Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 3

< June 2	June 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 3[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Lichfield[edit]

Inisignificant, non notable. Also, bordering on advertisement. Steve 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- cds^(talk) 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amazinglarry 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice BigDT 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the building is over 150 years old, and it seems important for the community. Remove the time tables and give it some attention tag. -- ReyBrujo 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand based on the information on the historical and artistic associations of this church as discussed in the Lichfield article, which no one here seems to have read. --JJay 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN. 150 years old is not noteworthy for an English church, especially when it's in a hole-in-the-hedge like Lichfield. --die Baumfabrik 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fledgeling 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per die Baumfabrik -- I was thinking the same thing. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The three-line summary on the Lichfield page is enough. ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 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 Delete unanimous consensus, I am going to ignore the usual waiting period here since it's obvious this is a hoax and I would prefer this misinformation not get fed into mirrors, Google results, etc. --W.marsh 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azythia, Idaho[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax. PROD tag was removed so it's afd time. I can't find literally anything on Google about this town, the image claiming to locate it is actually for another town. If it existed as a town, CDP or even properly a local neighborhood or unofficial place, trust me, there'd be something on the internet about it, even if just a gazateer mention with coordinates. The creator left some messages on my talk page, draw your own conclusion [1]. Amusing prank/joke to a point, but the article needs to go. W.marsh 23:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GassyGuy 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable/unverified WP:V--blue520 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article says "most people don't know about it", and only 117 people live there. Therefore no claim to notability (in fact it claims non-notability). Captainj 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources/proof/links it actually exists.--Andeh 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. There are no Google returns for this place outside Wikipedia and you get Google returns for any legitimate place in the first world no matter how small. If it was a verifiably real place with communities of interest, no matter how small, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated.--El aprendelenguas 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Reyk _YO! 01:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. I can't find a lick about it -- Samir धर्म 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incredibly blatant hoax. IrishGuy talk 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete hoax or fictional place. Some of the claimed street names show up in Post Falls, but not really in the same general area. Will need to remove it from List of cities in Idaho as well. Kuru ^talk 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a google search finds only 1 result and that is a list of cities in idaho on wikipedia. the map is a clone to the post falls map so this should be Deleted NOW!!!
Delete definitely not a real place. Ben W Bell talk 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no info at US Census Bureau site either. Ace of Sevens 11:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After taking a good look around the area with google earth I can find no evidemce of this place or the roads mentioned. And quite how a towns mayor could ban blogs and sites about the town I don't know, why would he want to anyway. Ydam 12:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Tide[edit]

Non notable. An article about a something that is schedule to exist in 2007. Abu Badali 00:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No claim to notability. Captainj 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.--Andeh 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I don't agree with deleting articles for teams that have yet to start play, because I would contend that existing in a recognized league is enough for notability. However, not only is the league that this team would be playing in not big enough to guarantee notability, their website is under construction, and the page for the league says that a press conference is "TBA". Delete. --fuzzy510 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a crystal ball article. It covers documented and verifiable facts as they exist today for an expansion team of a minor professional football league. I can, however, understand the argument that perhaps this league isn't terribly notable, but I think there is enough coverage of it to say otherwise [2]. ScottW 01:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being a verifiable fact is enough. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The point here is notability. And not even the of the league, but the notability of the team. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. Not blatant crystal ballage. I think a team scheduled to begin play in a minor progessional league is notable enough -- Samir धर्म 01:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, this is the whole point of the discussion. I strogly disagree with you. It's not notable at all. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the article is worded poorly means nothing. The league is there, the team is verifiabile as the league, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being worded poorly is not a problem. This is a wiki. We can just go there and fix it. The verifiability of the information is not in question. The notability is. --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a real team who are actually starting play in 2007. Just because it's in the future doesn't mean it should be automatically deleted, heck there is already an article for the next presidential election in the US (and the following one I think). Ben W Bell talk 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it should. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Abu Badali 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But it is verifiable information, not a crystal ball is for non-readily verifiable information. Ben W Bell talk 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wb s above. Xyra e l ^T 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ILovePlankton 14:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom . Not notable enough Bwithh 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've looked it over, I've changed my opinion to keep. The precedent has been set for plenty of smaller-league teams that haven't begun play yet to have articles once they were announced, and we should stay consistent. --fuzzy510 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is verified and it is notable enough. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - semipro teams are notable BigDT 22:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though not a particularly good article. Sarge Baldy 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, from all Google news, only two hits (this being the most notable) about this team. However, the proximity of the new season (6 months, I would guess), makes it fit inside the exceptions listed in the first crystal ball clause. -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google didn't capture it but the local Gazette Newspapers in Maryland have an article up about the team for reference. EvWill 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the entries for all the teams in this league could use rewrites I grant. That said, if the entry for the nearby planned Southern Maryland Blue Crabs minor league baseball team can stay up without objection, this entry should stay up too. EvWill 01:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies "crystal ball" requirement: "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Notability is of concern, but is substantial minor league team and deserves benefit of the doubt for now. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WCityMike. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't believe any of this "notability" bullsh*t. I believe Wikipedia is not paper. By your logic, the GLIFL page should be deleted. The expansion team is as notable as the league. Plus, when they have a press conference on June 21, it's gonna be really hard to do a page if the article is deleted. Just my thoughts M. Burmy 11:16 CDT 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Since the Gazette newspapers have already reported the team as having been awarded by the league and the league's website reports the team as being awarded to the owner, it's a real team. If the league or the team fold tomorrow, then you can consider deleting it, but right now, it's valid. Sarzonia 20:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

سنابل_المحبة[edit]

Strong Delete. Nonsense. Nobody who speaks English understands what it means. Georgia guy 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No english or formatting at all here. Wrong wiki?--Andeh 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what we know about the page (from WP:PNT):

It's Arabic. I have no idea what it is about though. I think the title transliterates as "Sanâbal Al-mahabi" --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why this page has to go to AfD before spending the standard two week grace period at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, though. Kusma (討論) 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete no matter whether the contents is worth being translated, there's no reason for an English article with this title Deleteme42 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reason for deletion, Wikipedia has a "move" function that allows editors to rename pages. See WP:MOVE. Kusma (討論) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move to what? As far as I've seen at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English, someone has guessed the language of this article but noone seems to have the slightest knowledge what it's actually about. But let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#What_is_this_good_for?. Deleteme42 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment give it a few more days at WP:PNT, and if no one can come up with a reasonable translation then bring it back here. I'm guessing that's what will likely happen -- Samir धर्म 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can also add that Arabic wikipedia does not have an article on it [3] -- Samir धर्म 01:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try to find somebody who speaks Arabic and ask them to translate this and to decide whether to transwiki this to the Arab wikipedia. Kusma (討論) 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article should go through the full two weeks. From what I can tell from a cursory search, it's about a Christian church in Damascus, perhaps related to this guy. At this point, I have no idea if it's notable or not. ScottW 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here's a google translation: [4] -- Samir धर्म 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The task force supports the idea of hiding love openness to the rest of the difference. Brilliant! --Lambiam ^Talk 17:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT this seems to be about: Church of St John Damascene (Abu Rumana) 132.205.45.148 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Rumana translate to pomegranate? That was what I was getting. Regardless, in any language, I'm not finding many references. However, I still think this article needs to go through the standard translation period before deletion. ScottW 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a Google translation this article appears to be about a church youth group. If that's correct, then it's presumably non-notable. Delete it without transwikiing, since there's no reason to believe that the Arabic Wikipedia would want it either. --Metropolitan90 03:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator is trying to make a WP:POINT. The page should be allowed to live it's two week life on the WP:PNT list and then, it if it's neither translated or notable, be listed per the guidlines for deletion. Translation is not instantaneous and it often takes some sleuting... Anyway, the Church itself is quite notable and the youth group that's mentioned here would be well placed as mention or subsection of an article on an article about the chuch. [5] [6] --Kunzite 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leave it for its two week translation period and then we'll see. If it's not translated by then then out it goes as per policy. Ben W Bell talk 07:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy listed at Wikipedia:List of policies are you talking about? Deleteme42 12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay Policy is too strong a word, but the translation template gives the article two weeks so deleting it before seems unfair. Ben W Bell talk 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it policy that articles needing translation stay at WP:PNT for two weeks? If so then maybe it would be best to close this discussion until the article is translated or the two week period expires. I realize that the end of the two weeks and the end of this AfD nomination overlap. However, any comments in this discussion are just speculation on what the article might be about. ScottW 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not policy, it is just the way we happen to handle things, because it seems to work. The number of foreign language pages we get is small enough that extra policy for them would IMO be m:Instruction creep. Kusma (討論) 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless translated soon. Xyra e l ^T 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless translated. If translated, move the page to an English name and delete the non-English title.--Jusjih 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from what little I can determine it's about a Christian group with 150 members - Peripitus 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rough translation on the page now - definately not notable and probable copyvio from [sanabelz.com/ ]- Peripitus 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a Catholic elementary school or something of the sort? Then I say delete, although it would have been nice to let this go through the full process before having this discussion. ScottW 01:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And more specifically a scouting group. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming good faith in both Peripitus and Lambiam, the article does not need the 2 weeks at Pages needing translation. -- ReyBrujo 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense to me :-) —M e ts501^talk 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A better translation (which I am not going to do per Peripitus et al and number 2 below) would reveal that it is not nonsense, the Arabic is very well written. The title, سنابل المحبة, the best I can tell = "Sanabel, the beloved", (the name of the school as confirmed just now by visiting the school's website) 1) The "rough translation" is indeed very rough, but it is not totally inaccurate. 2) No need to wait on PNT, 150 students = very non-notable school, in any language. --Easter Monkey 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Easter Monkey. Kusma (討論) 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a move to an English title be better? Hong Qi Gong 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, it would end up on AfD under the English title as well. Did some more research, I agree with Peripitus, probable copyvio. The Arabic text is a cut and paste from here, the title of the text on that site, "تاريــــــخ الــفــــرقــــــــــة" = "history of the group (team, outfit, etc.)" and is a posting on the online forum on the site. --Easter Monkey 01:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable advocacy group and/or book. By the way, something else very important: what links to this article. Obviously, if this AfD succeeds, all these will need to be delinked. Well, actually, all these links need to be delinked either way, as the links are completely irrelevant. By the way, I'm of the opinion that all these "<sport> at the <year> Olympics" articles need better leads and better lead formatting. TheProject 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your analysis. I have sayed on irc (but you have quitted) that must be a new form of spamming whose created alongside the spam many links to it mainly to render burdensome the speedy deleting. Something similiar to the WoW modus operandi, but IMHO more nasty. I'm really worried.... dott.Piergiorgio 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like many of the links were adding by the same editor, but some were added before. I think that he was just standardizing the titles. -- Kjkolb 02:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is spam. It's just very strange -- the articles seem all to have copied each other. Either that or there's some sort of boilerplate text for Olympic results that I don't know about.

