, he links directly to both mainstream and alternate news sources. If Wikipedia is going to start deleting articles that they don't agree with, like so many books burned by the Nazis, then I hope sites like WRH will continue to reveal the hypocrisy of this supposed source of information. I've never considered an anti-semite, and I don't think anyone who has regularly visited his site would either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.80.113 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep, and change WP:WEB criteria to be more in line with the dictionary definition of notable. WP:WEB criteria make no allowance for popularity, or many other criteria that can make something notable. Under these criteria something could be read and depended on by every person on earth and not be considered noteable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.88.61.66 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Wikipedia editors are really pathetic. Why is anti-semitism or anti-Israelism such a big deal to them? What about anti-Catholicism? How come they don't throw out entries that are anti-Catholic? Why are the Jews so sacrosanct? What makes them more special than everybody else? I read WhatReallyHappened.com every day to get the pure unadulterated no-holds barred no-punches-pulled truth and honest realistic commentary. Now I am a traditional Roman Catholic of the Mel Gibson type, and Mike Rivero being an atheist he is also anti-Catholic. Nevertheless, I would believe Mike Rivero in the area of politics and economics and military etc. (everything except religion) before I would believe in anything John Paul II said or Benedict Ratzinger says or any of the crooked child-molesting cardinals, bishops and priests. And furthermore, the fact is that WhatReallyHappened exists and does not depend on Wikipedia for its existence, so whether or not Wikipedia deletes the entry on WhatReallyHappened is nothing more than pure childishness on the part of Wikipedia editors. Since Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopeia, it should contain information about everything that exists. I am Catholic and I despise Jews and I am anti-semitic (so there! put that in yer pipe and smoke it!) but I wouldn't think of using that as a justification for calling for the deletion of all Wikipedia entries on the ADL or B'nai B'rith or Kabala or Chabad or Israel et al. In fact, I am anti- a lot of things and pro- a lot of other things as well. None of that though should be used as justification to trample on my right to speak freely, nor on the right of the people to be able to obtain information on those subjects. Wikipedia editors should drop political correctness as a guideline for what is contained in Wikipedia and simply write about what is there from an unslanted unbiased viewpoint. Perhaps the entry on Wikipedia itself should say "Wikipedia is an anti-anti-semitic discriminatory encyclopedia that seeks to further the Jewish and/or pro-Jewish agenda and censor any information which is not flattering to Jews or in keeping with that agenda. You can see that in trying to defend and promote one particular special interest group, you are not only setting yourself against everyone else, but you are doing a diservice to all the people (including Jews) who have a right to information and seek that information in Wikipedia, and finally you are doing a disservice to yourself by besmirching your name with the sins of censorship and bigotry masquerading as justice. TruthPathWalker 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Antranik - Yeravan, Armenia[reply]
  • Strong Keep The reason this entry is up for deletion is that WRH has dared to feature articles critical of Israel. The reputation of wikipedia is increasingly under threat here.
    While WRH and others are being attacked Islamaphobic hate sites listed on wikipedia get promoted and protected - see the resurrection of the Harry's Place entry to see proof of that. There is blog that routinely demonises Islam and Muslims yet it gets reposted after it was rightly deleted. Why the hypocrisy wikipedia?
    But you know what after reading some of the arrogance frorm your registered users above towards those who come here to support WRH I think I am changing my mind.
    Who cares what wikipedia lists.