By the way, the article's now been replaced with a dicdef. Still doesn't belong on Wikipedia, if you ask me, because Wiktionary already has a good definition. TheProject 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as dictionary definition. Xyra e l ^T 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dicdef. I'm suprised this wasn't caught earlier with all those irellevant links to it. Ydam 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and maybe if a bunch of editors could each start going through a half-dozen of the "What links here" entries we can get the links removed before they turn red. For the most part, they're just in the very top line of all the Olympic articles. Fan1967 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE Links are gone. Didn't take that long to kill 62 of them. Fan1967 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the organization seems to be somewhat notable per their press releases, however with that information I cannot decide. I am willing to change my vote if someone gives me a valid link. The article cannot stay in Wikipedia as the definition of the word result, that is for Wiktionary. -- ReyBrujo 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, if you check the article history, before it was a non-notable organization it was a non-notable book. Now it's a dicdef. Based on what I can see, none of them deserve to be kept. Fan1967 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:41, 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 Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fearsome Foursome[edit]

Each group of players is already mentioned in the entry for each team. There's no additional information here, and any new information would be better placed on either the team's page or the players' page. fuzzy510 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Rehcsif 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning. Colon el Tom 04:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GentlemanGhost 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to the team pages. B.Wind 05:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per B.Wind. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:43, 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 Delete. Prodego ^talk 15:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital mourning[edit]

Neologism with only 2 pages of Google hits and no notable source. Crystallina 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Captain Disdain 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Intangible 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rehcsif 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ydam 12:06, 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 - mainly due to the weak keeps.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Soundtrack[edit]

Article in its entirety: "Fan Soundtracks (FSTs) are fan created track listings/song mixes for a particular show/book/movie/character/etc. Often the 10 to 20 tracks feature a range of artists. Most FSTs have some sort of central theme that all the songs within them help to convey." Unencyclopedic, unsourced and non-notable, not to mention most likely original research. I'm not saying that the concept doesn't exist, because I know it does, but I don't think it's significant, and most importantly I don't think that this article can be written without resorting to OR. -- Captain Disdain 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sounds a lot like a mix tape to me. Fan1967 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep This article is pretty lame but, given time, someone may be able to improve it. The Fan-track and Fan-soundtrack fad seems to be somewhat different from mere mix tapes but you'd never be able to tell from this article. Ande B. 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Googling this term returns a lot of results for the soundtrack to the movies "The Fan" and "Swim Fan," but there are scattered results indicating that this is a real phenomenon. The article needs to be sourced, expanded, explain its importance, and generally be improved, but I think it's a valid topic. --Hyperbole 08:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Xyra e l ^T 09:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. I get 789 hits for "Fan Soundtrack", but only 287 for "Fan Soundtrack" FST. Apparently the home page is a LiveJournal page. [7] -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have heard of this in various fan communities before, generally in the same venues as fan-subs/dubs and AMVs. Needs major expansion. - CNichols 17:21, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

402 productions[edit]

Delete as nn video production company. Article states that the company currently has only 8 bands as clients, and a significant portion of the article is dedicated to "Bands Contacted by 402 Productions". Fails WP:CORP. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Smacks of an attempt at advertising -- only a representative of the company would know which bands they have appraoched. -- Captain Disdain 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to bolster Captain Disdain's point, the article was created by Nickwan, and the article lists Nick Wan as Co-Founder, Audio Editor, and Director of Clientele Relations for the company. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ad for a nn outfit that says it will have an "upcoming career". Yeah, so it doesn't have one now, does it? Ande B. 03:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete until they become more notable. Xyra e l ^T 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious advertising. bands emailed! anyone could do that. How does that warrant mentioning in relation to anything? Ydam 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete advertising. Hey guys, I just emailed Paul and Ringo! I'm going to make a WP article for myself, because I contacted the Beatles! -- Kicking222 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. "Bands Contacted by 402 Productions". If they ever make themselves notable, then recreate. - Motor (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP, 18 unique hits, forums and myspace. -- ReyBrujo 00:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Avi 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook non-notable. MikeWazowski 16:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raq n staxx[edit]

"Raq n’ Staxx is a fun drinking game started at the University of California Los Angeles that is quickly growing in popularity. The rules to raq n’ staxx are simple." No Google hits that I can find. Unsourced, probably quite unverifiable, most likely original research, a little crystal ballish in that it apparently assumes that it will gain popularity in the future, and rather obviously non-notable. -- Captain Disdain 02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. No profession of current notability and no clue as to what the game is (to determine a possible redirect). Kuru ^talk 02:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as the article says, it's a drinking game, but there are a kazillion of them. I think it extremely unlikely that anyone would actually search for this one; we don't even have confirmation that it exists. -- Captain Disdain

03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Ande B. 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unverifiable and WP:NOT for things made up in university one day. It would appear that the rules are so simple they don't even have to be explained!Ydam 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WING Avi 15:12, 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 speedy G7 by Royboy crashfan 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Geister[edit]

The article creator has abandoned the article and removed all information. Jelligraze 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. As both editors user:24.192.151.57 and User:DMGeister have blanked or requested deletion.--blue520 02:36, 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. Mostly Rainy 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KIPR Ball[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Doesn't show notability. Google doesn't help. Crystallina 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (not for things made up in school one day). It states in the article, "was recently invented at Purdue University", therefore assuring the fact it was made up in school. Google has 21 hits. Kala ni ^[talk] 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So it's like... beer pong but with shot glasses? Whooptie poop. Peyna 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kalani Ande B. 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. --Hyperbole 08:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Back to the drinking contests, it seems. Most hits at Google (989) are in forums and Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WING, Vancarlimospacecraft Avi 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krustylustudios.com[edit]

Irrelevant & non-notable fansite according to WP:WEB policy.

WP:WEB explicitely states that:

"Explicitly and by formal policy, Wikipedia is NOT a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted."

My suggestion: Delete the article. There are litterally thousands of The Simpsons fansites, I don't see why there would be something special with this one. Furthermore, there already is a link to this website under the "fan sites" category in The Simpsons article. --Ludvig 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Ande B. 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, promo for non notable website KleenupKrew 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above comments. Xyra e l ^T 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for it's own article.--Andeh 11:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crufty-lu studios per nom. GentlemanGhost 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 644,948, the claimed 1,500 members (couldn't verify, site with Flash I cannot load) are not enough to consider it notable. -- ReyBrujo 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WING Vancarlimospacecraft Avi 15:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nice site, sure, but should be deleted per nom. Bluemoose444 03:06, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TYF[edit]

A non-notable college society. Note that a different article (a musical group) was previously deleted from the same name (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TYF), but it's not the same as this. Middenface 00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GROUP. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:18, 28 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!
Prodego ^talk 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom KleenupKrew 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xyra e l ^T 09:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Ydam 12:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references to backup that "vast" notability claim. From the looks of it, I agree with nom. -- ReyBrujo 00:26, 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, mainly due to the fact that a lot of keeps were based on the argument that it did not violate policy, except that Calton rebutted most of them, as well as the argument of multi-million google hits.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Reserve Bank[edit]

nn original research linkspam that is similar to the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank article it started from. Not a speedy candidate because it's not a copy, so here it goes to AfD again. Delete. RasputinAXP c 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is following all policies from Wikipedia and is a stub that invite for develop information. Inclusion is the model not delete everything that you do not understand, agree or just whant some more delete trofies in your hat. Wikipedia is not a paper and there is room for info, delete is for nonsens, fact is fact and here is fact just check it up --Swedenborg 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what? Bwithh 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD from 28 May 2006 is being relisted to achieve a greater consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not encyclopedic, promo/vanity article. KleenupKrew 03:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real enough. I agree with Swedenborg, it's not something that is immediately violating any policies and there is plenty of room on Wikipedia. Needs a bit of fleshing out though, but it's just a stub at the moment. Ben W Bell talk 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only 47 Google hits for what appears to be a novel but isolated idea for creating some kind of environmental futures market. If it catches on, I wouldn't be averse to having an article about it, but... it hasn't. --Hyperbole 08:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32 hits once you take out the wikipedia hits. Bwithh 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a Sceintifical report from 1974 by Arthur Shaw the GRB has its place in history and should be --Swedenborg 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)on Wikipedia for thouse who are looking for this information (It was on Wiki for 5 years as article and was deleted by deletionists with only two delete votes during a very short period) 47 Google hits should be enough? (I got 86 hits on Metacrawler) It is a 3000 person network and have been represented at UN NGO konferences for many years. It is refered to on other Wiki articles like UNILETS and other so if this article does not qualify to atleast have a chance to develop with help of users who have knowledge to improve I have no understanding how Wikipedia is going to survive this Deletionists Vandalisim getting to much impact allready. --Swedenborg 08:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) - double vote struck out. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this: http://lellebylle.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-resource-bank-partners.html Feb Meeting Comunity Currency If you have any knowledge in the Ecological Economics field and see the list from this meeting you could not doupt that GRB has a place in Wiki...--Swedenborg 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reference from a Blogspot blog isn't even close to a reliable source.

Well you totally missed the point, and you have no knowledge about those people listed at that meeting right? Ask somone who do and you will change your mind... Check the link from my blog from abowe and there is the source... --Swedenborg 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, completely got the point: you're saying something said on a Blogspot blog constitutes some sort of firm evidence that what you claim is true. It isn't the least bit reliable as evidence for anything here, even if the claim were "The sun rises in the east". --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

47 Google hits should be enough? Not even close, not even within shouting distance of not-even-close. Wikipedia isn't a promotional vehicle.--Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsens! ONe is for Deleting refering to Google hits, one is not even within shouting distance of not-even-close.?? what is this, please keep to Wikipedia Policy and keep a desent discussion in trying to contribute!! --Swedenborg 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a "desent discussion", try being coherent. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Article is following all policies from Wikipedia"? I'm hard-pressed to think of any it DOES meet not involving libel or incoherence: notability, reliable sources, importance, WP:NOT a webhost, etc. The wikilawyering and invoking of conpiracy theories doesn't help your case. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean conpiracy??? This is a try to start an article of someting real (for 20 years atlieast. Article was on Wikipedia for 5 years til this Deletionism Vandalism started, running around puting good articles for delete, then with very low number of voters 2! take away and then all the time refering to that first deleting for not be able to write about something that is of great interest for a lot of peaople right now and a lot more in the future! Why cant articles be started as stubs developed and then bacome of value to Wiki? Deteting is for nonsens, vandalism and pure fantasy or original research. I am going to put more info and links to scientifical reports, UN protocolls and others sources, hoping to get more people who have skills in this subject to fill with info... this is a real Encyclopedic article that needs to be develop please respect and follow Wiki Policies!!! --Swedenborg 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the conpiracy theories and wikilawyering even more incoherently doesn't make them any more valid. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calton. Totally nn, only 16 Ghits for what should be a major economic institution, even if it were remotely "in the making" - which it probably isn't. Kimchi.sg 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why cannot you wait for few more months before deciding to delete it? I do not know what is the rush here. It is real topic according to Google. Even if you consider otherwise, you should still give it benefit of the doubt. --- Faisal 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, 48,600,000 hits for Global Resource Bank -- except that you did the search without quote marks/inverted commas, meaning you get all pages which include ALL the terms "Global", "Resource", and "Bank", AND these don't even the name of the article in question, something you forgot in your haste to recycle the original deleted article.
- Why cannot you wait for few more months before deciding the delete it? I do not what is the rush here. Why can't you wait for few more months for some kind of proof that it's actually notable? I do not see what is the rush here. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not encourage a User to have more contribution in wikipedia when you decide to delete an article only on the bases of your doubts (without having some solid evidence). This behavior will not benefit Wikipedia. If you are not 100% sure and have some doubts about an article then you can put a tag above the article (or give it some grace period of 3-6 months for expansion). Instead of delete it. Please be fair and be neutral. best wishes. --- Faisal 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

without having some solid evidence You have it precisely, 100% backwards: the burden is on YOU to provide some solid evidence of your claims. "Because I said so" is not sufficient. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proper google search for Global Reserve Bank gives only 32 hits and the ones coming from reputable websites are using the term in other contexts and/or hypothetically. Wikipedia requires that articles prove their sources, not that articles are given 6 month grace periods. Evidence is pretty solid that this article is about a nonnotable subject Bwithh 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apn ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep apn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedenborg (talk • contribs) duplicate vote by Swedenborg (talk · contribs)

So a Vote delete asp is valid but my questining the seriousness is stucken? How many of these votes are from smae people really? And whet is the arguments? Where is the Wikispirt? Delete beckose of delte preferences.. stupid and totaly out of order!! --Swedenborg 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. It can have an article if and when it becomes notable, just like any other wannabee. Jll 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and appears to be a borderline crank fantasy site Bwithh 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that there are no reliable sources for this article and a similar article was deleted recently. A search of media databases for "Global Reserve Bank" came up totally empty. It doesn't meet our verifiability standards. Capitalistroadster 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some reliable sources are found for the material. - Motor (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too few Google hits, seems to fail WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GentlemanGhost 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you gays? Looks like someone disturbed the waspnest right? What is your problem? GRB is a NonGovermantal Organization, it has more then 3000 registered members (all can be find and confirmed through the www.grb.net site) The article is a stub inviting users for development, from my understandning there is no reson that articles that are not pure nonsen, vandalism or illegal to have a chance to be developed, this is the core and tha heart of Wikipeida! This nonsen indentification as Deletionist and arrogant, not civilized behavor from young angry white men that feel thretend and are getting of with the small but still kind of power, you can delete (with no contribution or constructive critics, just use that nonsen Rap and copy and past from argumentlists on your sites... this is great shame and leading to Wikipedia cold death in the end, so if that is you goal congratulations but if you are a true Wikipedian lets organize and handle this kind of sublim Vandalism. --Swedenborg 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, there. Avoid personal attacks and certainly avoid generalizations like "young angry white men that feel threatened." RasputinAXP c 11:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that I should avoid personals attacks but ignorant and not seriuos delete votes are ok for you? Ofcource they are helpful to you so then they are ok right? I only want that this and other deleteing furios attacks would be directed to the content and facts... why is there not, looks like a mayority of delete votes not even looked at the articla and that theire votes are from some personal preferences... I really do not expect that this voting will be treated serioisly you are just waiting for a chance to delete this and other things that are not of your preferences... well thats not Wikipedia, at least not the Wikipedia I thought it should be.. --Swedenborg 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not hurting anything and doesn't violate policy. --Ephilei 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:No original research, and (in this AfD) WP:CIVIL; other than those minor transgressions, no, it's not really violating policy. And yes, including bogus, low-quality, or made-up stuff DOES harm Wikipedia by lowering its overall quality. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is valid, encyclopedic and reflecting a Non Governmental organisation with numerus references in and outside Internet. It has also many reference links inside Wikipedia all with accepted and good quality information and references. ---- St Olof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.212.47 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 June 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All You Zombies (song)[edit]

A single 1985 song from the Hooters' Nervous Night album, not encyclopedic or important enough for its own article - delete KleenupKrew 03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song was played at Live Aid, an extremly important event, that should be enough. Yanksox 03:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yanksox and because the song still receives moderate radio airplay 20+ years after release, which would indicate to me that it has some degree of notability GassyGuy 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge to album of original release. See Template:R from song for more information.~~ — Jun. 3, '06 [05:01] <freak|talk>
Keep. I have expanded the article. This was a single that reached the top 40 of the US charts and was top 10 in Australia in 1985. By the way, their album Nervous Night doesn't have an article yet so it cannot be merged. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the song would fit better in the album, but I am not really against having an article about it, especially since there is no album entry in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ktown[edit]

Original research about Kitchener's gangs. If there's anything salvageable here it should be merged into the "Crime" section of Kitchener. Crystallina 03:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per very much OR and looks pretty much unsavagable Ydam 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's really nothing salvageable here. -- Kicking222 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, no reliable sources to backup all this. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. I live in Kitchener, and not only have I never heard the place called "Ktown," but I'm sure any "Bloods" and "Crips" around here are just ghetto wannabes. Have you ever heard of a real Blood carrying a BB gun? -- Mwalcoff 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the absolute epitomy of original research. Grand master ka 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a badly written article. Hong Qi Gong 17:34, 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 Merge and redirect to Yum! Brands. Prodego ^talk 22:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KenTaco Hut[edit]