    Go ahead allow yourself to become a zionist approved reference site - then watch yourself disappear into irrelevance. best thing for you after reading the contempt many of you have for your readers. 88.101.187.61 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usual 'non-notability' fig leaf that the bunch of Zionist agents who have infiltrated Wikipedia normally uses to hide their blatant censureship doesn't do the trick here. WhatReallyHappened.com has a Google Page Rank of 7/10 and an Alexa Page Rank of the site is 9504. Its readership goes into the thousands every day. On Google alone, 5110 pages are linking to the site, a search for the string 'whatreallyhappened' returns 307000. Tough luck, guys. -- Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some have argued that their reason for WRH's deletion is that Wikipedia IS NOT a compendium for pop culture. But, this argument is a flawed one -- especially since there are plenty of pop culture-related references that Wikipedia already includes, and there have been no calls for the removal of these entries. I'll cite several examples. For example, Wikipedia has an entry for Cartoon Network's <aexternal free">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grim_Adventures_of_Billy_and_Mandy">The Grim Adventures of Bill and Mandy</a> and Nickolodeon's <a>Fairly Odd Parents</a>. I'm not against ANY pop culture reference being included in Wikipedia, since it's helpful in finding out more about certain shows I enjoy. My argument is that if you're going to include those seemingly superfluous entries, then I can't really see how you can use that a substantive argument for the deletion of WRH's entry. Sarah smiling again 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The credibility of wikipedia would suffer a lot if a popular site with alternative ideas were deleted for non-notability. Also, attacking israeli leaders or organization based on their supposed misbehavings is quite different from being antisemitic. Boborosso 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep totally agree with the "Andrewwinkler 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)" comment. KEEP. Have had many things deleted. also. perhaps we could start our own online Encyclopedia. in which we would accept pro Zionist veiw points and Con Zionist Veiw points. this Encyclopedia only seems to accept Pro. we should get in touch with Rivero for he will have many more hits than this place in the future if the "interested" "wiki's" continue down this old media backward line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There already exists another wiki site that accepts both pro and con views on the topic of Zionism. Ironically, it's called ZioPedia, the nickname given to Wikipedia for its continued blatant censorship towards views critical of Israel. -- Andrewwinkler 06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Anti-Anything" is in the eye of the beholder, and should not be the basis of an article deletion. You are free to disagree with a website's editorial policy, but you do not appear to be in the business of policing it.67.78.247.59 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this one last time. The article was not nominated for deletion due to anything having to do with the website's policies or views or those of the owners'/editors'/operators'/etc. The website's anti-whatever stance was not taken into consideration when nominating the article for deletion. No one has attempted to "police" another website. --Strothra 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. WRH is where I learned of Abu Ghraib LONG before it hit the mainstream media. A source of the Downing Street Memos LONG before it hit the mainstream media. Yeah, why not delete it? It appears to be the only news source we can actually rely on...and that's not good for the establishment, is it? You can't continue to pull the crap you do if you're being uncovered. Sharpinchi-town 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE* I thought this was an encyclopedia? What is WRH doing in an online encyclopedia anyway? WRH is simply a website. It's not a historical event or movement. I go there pretty much daily to skim through the posted articles, but it's nothing extraordinary. WRH in itself is not significant. I don't think Rivero creates content, he simply "mines" it from others. I am somewhat disturbed by the worldwide Jewish conspiracy nonsense. I don't support Israel myself, but some of the postings are not simply anti-Israel they ARE anti-semitic. Also WRH has a strong racist anti-immigrant taint. Some of the stuff is good investigative journalism, however, much of it veers off into loony tunes conspiracy theorist fantasy land. Kind of like Alex Jones - ignorant redneck anti-guvmint, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant crap. Where were all of you WRH fanatics when people like me were protesting against US involvement in Central America in the early 80's? Where were you during the anti-apartheid protests of the mid and late 80's? What were you doing during the protests against the first Gulf War? No wonder you're freaked out! If you were semi-literate and politically conscious you would have read years ago about the shadowy and immoral acts of our government and military. WRH and its adherents seem more interested in foaming at the mouth than engaging in creative positive non-violent change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.83.205.174 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