nn. I laughed when I first saw it, however the term is just not widespread use to be worthy enough for a wiki article. Also there is little room for expansion. Delete or merge to Yum! Brands --Ichabod 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. Slang term? KleenupKrew 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Anything verifiable could be mentioned in Yum! Brands I guess, but it doesn't look like this term is anything more than a random phrase someone made up. My friends and I call this places "Taco Slut" - just joke slang terms. --W.marsh 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting would be slightly better, if nothing else to point people to a more useful article to edit. --W.marsh 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Keep I've heard this term, ironically, and I lived in the southern greater Kansas City area where one of these existed. Its has a strong slang to it, however it was used quite colloquially when I was younger. I did find the term in a google search for KenTaco Hut as a Motley Fool article[8] (google cache due to requried registration, check the mention of yum! foods) as a reference to Yum! foods in general, which owns Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Pizza Hut. Would the term be better suited in a different wikimedia project? Kevin_b_er 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Yum! Brands Ydam 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Keep is a good term for my opinion. I've heard the term as well and use it and there are several such buildings in the northern VA area. KevinPuj 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Ydam. there's one of these a couple blocks over from where I work in midtown Manhattan. It's a dirty dirty place Bwithh 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. It's an amusing term, but that's not enough to support a whole article. GentlemanGhost 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. - Motor (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nothing in the article can be merged into Yum! Brands. -- ReyBrujo 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOR and WP:V unless this can get some references. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above -- Cliffb 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Would make a good sentence in the Yum! Brands article. --Zpb52 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Nothing more than your basic slang term -- Kaszeta 19:24, 8 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 - ignoring all the obvious sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from all these people voting SAVE with incorrect terminology, also arguments to SAVE are not up to scratch either.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGTOW[edit]

nonnotable "movement", only Google hits are a few blogs, plus the article is a partisan polemic NawlinWiki 03:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I read this article[Men Going Their Own Way]. It's interesting... Yanksox 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, wiki isin't a soapbox Ydam 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no notability claim. -- ReyBrujo 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE, Noteworty as it has over 2000 active members, and is an important movement being diametrically opposed to feminism. Also, there are over 100 entries in sub-divisions of feminsim. MGTOW is a very significant subset of Masculinism, and thus should remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.28.200.250 (talk • contribs) .
SAVE, Noteworthy for reason claimed above, though this article should be seen as a compnent of the Marriage strike or antifeminism, and will also need editing.Laboratory mike
Note This is the above user's first edit. Yanksox 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE Google turns up over 9,000 hits for this term, and many are relevant to the article given. I've always found Wikipedia to be a great source of information, and this article is no exception.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.126.26 (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. Also it is un-cited(WP:CITE), with major WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. DVD+ R/W 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact same reasons can be cited for the deletion of over 100 articles dealing with subsets of feminism. If you are really upset and offended by this, DVD+ R/W, then at the very least you should propose that the article be merged with Masculinism

Note Yanksox's observation is correct for my presence on Wikipedia. However, I personally have been involved in the Men's Movement for 2 years, and have made contributions at www.standyourground.com/forum and www.laboratorymike.com/patriarchy, among other places, and can vouch for the significance of MGTOW as a subset of the Marr iage strike or antifeminism. Editing is a better alternative to deletion. Also, I humbly request an interpretation of DVD+ R/W's words, as I am unfamiliar with Wiki terminologyLaboratory mike 01:05, 4 June 2006 (EST)
SAVE ""wiki isin't a soapbox "". Then why does PETA have a listing, or the NRA. What about Leather subculture, donkey punch , George W. Bush , Pro-life / Pro-choice or a million other examples? Neutrality is a different matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osmod (talk • contribs) .

Comment Those Organisations have entries because they are notable. They have suffcient coverage outeith wikipedia to warrent inclusion. Ydam 10:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is safe to say that donkey punch and Leather subculture are realatively unknown outside wikipedia.

CommentI think I would be hard pushed to find anyone outside of wikipedia who wasn't aware of the leather fetish and the kind of things associated with it. As for Donkey punch I'm sure there are plenty of people who are familar with it who don't use wikipedia. Ydam 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must know some pretty far out people, Ydam. I do not think rabbit punching some poor girl during anal sex is a well known practice.

CommentI do not think it is a mainstream practice either but that does not mean people have not heard of it and are familar of what it entails, you mearly have to check the cultural references section of that article to see what I mean. Ydam 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick informal poll of over 100 marines sitting around here at the barracks, and none of them have heard of your "donkey punch". They are a pretty raunchy group, so it is safe to say that this is a VERY obscure practice. By the way, please stop editing my comments. If you would like to add something, add it UNDER YOUR OWN HEADER.

Comment Please be civil during this debate. Also, donkey punch is not the issue of this debate, let's get back to the topic at hand. Yanksox 16:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Nothing in the above comment denotes inciviltiy.

SAVE I view this article as a significant piece of pioneering effort for the growing men's rights movement. As such it represents a historical document which stands as a counterpoint to documents such as the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto MRA1 05:28 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(injected comment) The only edit by this user, MRA, was the above vote. Kevin_b_er 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE This article was a great help to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhythmic01 (talk • contribs) 06:00, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

(injected comment) The only edits by this user, Rhythmic01, are edits to the page, and one to the sandbox. Kevin_b_er 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DVD+ R/W. Someone might want to check all the people voting "SAVE" to see if they're sockpuppets, given that several of them have only participated in this discussion. (Not to mention that they all use very similar language.) – Zawersh 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE There are many other movements of similar size with Wikipedia entries. The perspective needs to be made neutral, though, with 'we' and 'our' replaced by 'they' and 'their', etc. This should be an article about that movement, not a manifesto written by its members. Heian-794 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE This is a new and fast growing movement and is a valid reaction against feminism, socialism and globalism. therefore, in the name of freedom of speech, it should be kept as it is.Ragnar 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
SAVE The MGTOW movement is against sexism and anti-male hatred. It promotes a equal society for all, without privileges based on gender. It has the right to exist and spread awareness about these problematic, ignored issues. Artanisen 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SAVE There is no good reason to delete this article. The subject of MGTOW is susbstantial enough to justify saving this article. NiceguyC 14:25, 4 June 2006 (GMT)
SAVE The article is significant. --M.R.A. 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Guinnog 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; not cited, not neutral, etc. If this page were worth keeping, it'd look more like straight pride, as far as controversial beliefs go. --M e rovingian {T C @} 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Again, the same reasons can be given for deletion of many articles here, including many controversial subjects. Just because you find a particular topic personally offensive, does not mean it is worthy of deletion.

Comment: It's not that I find it offensive, it's just completely unworthy of being a good article. This is just one group, which has yet to prove its importance or notability. --M e rovingian {T C @} 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to read the deletion policy. Nothing about the article fits the reasons given within as cause for deletion.

Comment: No, the article's subject is non-notable. The only links provided are blogs, which do nothing for credibility. --M e rovingian {T C @} 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, there are websites on the net about MGTOW. The fact they where not included in the article means that an edit is required so that it is on-par with the rest of Wikipeida's articles, not deletion. For instance the following is a link about the movement http://menforjustice.net/cms/ which should have been included in the article. --Thorsson 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, you need to go back and READ the deletion policy and notability before you clamor for something to be deleted! From the article:

It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.

SAVE Edit rather than Deletion. The articles subject is part of the masculine, anti-feminist movement so I would consider it notable. Neutrality is a matter that can easily be rectified by an edit. As for citations there are websites out there about the movement, as I noted above, and an edit would once again rectify that problem. --Thorsson 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(injected comment) This user account was created the date of the above signature and the only contributions are to this AfD. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am very concerned by the ballot stuffing going on here. With all the "Saves," and recent users. Should this be spilt among recent users and otherwise? Yanksox 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Yanksox means is that he can absolutely not tolerate anyone who differs from his own extremely narrow view. He believes everyone who disagrees with him should be shut off onto an obscure and practically unviewable section of this topic.
COmment No, what I mean is that alot of people who normally wouldn't be on Wikipedia are suddenly here and the first thing they do is defend this article. Yanksox 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that you cannot handle the fact that there are large numbers of people who agree with this article and would like to see it saved. Furthermore, it seems that you CANNOT STAND the fact that wikipedia is democratic in nature when you find it challenges your narrow world view.
No personal attacks, please. This isn't a debate over whether Yanksox's opinions are right or wrong. --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Democracy suggest a vote, which this isn't. It's a debate, we can discuss about the issue. Also, please don't make personal attacks, it's not very civil. Yanksox 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, in what manner that is a personal attack? It is obvious that Yanksox is challenging the democratic nature of wikipedia, in which everyone is free to edit.
Eveyone is free to edit, however this is the maintance space of an article. There have been other debates in which discuss got so out of hand, that the discussion was spilt. Yanksox 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that he has a narrow, undemocratic worldview is offensive and detrimental to this debate. --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, it is not up to you to decide when to censor everyone because you do not agree with what they have to say. And anyway, if this is not a vote, Yanksox, then why use the term "ballot stuffing"?? If it is a debate, then you should have no problem with letting everyone's voice be heard, in the intrest of fairness.
Your voice has already been heard. The term "ballot stuffing" refers to having multiple users come and sound off about an article, without having a credible amount of past experience on Wikipedia. --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not matter how much of a wikipedia "expert" you think you are Mero, the fact is you are missing the charter goal of egalitarian nature of wikipedia. It is open to all to use and enjoy.

Mero's an "expert" since he's an admin. Yanksox 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I use the term ballot stuffing since all of these users clearly lack an understanding of AfD and believe that dropping in a "Save" vote will alter everything. I am only suggesting this for the help of the closing editor. With all these new users a very incohernet message is being devolped. Yanksox 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, apparently that "incoherrent" message is that the vast majority of the public wikipedia users see this article as having substantial merit.
First, you are not a majority of Wikipedia users by any means. Second, most of the people who have asked that the article to be kept have had little or no interest in the Wikipedia community until they learned that this article was up for deletion. --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment All you have to do is take a quick glance at this page to see that the majoity of users agree with me that this page should stay, Mero.
This "majority" you speak of is largely culled from The NiceGuy's Forum. Hence the term "ballot stuffing". --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save this article. Just because the pro-deletion faction doesn't think it belongs, does not mean it's not a credible movement. 147.222.167.5 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) MachPoint2One[reply]

Comment: The fact is that MGTOW is one small group. Just because you have a few blogs and whatnot does not make you famous. Oh, and tell arbitrarycode that I am not a "mangina / transsexual wannabe". --M e rovingian {T C @} 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Merovingian, no more personal attacks. Please!

Uh, hello? I'm the one being attacked here. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I do not see any personal attack here. If you are talking about offsite material, remember that is irrelevant for the discussion here.

Really, this is supposed to be a civilized discussion that involves no pointing of the finger. It started in your talk page.[9] and it's spreading here. We just need to have a civilized conversation, and Mero is doing that. 71.29.178.4, you are bringing statements to the table that have no content to them. Also, it's time to stop this attempt at playing mind games, it's not amusing in the least. Yanksox 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a civilized conversation. There are no insults or rude comments on my user talk page. I cannot help that Mero goes out to the internet at large and is offended by some website. I have not insulted him or used any profanity here whatsoever. As for me bringing statments to the table that have no merit. So, despite the OVERWHELMING support of this article, you are so stubborn that you refuse to consider that it is worthy.

Posting my picture on your forum and insulting me is totally uncalled for. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't responsible for that.

Then you should punish whoever was... if, of course, you agree that it's not a nice thing to do at all. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a moderator. And this line of conversation is highly off topic.

Comment on Google Search Results to Rebut 206.255.126.26's Google Cite Above Searching for the phrase "men going their own way" yields 487 hits. [10]. MGTOW also stands for "Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight," which is used in aviation, thus the popularity of the acronym. Running a search on "MGTOW" while omitting pages containing aviation terms that usually accompany the MGTOW acronym yields 620 hits. [11] — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I'll post it for the record, read the last post[12]. Yanksox 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure many are unfortunately aware of this, and the recent behavior here is proof of it. [13]

Comment

This debate is a clear example of the wonders and pitfalls inherent to modern communication. Claims of ballet stuffing, on the surface, appear valid. Indeed, as defined in Wiki policies and guidelines, that is exactly what is happening.

The problem is simply this. How can any organization, born of digital communications prove its existence outside of a traditional media outlet? What options are there, other than a ‘head count’, and the understandable allegations of ballet stuffing that comes with it?

I put forward a simple question, what would it take, in the eyes of editors and admin, to validate the existence of MGTOW(as it seems to be the issue). And what sort of time frame is available to do so? As the answers to these questions would raise others, I politely invite a response ( osmod@hotmail.com) .Thank you. Osmod 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take? Maybe some links to your site from other sites not affiliated with you. Maybe some media coverage. Maybe a book. Articles about Internet-based communities like yours are deleted all the time. If they can be written about fairly, they have a much better chance of survival. --M e rovingian {T C @} 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Delete, per nom and Merovingian's research. Re. your questions, Osmod, I believe that any sort of independent, non-related mention is in order here, and in reasonable quantity as to establish notability enough to warrant the existence of this article. Side note: attacking users and posting his picture at the site in question is definetely out of place. I strongly urge the person(s) responsible for this webpage to remove it immediately, please. Thank you. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and severe sanctions to abusive editors. Wikipedia is too tolerant of disruptive users who contribute nothing positive. -- FRCP11 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we shouldn't go that far. Most of the new registered users voting to keep the article will never be heard from again once it's truly gone for good. --M e rovingian {T C @} 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about the various violations of WP:CIVIL, though those are bad enough. I'm talking about the systematic vandalizing of every page edited by the nominating editor in retaliation. It's one thing to give a warning to a clumsy user who accidentally used a page as a sandbox, it's another to merely warn a vandal who's done nothing but vote once here and then blank several legitimate pages. -- FRCP11 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And severe sanctions, eh? If we can start levying those in AfD, things'll get a lot more fun. Let's not go overboard on the hyperbole. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severe sanctions huh? LOL!! OH NO! Internet tough guy FRCP11 is going to get me!!!. As for Phaedriel, well, you can come to that website and discuss with US why you think that picture should be slated for deletion, and we will consider all worthy arguments.

Very cute. And please stop referring to me as a girl on your forums. --M e rovingian {T C @} 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, gentlemen... it may be amusing for you to organize a "Take-over-the-Wiki" movement at your forum, but it is completely unacceptable to blatantly insult people and ridicule them. Regardless of this debate, I encourage you to keep this conversation within the limits of respect and good taste. I also insist that personal pictures of Wikipedia editors are "not" meant to be posted anywhere but on Wiki itself, unless you are given proper permission - it's a simple question of good faith. And just FYI, I am "not" a "feminazi", as you have so graphically and kindly called me. Regards, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You released your photo into the public domain. Therefore, anyone can do as he pleases with it.

That's a bit like the First Amendment though. One simply shouldn't be able to do whatever one likes with it. --M e rovingian {T C @} 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm not talking about copyright issues, but appealing to your good faith. It certainly won't help anybody to have Mero's pic or mine with a deprecating statement close to it at your forum, don't you think? So pretty please, can you remove them, and let us focus on the debate at hand? Thank you very much, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you want to bring up what members of Niceguys forums are saying when you get together and say things such as calling us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phaedriel]Pathetic MGTOW morons Nice hypocrisy. Don't complain what is being down on a seperate forum and website when you are doing the same name calling. Another thing. I like how you call the whole forum and its members "MGTOW Morons" as if that forum is the only place where MGTOW is talked about, Discussed and followed as if its Just little ol' us. We are just the ones here at the moment. Shall we go spread it around to the rest of the sites and blog spheres and bring more people here? You see, Mgtow has already been at multiple anti-feminist websites and forums for the past year. ALl you need to do is take a look. Its been at Cooltools4men,Stand your ground, Mens news daily. mens-rights and a whole host of anti-feminism blogs out in the blogsphere and even has a comprehensive site at http://menforjustice.net/cms/>Men for justice There is a book already far along being created at this very moment. It wouldn't be hard at all to edit in that "Notability" You say the article needs. All we'd need to do is go out and spread out the word and no doubt we could get those external links up. There would be the book out for sale. The language used could be changed to make it sound less preachy and "Soapbox" like. This could be done very easy yet you all would rather refuse to have it happen. Because you know we could make it meet the notability requierments. I don't see why this can not be done. As it would stop the need for such a debate and bashing one another. How?, Because then it would show that you really are just Following your own rules or that this really is just admins that want to silence dissenting opinions that differ from thier own.Rhythmic01 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya. Just to drive my points home. Maybe some links to your site from other sites not affiliated with you. Easy. As I said before. Niceguys forum isn't the only anti-feminist site out there.

But those sites you've listed only agree with you. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some media coverage. There is no need for traditional mainstream media coverage by the very way the movement is setup. Give it a read. Or better yet. You should have already seen this on our forum since you are spying on us. Allow me to quote what I said on our forums. Something that you should already have read no? I have seen multiple blogs that in spirit, Go by the basics of MGTOW they don't actually come out and say this or are vocal about calling and/or identifing themselves as such.

Thats the thing with a movement set up in the way we have it. There are many men who have thier own sites and blogs that are indeed. About them going thier own way. Its a hella broad movement that, Because of the way we for the most part are doing all of this in a more individualistic and a somewhat non-cooperated way.

That only works against you though. You are part of a broader movement, which does deserve its place on Wikipedia, but this is a single faction we're talking about. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a book. Being done as we speak.

Fantastic. Let me know how that turns out. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Internet-based communities like yours are deleted all the time. Except as I said before. This isn't based on our forum community like you seem to wish it to be. It isn't a mantra made by and only for our forum. You are incorrect in that idea.

As I've stated above, you haven't been able to provide links from fair sources. And you're really just contradicting me. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be written about fairly, they have a much better chance of survival. As said. That can be done. Indeed it has been offered already.Rhythmic01 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said morons, I was talking about the people posting our pictures and insulting us. Nothing more, nothing less. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict)*Comment Let me just ask you a simple question, and there's nothing vicious behind it, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer it: What is the appeal of having an article on MGTOW on Wikipedia? I'm just asking and wondering what the answer is. Yanksox 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Yanksox, That is a fairly complex question.

The first and foremost reason is the countless subtypes of feminism listed on wiki. If there is room for 101 types of feminism (exact numbers unimportant), then there should be room for a men’s philosophy, all be it a minor one.

Pardon my humor here, but I can only laugh when we were told to find independent supporting web sites as a minimum. The problem with that is this. Either you don’t care about what MGTOW is, or you have a political view on it. And sites that agree with MGTOW wouldn’t count for independent support. The issue is very polarized. Given that the MGTOW community has failed in creating bonds/friends in the feminist community ( can’t at all see why ), it makes it close to impossible to display a ‘independent’ source online.