..or just delete the twaddle above. 'Unsigned'. The only man worth listening to are those not hiding behind their anonymity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forbesp (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if Wikipedia deletes WRH from its website or not. WRH will still be there for readers to enjoy regardless. In fact, if Wikipedia deletes WRH it is Wikipedia that loses another entry and becomes less complete in it's overall coverage of world events, becoming less and less comprehensive with each deletion it does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.205.192 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Keep. "Criticism of the state of Israel is NOT anti-semitic".-Colin powell Arabs are semites, if I criticise the saudis, will you delete my article too? Zionism is a political ideology, not a race issue.

If a mainly muslim country accuses an american who is a dual citizen and who is a christian, of being a spy, are THEY being racist?

  • KEEP Calling WRH anti-semetic makes about as much sense as calling some one who oppose china's occupation of tibet "anti-asian". WRH is very critical of Isreal but not in anyway anti-jewish people. -soulinite

KEEP: Very relevant. Great source of non-main stream media. Anyone using the 'anti-semtic' card on Whatreallyhappened.com is insulting the Jews who really suffered and should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.90.14 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: it will be WIKI that gets ignored, not WRH for 50,000 readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.13.230 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • 'Keep One of the most credible websites there is. By the way, I notice that all comments endorsing the website - there were plenty of them here last time I looked - have been removed. Who is responsible for this? (All this really proves that the idea of open publishing is a farce.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.60.96 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If wikipedia is going to allow articles on the biased presstitutes of the mainstream media, then WRH is definitely a necessary counterpoint. I will seriously reconsider my use of wikipedia if the WRH entry is deleted. Weigh this decision carefully boys and girls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnemonician (talk • contribs) 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepWRH uses critical thinking in deciding what materials to put on his website.

Critical thinking - its about freedom, about routing out corruption, about doing what the corporately owned media does not do. WRH is responsible in the way they report things. I can only imagine how corrupt this will make Wikipedia look if they delete WRH because they don't like it or someone has told Wikipedia to censor it. WRH isn't pornography, it is honesty. WRH doesn't foist his opinions, he opens peoples minds. What would Orwell think if he saw that Wikipedia was even considering trying to pretend that WRH does not exist? Shame on you Wikipedia, for even considering such a move. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.181.167 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I have been visiting the site for over a year and its strong criticism of Israel cannot be misconstrued as antisemitism; in fact I consider it foolhardy to do so. WRH is at times unpleasantly rightwing and libertarian but does exhibit quite a bit of stuff which is going wrong in the world. --Dagonweb 15:15, 1 June 2006 (CET)
  • Strong Keep As stated many times already, WhatReallyHappened is mainly a news reference site, an encyclopedia itself of VERIFIABLE news stories that, in most cases, you WILL NOT SEE in the mainstream media. Any, and all, claims for deletion of its entry are completely ridiculous, for hundreds of reasons stated above and even more unstated. The only thing its deletion will do is make me SERIOUSLY QUESTION WIKIPEDIA'S CREDIBILITY AND UNBIASED OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING in the future. I'll say it again: how can you delete a website than is composed almost soley of LINKS TO VERIFIABLE NEWS ARTICLES. Give me a break.

Well it seems this has become just another yuppie site. If you dont contribute to the site you dont count. Some people do just use wik to look things up, isnt that the main objective of the site. To GIVE OUT information, NOT hold it in. We already have enough sites that do that. I wonder Who is pushing for this article to be deleted. Calling the policies of Isreal wrong is not anti-semitism. That is tantamount to saying critisising the policies of the CRIPS and BLOODS, is racist towards all blacks. This doesnt not justyify taking it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.119.224 (talk • contribs)

  • STRONG KEEP - Clearly notable. Meets and supports all criteria. A mere "conspiracy cruft" reply doesn't hold water for deletion. The site provides valid and verifiable information with unpopular views that some are threatened by. You can argue it's accuracy but hardly justify it's deletion. Robotonic 05:09, 1 June 2006