Secondly, being listed, or more correctly, not de-listed, is a validation and a general step forward for the philosophy as a whole. A self-serving reason, granted. But human beings have been known to be somewhat self-centered. Osmod 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, you haven't been able to provide links from fair sources I put down the names of a few sites. Go ahead and take it from there. I refuse to sit down for the next 4 hours saving, linking and cataloging multiple anti-feminist sites and blogs so you can outright deem them as not being fair sources and delete anyway. From my point of view you already made up your mind. Now if we are givin the chance to edit out the page and make it so it can stay without it being deleted outright. I wouldn't be against doing the work. But it has already sounded like you have already made up your mind. First by saying Well, we shouldn't go that far. Most of the new registered users voting to keep the article will never be heard from again once it's truly gone for good You've already made up your mind. You claimed I haven't named any sites when I already did name a few. Meaning either you didn't bothering reading my post in full or you did and just skimed past it because you don't care. Thus no matter what sites I put up that show that its more than just the niceguy forum community you will still say. Its just one forum delete anyway because you personally want to see it deleted. I have seen nothing that shows an open mind. I gave you enough to jump start yourself. If you don't want to then nothing will convice you otherwise and typing here is a waste of time. Good day.Rhythmic01 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's most ridiculous is that I sympathise with some points of your core values, but I think many of the forumites have gone about it in a most uncouth manner. And by "sites" I don't simply mean websites which link to yours. I'm talking about true media attention and actual debate of subject matter, not just agreement. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refused to notice my mention mens news daily? Angry Harry? Why not say what you mean 100 percent. "actual media attention" you mean just mainstream traditional media outlets. Nothing is allowed on Wikipedia unless its mentioned on cnn? What if I told you there was a book that is already out for amazon.com that served as the basis of MGTOW and damn near every basic and tenet of MGTOW thoughout all of his life expeirences. If anything, There would be no MGTOW if it wasn't for this book. Even more to the point. His current revision actually has an entry to a site that list the core idea of MGTOW. Try buying it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976261308/harrysnews-20/102-6020085-2006524

Does this book specifically mention MGTOW? If so, where? --M e rovingian {T C @} 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His current revision actually has an entry to a site that list the core idea of MGTOW Part of the latest version of the book makes changes to the second to last chapter. Page numbers from my own outdated book are 254-255 listing Anti-feminist pro-male sites he[the author] visits. depending on if pages were added or taken out it should be in or around there.My own copy is an older one thus I can't give you an exact reference or exact statement.Feel free to buy his current version. Changes should include updated urls to referrals to anti-feminist sites and adding in some more one of which is about MGTOW. Him, Being active around the anti-feminist scene has said this to us[us as in anti-feminist...]. You would have the answer to this and indeed it should have been fairly easy to find this book for yourself if you actually poked around. Funny, You ask a question that was answered just 2 lines above yours. Even better I just type a paragraph restating what was said in one line. You know what. That is enough. I won't bother putting anything else here as you have shown this is a waste of time when you can't even be bother to read something that is. Go ahead and delete the entry.That last statement has shown your closemindedness to any sort of infomation we provide where it has to be repeated over and over againRhythmic01 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said. You've been givin enough. You just refuse to see it. You could be given much much more. But its a waste of time as you do not have an open mind. but I think many of the forumites have gone about it in a most uncouth manner. Which is why you probably don't have one. You got offended and you are being closed minded out of spite. Read you loud and clear.Rhythmic01 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was most certainly not offended. --M e rovingian {T C @} 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhytmic, could you please calm down? Take a deep breath? K? Ok, let's get to the issue here, and stay as focused and concise as possible. I see you've taken our pictures off your forum; that's a good start, and I commend it, seriously. Regarding the article, it's not whether or not we want it deleted due to ideological matters. I think none of us (not even me, being female) have taken a position based in our sympathy to your cause or not. Most of us tend to think as Wikipedians; that means, there are a few basic rules any article must comply in order to deserve space here. For further information, there are several guidelines I would suggest you to read thoroughly, like What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability. What we're trying to determine is:

Is the object of this article notable, as in, widely known and recognized outside certain particular forums and blogs?
Can this notability be endorsed with independent sources of any kind?
Can these sources be listed and, if possible, doublechecked?

We're open to discussion here; and rest assured that we are perfectly able to weight in a positive and objective manner every element you bring to our attention. You mention that you're not willing to "spend four hours saving, linking and cataloging multiple anti-feminist sites and blogs..." Did you know that writing a good article takes way longer than that? Trust me, all the effort you're willing to put in this article will only be for better, as it may assure its permanence here... that, if you're interested in going through that effort. A second positive step would be to rewrite it in an objective and neutral way. Take all the time you need; nobody's rushing you, and this debate will stay open for, at least, a few days. Just make sure that you're working with our guidelines here, not yours; it is you who wants to post here, not us at your forum.

We've had tons of articles that, prima facie, were unworthy of being included at Wikipedia, only to find out later and after further work from some editors interested in the subjects they covered that they were perfectly suitable here. Nobody's saying that cannot be the case with your article as well; on the contrary, I encourage you and other members of your forum to take the endeavor of making this a great article, one that we'll be happy to show around. And if you do, I swear right here that I'll be the first to congratulate you... even despite the fact that I'm a woman. Regards, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable forum does not meet WP:WEB requirements. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE MGTOW is a highly notable, original branch of Masculism. There are over 100 articles on branches of feminism, most of them non-notable.

Comment: Most of the text of the article also seems to be unoriginal, as I've found it on other blogs. Would this be considered a copyvio? --M e rovingian {T C @} 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Take a closer look. You might catch the notice.[reply]

The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domaim, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. Understandable. You are in such a rush to get rid of it.Rhythmic01 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys insist that this article should stay, try to follow some basic guidelines. Assert notability outside the forum and rewrite the text to meet the criteria. In its present form, the article has to be deleted because of copyright problems. And stop trolling around, making a mess on Phaedriel's userpage will only get you blocked. --Ton e 08:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting peoples post. Thanks.

I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them? Thanks.

We have a number of administrators who permanently block open proxies. --M e rovingian {T C @} 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the question. If the perl script reroutes throught a fresh proxy upon being blocked, how would you stop that person from evading your blocks(given that the vandal has a long enough list of fresh ones)? Thanks.

Delete per WP:SOAP and the clear lack of notability. As for the rest, life must be boring in Kentucky. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still have failed to answer my question. I am just curious. You don't have to take such a deffensive tone because you are threatened by the notion of a "vandalbot". Oh, and you are wrong, Angus, that is a proxy I am using in KY. I don't even live in the U.S. Sorry. Also, you need to pick up a book on logic. You posit that life must be boring because I am making these casual comments on wikipedia. Applying the same logic, life must be REALLY boring where you live as you are a wikipedia EDITOR.

Please stop flamebaiting. Whatever you're prattling on about has no impact on the discussion of this article's worthiness. --M e rovingian {T C @} 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "flamebaiting". I just asked a simple question, and I got savagely attacked by Angus. I would still like to get an answer to the question. I really am curious. What would be done in such an event? Was this what the "wikipedia is communism" vandal used? Thanks.

I don't happen to know that much about the exact methods the more advanced vandals use, nor do I care, to be quite honest. I fail to have the technical experise needed to speak authoritatively on the matter. --M e rovingian {T C @} 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NN. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE non-notable. Google results are partially flawed due to term confusion. There's a couple of mentions on the first page, but it drops off instantly on the 2nd. Nice message, but not notable. Flamewars just make things worse. Who knows? Maybe one day this could be a major movement by men. Nothing prevents a non-notable thing from becoming notable one day and then having an article on wikipedia. As a side note, big arguements about articles that may sway one or the other tends to attract more community members who usually preceed to enforce the sway. Kevin_b_er 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an answer to my question (the SQUIDWARD vandal used this method, and you were powerless to stop him). Also, I have read Wikipedia.info and now understand the true nature of Wikipedia. Look, if you guys just act in an uncontrolled childish fashion, you are going to inspire more true vandalism like SQUIDWARD. Then, you will just have to lock down editing ability. So, the trend will continue untill Wikipedia is totally locked down except by editorial staff, and at that point it will have lost all of its advantage to traditional media. I understand now why nobody in academia takes wikipedia seriously.

SAVE Highly notable subset of Masculism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.69.227 (talk • contribs)
Delete not notable.--MONGO 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio, and if it weren't that, it would be NN --rogerd 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have articles on some of the most extremist bigots in the feminist movement like Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin, yet we are getting deleted because we are a "partisan polemic". Whatever. When wiki can no longer get enough fundraising to keep itself online or someone vandalizes it all to h**l Ill be watching the fireworks00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)~~

But Solanas and Dworkin are well-known. --M e rovingian {T C @} 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is MGTOW, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Just like you refuse to acknowledge the "copyright holder" released the "copyvio" material in question to the public domain.

If you could provide some public proof of that, I'll remove the notice. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=4 The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domaim, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW.Right at the bottom of the page Funny you missed it, I understand you are in such a rush to make sure this doesn't see the light of day anyway you can you didn't bother reserching at all. Rhythmic01 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, now I've reverted it. --M e rovingian {T C @} 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rogerd. NoSeptember 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
SAVE The way that the "copyvio" was abused as an excuse to remove this article by someone who vehemently disagrees with it proves that this push to delete this highly worthy article is nothing more than a small group who finds the MGTOW movement personally offensive.
Comment We're not a small group by any means, also we don't find it offensive, we just find it not to be note worthy. Why focus so much on a Wikipedia article when you can promote yourself through other means? Yanksox 21:06, 8 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 10:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Horrible Future[edit]

Doesn't come anywhere near meeting the guidelines at WP:WEB. A Google search for "the horrible future" gets about 500 hits, most of which are for something else; searching for "the horrible future" and "webcomic" gets five hits.The LJ archive appears to only stretch back about a month. Just isn't even remotely notable enough, I'm afraid. -- Captain Disdain 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being hosted on a LiveJournal page just about assures non-notability, I think. fuzzy510 04:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment The archives do go back all the way and it appears the comic started on February 20 [14]. It's just a pain to navigate back that far. In any case, I've copied it to Comixpedia: Comixpedia:The Horrible Future. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops. You guys are probably right. Sorry. I'll think better of it next time. - Robert
- Hey, no harm done, Robert. Hope you stick around just the same. =) -- Captain Disdain 12:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I just may. I'll read the submission guidelines more carefully next time. ;) -- Robert
Delete per nom, article creator. -- Dragonfiend 16:03, 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. Both sides make good points; the band aren't notable (I agree with Kicking222), but they do meet WP:MUSIC. There's no evidence of any agreement to keep or delete here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SerialPod[edit]

Even though I am a big fan of Phish and the Grateful Dead, this group is not notable enough to have an entire article devoted to them. They have preformed two shows and have no plans at all for an album or even future dates anytime soon. Until they do, this type of information should be regulated to the individual members' article pages. MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it is a stretch, but according to WP:Music ("Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable") it should stay up. Yanksox 05:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not a "band". It's not as if they have a record deal or released music for this specific line up. They just gave themselves a name for a couple of shows. If this stays up, then we might as well have a separate article for everytime any artist ever joined another one on stage; why not start an article on the collaboration between Eminem and Elton John from the Grammy Awards a few years back? -- Kicking222 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yanksox. -- cds^(talk) 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yanksox. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership easily satisfies WP:MUSIC. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punani (drink)[edit]

It's a drink recipe. mhunter 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't we interwiki this this WikiBooks:Cookbooks? Yanksox 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to Punani (cocktail) and wikify. Google suggests that the Punani is a real and notable cocktail; we have articles for Screwdriver (cocktail) and even whole categories of cocktails such as Category:Cocktails_with_vodka [15]. Obviously, this article needs to be wikified. --Hyperbole 08:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google shows up Wikipedia, Urban Dictionary, and only one external link. -- cds^(talk) 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as cds. - Motor (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT: Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Screwdriver (cocktail) is a notable drink, and its article is not focused on its recipe. Punani, on the other hand, is not notable, as is evident by its few Internet hits, and it shows little chance of expanding beyond the simple recipe.--El aprendelenguas 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per El aprendelenguas. -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 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 speedy keep (bad faith nomination) _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 06:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyGroup[edit]

speedy delete On its face, this is a clear delete as there is no direct claim of meeting WP:CORP. What bothers me more, however, is this article seems to exist only to advertise a private company and also support a SEO campaign by following any of the many links in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politakis (talk • contribs) 03:59, June 3, 2006 (UTC)

Delete Possibly speedy as G3 (spam is vandalism per Wikipedia:Vandalism) article appears to be spam promoting a private business no public information provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politakis (talk • contribs) 03:59, June 3, 2006 (UTC)

Note: Both these comments were made by the same user, and the top comment was copied and slightly modified from comments on another AfDWikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyPizza by a different user. -- Kevin_b_er 05:51, 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. There were no strong arguments made for deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualBartender.beer.com[edit]

Non-notable website, advertising article--Zxcvbnm 03:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't comment on the notability factor, but I have in fact heard of and visited the site. It gets passed around a ton of internet message boards. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is quite widespread on the net, but I'm not sure if it deserves an article.--Andeh 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been to this site too, it is pretty viral I would suggest merging in to somthing like Viral_marketing but all the examples there have there own articles. Ydam 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it seems to google well, and has a decent number of hits imo. Needs tidying, though. -- cds^(talk) 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, an article just for a section of a website? Delete unless someone supplies some reliable sources for why it's important. - Motor (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a viral fad, not of lasting importance. Sdedeo (tips) 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lesser-known cousin of The Subservient Chicken yet reasonably notable (I stumbled across it last year). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Other viral advertising campaigns have their own pages, and this is notable among them. Darksun 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an interactive viral site of note. Silensor 07:14, 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 keep. Sango 123 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract Press[edit]

non-notable book publisher, has published something like 3 books, most authors listed are just books they sell thru their online bookstore, nn vanity article - delete KleenupKrew 03:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like it or not this is a major factor in the immigration reduction movement. -Will Beback 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep They figure very prominently in the immigration debate now underway. Brimba 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Coredesat 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN POV advert. --die Baumfabrik 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback.--Rockero 17:55, 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 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someday, Somehow[edit]

Not notable.

This is a standard AfD for an album that was put on a prod-AfD which someone removed. Policy says if anyone removes a prod-AfD, it should go to regular AfD, as User:Meegs pointed out to me. The anonymous user who removed the prod-AfD tag did so with no explanation or discussion, and added marketing copy and commercial links.

This is the only album from a musician whose entry was speedy deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Sorensen - because it was a verbatim copy of marketing cruft from the singer's commercial website. The album entry was added by the same anon username that had no history other than creating the singer's marketing-cruft article and this album entry, and uploading the associated images. The label name on this album produces one single Google hit, to the recently speedy-deleted Wikipieda entry for the singer.

Google of "ron sorensen" "someday, somehow" yields 51 hits on 25 URL's, the first two to these Wikipedia entries, around half the rest to Amazon and its mirrors. "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #537,148 in Music"; i.e., not notable. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_1#Category:Ron_Sorensen_albums. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC) To get things started here:[reply]

Delete, per my own nom. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Purge-the-Sorenson-spamwave-ASAP speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If singer is non-notable (which I verified via allmusic) then the album is not notable. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 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 Computerjoe 's talk 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner[edit]

Nominated for deletion for being a vanity page. Being a professor or having been on Turkish TV before does not make one wikipedia-worthy. Also this page was created by its subject. Vartan84 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sedat Laciner for other comments.

Keep. While I agree that it is not good to write articles on yourself, he appears fairly notable [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and see his userpage for many other specific articles he has apparently published. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think your link to Google Scholars counters your claim of notability. We have people like this one without WP entry, so we shouldn't give space to the academic scree, especially if they're of the self-promoting variety. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.You really think the "we don't have articles on these more notable subjects, therefore this less notable subject doesn't belong" argument has merit? I think the the two propositions bear no logical relationship whatever--Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily (although I see the obverse all the time) but a Google scholar link with 5 entries is all by itself a strong argument against notability. I just brought up the comparison because some people simply have no perspective on what it takes to be notable in academia. ~ trialsanderrors 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strong argument against; it's one of a number of separately enumarated bases, which I think should be looked at as a whole. Certainly, there is nothing here screaming strong or speedy keep, but on the razor's edge, I feel this falls on the side of keep. By the way, the obverse should be seen all the time as it is precedent. However, that should not be used to affirm the consequent.

Comment this is a previously userfied article (see here). I have solicited opinions on Laciner's notability as I have no ideas myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be at the lower bound of notability (although Assistant Professor at an undistinguished university is very lower bound), but WP:AUTO puts him below the line. Don't start your own articles, folks. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Being director of ISRO, selected "Young Global Leader" for 2006, books published, what else do we need? --Lambiam ^Talk 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have some deep connection with ISRO if you speak of it by name and actually know what it is, Lambiam. While it is linked from Mr. Laciner's page, it goes to the Indian Space Research Organization. If you were a normal wikipedian (and not Mr. Laciner himself or an associate?) you would likely be as in the dark as the rest of us about it, not use being the director of it as a good reason for his bio to remain on wikipedia. On top of that, you claim he has books published. Well I'm sure SOMETHING (his organizations?) published the books listed on his page, but it was not by any real publishing company. I looked up the name Laciner on amazon, which has practically anything published ever, and there were no results. Thus, his "books published" were probably done by his own organization and that certainly does not warrant him a place on wikipedia. Heck, my uncle has published a few things that you can actually buy on amazon but I'd never think of adding him to wikipedia for that reason. Finally, yes he was selected "Young Global Leader", but the way you state it is misleading. He was A young global leader, not THE young global leader of 2006. If you check the list he was one of about a hundred or so. Unless each of them deserve a complete wikipedia page for that reason, merely participating in a conference, then that can't be used as a reason either. I seem to have exhausted reasons Laciner should have a wikipedia page, do you have any others? Vartan84