STRONG KEEP - Rivero has said many times that Zundel, Irving, etc. must be onto something, why else would powerful people be so desperate to silence them? Apparently Rivero is also onto something 66.108.7.46 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WRH is a fantastic resource of LINKS to numerous information sources, international and alternative news organizations. Sure, some may link to or hold views that are cautionary, however, there is no agenda, nor any sort of push of a belief system. WRH is no more slanted than the Drudge Report. I personally have not read any stories in regards to content that would justify removal of WRH from wikipedia. The whole concept of wikipedia is to let EVERYONE have an editorial voice, it is up to the reader to weigh the information, and then make up their own mind regarding it's merit. Please do not allow a handful of editors to make this decision for millions of potential readers. I value wikipedia and WRH equally, and if forced to make a choice between them, would side with WRH, since they DO NOT discriminate thought content. I feel that some wikipedia editors and/or readers should not have deletion powers, but that a warning or recommendation of impartiality may be more appropriate in this case. WRH falls into the same category, and is surfed just as often by myself as the Drudge Report, David Icke, Rense, yahoo, google and MSN news. Sure, I'm a liberal, but I'll learn. Just let me have ALL available information. I'm a grown man, and it would pain me to lose the OPTION of seeing different points of view. Perhaps we should ban the works of Mark Twain, I hear he has a character named N****r Jim. He sounds like someone we should ban from libraries entirely. (insert sarcastic laugh here). Deletion of content is the same as book burning in my opinion.

Per wikipedia's own guidelines: Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I site the following page which lists awards this site has won. http://whatreallyhappened.com/FAQ/awards.htm This is very cleat cut proof that WRH meets the Website Notability Criteria 24.130.196.236 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Keith Coogan[reply]

    • As mentioned before, the deletion is about notability, not censorship. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep: Needless attempts at suppression of WRH and similar articles and links is just plain dead wrong, and would only serve to stoke further criticism of the Wiki. Ombudsman 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep: First of all, I don't know why the article was tagged for deletion. A little idea of why it was tagged would go a lot further than 'quick, act now' sort of stuff. :-) And also, just because I didn't edit the article doesn't mean I should have less of a say, I think. I may, for example, refer to the article and otherwise be interested in it. So that's another point. All of that said, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. The site does exist. There has to be some form of rationale on why this article is tagged to be deleted... it's getting rather silly, I think. Until someone can demonstrate an idea as to why it was initially tagged for deletion, I will retain my stance of strong keep. It does seem a bit strange from the outside looking in. Keep it, and in future give reasons so we can make more informed decisions - please. --TaranRampersad 06:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reviewing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I do not see a basis for this article to be deleted or even to be tagged for deletion. And I am chilled at the flagrant disregard shown in such tags for deletion. This is larger than just one article, it has come to the attention of the general public. By the present process, it seems that there is no penalty for tagging things for deletion without substantiation, and is in itself questionable. With regard to this page, I retain my opinion of keeping it - in fact, I reinforce it. We don't allow arbitrary people with lit matches into libraries, and I take issue with the equivalent happening with the Wikipedia. Sure, we have stuff that needs to be deleted in the Wikipedia, but the appropriate process was not followed for this and deleting it out of turn demonstrates that the process itself is unimportant. That's my read. Open to intelligent discussion. --TaranRampersad 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the nomination before discussion why this article was tagged. This article was not tagged to the WP:NOT policies but rather the other policies which are stated in the nomination at the top of this discussion. Thank you. --Strothra 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep And, you should clean up the part about anti-Semitism. Rivero's argument is similar to Neturei Karta. If He's guilty of it, then you should also consider deletion of Neturei Karta. Rivero's site is sourced at every turn. All the articles he posts that are of his opinions are highly referenced by multiple sources.
  • Strong Keep and Clean Up The What Really Happened article describes a very well-known website with many hits. If there are problems with the article itself they can be fixed -- and I agree that the article needs some work. However, what exactly will deleting the article from Wikipedia accomplish? Just because some people don't like WRH for one reason or another -- whatever the reason -- does not justify VfD's. Although WRH has some original work, it mostly contains citations and links to topics in the mainstream and alternative media that are of interest to a great many people. There are 1000s and 1000s of worse-written articles in Wikipedia, which raises the question, "Why this particular VfD at this time?" Earpol 07:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable website with a large readership, and has been around talking about the clinton scandals long before any of this Bush stuff. ---Archeus 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonplanet.com[edit]

  • Delete and merge with Alex Jones non notable website but may be merged with Jones. website does not merit its own article Strothra 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep most prominent conspiracy site --Striver 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, not noteworty Mr.Blonde 00:36, 29 May 2006
  • Keep, possibly merge with Alex Jones (radio). I need more than NN to vote delete here, particularly as we have articles on the individuals involved in the site as well as some of their documentaries. -- JJay 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does this website meet WP:WEB? --Strothra 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Web is a guideline that has no influence on my view of articles. I don't know if this is an important website, but if Alex Jones deserves an article then logically his website might deserve coverage... or merge might be a better option. The question merits far more attention than implied by a three word nom. You need to make a better case for deletion. -- JJay 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating your nom [48]. In the future, when revising AfD noms, please strikeout earlier comments for clarity. -- JJay 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I added information, I didn't take out anything. Are you suggesting that I just strike out the entire thing and write a new one next time? --Strothra 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --JJay 10:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonplanet.com gives 350 000 hits, a great deal considering the unusualy name, and is also a google news source. A conspiracy site does not get more notable than this. --Striver 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Alex Jones (radio)--MONGO 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable website by a notable crank. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Alexa rank in the 6,000s. [49] 412,000 Google hits for "prisonplanet." [50] Clearly notable and verifiable; passes WP:WEB. --Hyperbole 21:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Merge. Notable conspiracy theory website by notable conspiracy theorist/crank. - CNichols 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting and useful news site. Website is clearly notable, passes WP:WEB.
  • Keep per hyperbole. Grandmasterka 18:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that all of the following articles have also be proposed for deletion at this time: Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, Dissident Voice and What Really Happened. __meco 08:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per acceptable Alexa ranking. Naconkantari 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have an article for Alex Jones. We don't need separate articles for his websites. KleenupKrew 23:25, 2 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 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars.com[edit]

  • Delete non notable website. conspiracycruft Strothra 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, second biggest site of the most notable cospiracy theorist. Obvios that nominator is not aware of what is and what is not notable in this field, considering he nominated prisonplanet.com as well --Striver 23:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Article closed as keep less than two weeks ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infowars.com. Nom has presented no new argument that requires a renom at this juncture. -- JJay 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a consensus keep 2 weeks ago. Right now, nothing exists at Wikipedia:Speedy keep to change the ability of people to close AfDs early if an article was AfD'd recently, please consider going there and helping change that. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominating an article for the second time in two weeks after a "keep" consensus seems borderline bad-faith. --Hyperbole 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced by the time the AFD finishes. Calling the previous nom a consensus keep is also disingenuous. Kotepho 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable conspiracy theory website. - CNichols 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be brought to the attention of all participating in this debate that Jeff Rense, What Really Happened, Prisonplanet.com, and Dissident Voice have all been proposed for deletion at this time, in addtioin to the current article. Furthermore I'd like to add my opinion that nominating an article for deletion less than three weeks after it was previously nominated should be considered disruption of the project. __meco 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent AfD. Give it a few months and try again if you still have concerns. Naconkantari 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Alexa rank 12k + the previous keep. However, not a speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have an article for Alex Jones. We don't need separate articles for his websites. KleenupKrew 23:25, 2 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 -- Samir धर्म 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rense[edit]

Delete non notable conspiracy theorist with no verifiable sources to notability. His radio program does not claim any sort of major audience. Good article, just not a notable guy - at least no such notability is etsablished in article. Violates WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Also see WP:BIO Strothra 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:haha I think I heard of that show but I think that it was as non notable as the television station it was on. --Strothra 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed many articles for deletion today and not all of them may be found on his userpage. As I stated earlier in another discussion, I go with what the article gives me. If it violates, WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, I nominate it. I don't rely on outside resources, just what's in the article. If it's not encyclopedic and if that fact isn't supported by references, citations, and firm research then it's junk. I'm sorry if that upsets you but there's nothing I can do about that. It's not against Wikipedia's standards to have high standards for an encyclopedia. Wiki itself promotes the use of good, sound research in its articles. --Strothra 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of exploratory afd nomination strategy, if you think an user has a tendency to post afd-worthy articles Bwithh 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable conspiracy theorist. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable conspiracy theorist. Quite common to run across his latest spewings in the course of doing casual internet research on various conspiracy theories. Bwithh 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Among the top brass of conspiracy theory purveyors. This is the second AfD vote I'm casting today initiated by Strothra. I hope this user evaluates cost/benefit of these nominations and I suggest there are also other ways of ensuring various Wikipedia policies are adhered to apart from nominating AfD. Ways that don't disrupt the exopedians' routines quite as much. __meco 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a vote but a discussion. I'm sorry but I don't see an article that large with only one citation, a link to the individual's website, and a link to a blog as establishing notability. Where do WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY factor into your discussion? --Strothra 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The line between vote and discussion here is opaque. Those two guidelines weigh in with regards to standards that all articles should strive to adhere to, if necessary by incremental improvements, or preferably by sweeping clean-ups. Deleting substandard articles wantonly however I find discouraging and demoralizing and a poor excuse for not finding better methods to influence the quality of the project. Proposing deletion likewise, however to a lesser degree. __meco 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will note the idea of proposing deletion to a lesser degree although it's not like I commonly put of so many AfD's at once. They are typically spaced out over a greater period. I will also consider any demoralizing impact that AfD's may have although I believe that they serve to create impetus for the initial designing of better articles. Wikipedia is a majorly used source for the common public and poorly researched articles on Wikipedia for any amount of time risks severely contributing to disinformation. Articles should be created after research while being improved upon and expanded over time. Anyway, if you wish to continue discussion about the nature of AfD's we should do so on my user talk page and not in the AfD discussion about this article. --Strothra 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After having discovered today that you instigated an AfD process (in this same category of conspiracism articles) for an article less than three weeks after it was previously nominated I have found grounds to take this to your Talk page. __meco 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a notable personality in news media editorials, his opinions do not make him any more or less deserving of an entry than any others in his field. - EmiOfBrie 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Keep deffinetly.. And could someone please tell me what makes you "notable", sounds like an opinion to me..
It's not an opinion but it's subjective which is why Wikipedia has standards. See WP:NN and WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE and WP:BIO for the basic standards by which notability may be established. --Strothra 13:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the proposed removal of the Jeff Rense article be linked with the proposal to remove the "What Really Happened" entry? Both are conspiracy web pages. This proposal stinks and does infact give more credence to Rivero and Renses web sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.29.108 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. Rense is certainly one of the foremost conspiracy/UFO people in the world and that alone should warrant this article to escape deletion. Also, Rense is a very controversial individual and there is no doubt that this has won him much fame/notoriety.

--NiceguyC 00:26, 31 May 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep Notable conspiracy theorist. Strothra seems to have a mad on against conspiracy articles. - CNichols 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Jeff Rense is a talk-show host distributed by http://www.gcnlive.com including archives. This meets the following test: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". I consider Jeff Rense passing this alternative test as well: "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content. Rather than debating how to write a good Jeff Rense article, we are debating how best to destroy it. I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time. Looks like censorship to me. —optikos 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Dissident Voice has also been proposed for deletion at this time as part of this conspiracism articles clean-up. __meco 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Tychocat 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, does seem to be verifiable, if a bit crankish. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete have to agree with Strotha on this one. Article has inaccuracies (eg. Rense doesn't live in Santa Barbara and he has two brothers not one), also contains non-neutral POV (eg. "popular", "famous"). I read through WP:BIO and he does not fit any of the main criteria for inclusion in Wiki. Nor does the article contain "a good deal of verifiable information". Where are the sources? And I would have to disagree that he passes the Google Test. The Google hits he gets are NOT about RENSE. Can anyone give some links where we may read information about Rense himself? Or perhaps an interview in which HE is the subject of the interview? DanHSmith
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_28&oldid=1142647131"