Argue the merits and leave the shrill, bloviating incivility and unwarranted sockpuppet accusations behind; they do nothing but hurt your argument. Yeah I suppose it's possible that Lambien made 3,000 edits to disguise his future plan to post a vanity article and make it look like he was a new user with 135 edits. Actually the plan has worked, here I am defending Lambien so I must be another Sedat Laciner sockpuppet. Guess those 13,000 edits were a good cover so I can disagree with you without worrying too much.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did argue the merits. I put forward arguements backing up why I think each reason put forward for Laciner's "famousness" and deserving of a wikipedia entry do not stand up. I do not want to attack anyone personally, so please direct further discussion of why he should be on wikipedia towards my reasons he shouldn't. Vartan84 16:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Trialsanderrors. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REASON IS ARMENIAN FANATICSM When you search 'Sedat Laciner' in Google you'll see more than 100.000 entries Google Sedat laciner search. Laciner is one of the famous Turkish academicians. Vartan84 is an Armenian user, and he is not happy with Prof. Laciner's studies on Armenian issue. That's why Vartan 84 nominates one of the most famous Turkish researchers for deletion. I do not know who created the page, yet many others contributed the page and I am sure many more will do. If Wiki deletes this page there are more than 100.000 pages in the Google and Vartan and his radical friends cannot delete all of them. Please be constructive instead of discriminative. Wiki pages should be an arena for Turkish-Armenian conflicts David Falcon 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no personal attacks. Also, you know very well that most of these 100.000 pages are pages from the Journal of Turkish Weekly and USAK Stratejik Gündem, both of which are published by USAK. I get only 159 "unique" Google hits. I am in favour of keeping the article, but not with such arguments. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually get 100 less hits then that; it says 55 unique hits when I search for him on Google. Regardless of the number though thank you Lambiam for the defense despite our past disagreement over this issue. I can assure everyone I am no "Armenian fanatic" nor did I nominate Mr. Laciner for any such reason. Vartan84 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article is very problematic, as it is created by the subject, who really is not broadly notable. At the same time there are no entries of really notable Turkish scholars such as Kemal Kirişçi, Şerif Mardin, Murat Belge or Hüseyn Bağcı. Bertilvidet 09:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a shame that these don't have an article. Only Murat Belge has an article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Unless the argument is that the names mentioned are at the border of notability so that anything less must drop off, I don't see how this is relevant to the decision we're trying to reach here. I don't think of the subject of the article as being particularly notable for his scholarship in the academic sense, but more so as an intellectual who through various activities has an input in the policy debate on a variety of issues. While not "broadly notable", there are many less notable subjects who have an entry, and I'm not referring to poor Mr. Mike Bach, but for instance all-around nice guy Marc Hetherington, or Chris Weinkopf, or Bill Bauer, or any of zillions more. I personally don't see the point of deleting those (I guess I must be something of an inclusionist then), as long as the information is verifiable and can be presented from a neutral point of view. But if we start deleting, then why not start at the low end? --Lambiam ^Talk 16:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know people love him because he gives credence to wholly unnotable entries, but Mike Bach is on his way out. Just in general, don't use the existence of unnotable entries to make a case for another unnotable entry. Propose the ones you want deleted for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't particularly want them deleted. The point is that I'm in favour of a certain evenhandedness; maybe I'm mistaken, but I sometimes get the the impression that people from countries not in the core of the First World with otherwise the same qualifications are more likely to be considered non notable and have their entries nominated for deletion. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through today's deletion log I can't say that Non-First World/English speaking subjects are more likey to be targeted for deletion. But that's an empirical question that's poorly addressed by examples. I'm much more interested in cases where the subject or some close acquaintance is the likely only/main editor of the article than their origin. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Its bad to make your own article, but it seems to have changed lots without his continued involvment. JeffBurdges 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jeff. JoshuaZ 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure about that. David Falcon's contributions look somewhat sockpuppety to me. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr. Laciner is one of the leading well-known scholars in his field. An article on Laciner will enrich Wiki knowledge base. Deepblue06 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see how Laciner is a leading well-known scholar in his field. There is quite an easy way to know if someone is indeed notable in his field, Laciner is in political science, right? Well, he has written books right? Then we know of the notability of a writter on the notability of his publications. If he is notable enough and that his works are notable enough, there should be at least one notable critic of his works published at least in one notable scholarly journal. I have checked in the databases there is none, neither was his works ever cited in a reputable journal. If we were to start creating articles about individuals leading or not, from who knows what think tank organization we could add thousands of people that have no place. Anyone here can visit university factulties and pick professeurs who follows master or doctorate degree students, what is the probability that they are published scholars and that their works are cited or criticised in a reputable journal? The probability is pretty high, and I personally known professors who are really, really reputable compared to this man, but still, I’d qualify not enough for an encyclopedia. Fad (ix) 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Sedat Laçiner. --Cat out 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you please elaborate? Not having any hits on major social science ressources (neither as author nor as source - see talk page) I believe that the level of academic notability argues for deletion. But please let me know if he has notability in other fields, maybe political. Bertilvidet 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If wikipedia has an article on an obscure trade union activist who obtained 25 votes in a local election (Huri Vayiç), I really don't see why it can not have an article on Sedat Laçiner. Another member of the Forum of Young Global Leaders from Turkey that we have in wikipedia is Daron Acemoglu, an Armenian of Turkey.Cretanforever
Doesn't make sense, I don't know that person, but suppose that that individual should not be on Wikipedia, how does this justify a keep? For all I know, I can randomnly choose anyone and give credence to his notability. Lets take David Davidian, he has a registered organization collecting databases, for all I know, publish materials, and of course he is the president of his own organization. Lets just add him. Lets also add Laciner protege, Holdwater, because his site and his pseudonym gives various hits. I think that he hasn't published anything relevent in any reputable journal other than his, and that his works have never ever been criticised positivaly or negatively in any reputable journal or ever been cited in any reputable journal would downplay the claim of notability. If him, his journal or what have you are notable, why then, no one cite them, why then no one cite the materials then? Had he not added his own page, would there have been anyone here that would have thought of ever creating the pages he has created? I am sure there are various Turkish Journals covering science matter etc., which are probably much more cited. Kamuran Gurun the Turkish retired Diplomat was much more notable, his work denying the Armenian genocide had been critised by reputable journals, is there anyone here that though of even creating a page about him? Laciner not only has used Wikipedia to boost his credibility, but he has used also google searchengines to do so, with various pseudo think-thanks linking to eachothers and then ending on his persona, and now he is here in Wikipedia desperatly trying to creat the illusion that he has some notability. What notability? There are hundreds of think-thank organizations, I can creat one myself, I can creat my journal, register it and publish works from my own publishers. would that make me worthy of being included in Wikipedia? Fad (ix) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, create a notable think tank and you would be article worthy. Hard drives are cheep. --Cat out 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, lets add the hundreds or thousands of think thank organisations in Wikipedia and a page for their presidents. It's plain ridiculous. Fad (ix) 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can gladly create a list. The only thing ridicous here is this nomination. --Cat out 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem you understand what is an encyclopedia. Let me tell you another ridiculous thing. If you had really understood what is the subject of this nomination, you would not have requested moving the article to itself. :) Anyway, everyone has the right to have his/her opinion. Fad (ix) 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is a collection of all human knowlege, not knowlege you aprove. I can read the reasons of the nom et all, is there anything I am not told? --Cat out 10:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! So you are saying wikipedia is a place for ALL human knowledge? Seeing as some humans have knowledge of me, for that reason alone do I merit my own wikipage just like Sedat? Your arguement of all human knowledge could be applied to absolutely everything nominated for deletion. If we are going to be that inclusive why need to delete anything at all? This of course would result in absolute everyone from the craziest nutjob to the obscurest nobody to have their own page, but I guess as long as it is within the realm of all human knowledge it's fine... Vartan84 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does he even proofread his articles? Hakob 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I find it funny that he created an article on himself.--Eupator 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Only a loser creates an article on himself.--Moosh88 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is unheard of then. --Cat out 10:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another member of the Forum of Young Global Leaders from Turkey that we have in wikipedia is Daron Acemoglu, an Armenian of Turkey. The article has been created by an anonymous user:) I checked the IP. Possibly a loser and a coward:) (this is a joke, Acemoglu seems like a notable person) Cretanforever

Please see WP:AUTO Bertilvidet 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which suggests autopbiographies are strongly discouraged, not banned. Hence that is not a criteria for delete here or there. --Cat out 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not a criteria, but indeed a valid argument. Please let us know if you have knowledge about the guy, that can add to his notability. Bertilvidet 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong as long as the information is accurate JorgChire 05:10, 8 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 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Levine[edit]

Delete: I'm almost certain this page is autobiography. The main editor on this article has only edited articles about Levine and his clients. He has a handful of clients, none of whom are anything more than fringe NFL players. There are only 203 Google hits for "Scott D. Levine," almost none of which relate to this Scott Levine. Was previously proded. djrobgordon 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think every sports agent (especially one that doesn't have "high caliber" players) deserve a page. It appears almost like a resume. Yanksox 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity resume with unsourced (url doesn't provide any info on him) assertions of brushing up against the notable and no actual assertion of notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN ~ trialsanderrors 10:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sign a real player, you can have an article. Kickers and NFL Europe guys don't count. -- Mwalcoff 04:16, 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 10:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sun[edit]

Possible hoax. I find no evidence that Peter Sun exists as described in this article. Joyous! | Talk 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The construction of the article is a dead give away of a hoax, "born 30 Oct 1989...Peter Sun died in 1782 due to an overdose of pleasure. He got bored and poked his bow through his heart by accident. Peter died laughing. Hahahaha." Yanksox 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Born in 1989, died in 1782? Obvious hoax. --djrobgordon 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax GassyGuy 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The whole "born in 1989, died in 1782" thing didn't give it away? Either vanity or nonsense, both speediable fuzzy510 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 1782 bit was added later [22]~~, but he had his first teacher at 2? Yeah, right. Begone --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)~~ Ok I admin it's possible per below - still unverified though. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. But hoax is not confirmed. As noted above, hoax text cited was insertion by vandal. Having a teacher at a very young age is also not a substantiation of a hoax or even unlikely [23]. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed that there are child prodigies, but a 2 year old simply does not have the motor skills required to play such an instrument --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may not have the motor skills to play much of anything, but that doesn't stop parents from hiring people to attempt to give them lessons (I've seen this personally ala yuppie "uber parents")--Fuhghettaboutit 04:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I stand corrected (and humbled, and amazed, etc.): [24] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it's me, but I really do find anything that pushes children too far (like that) just very disgusting. Yanksox 05:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou are not alone. Some of the worst behavior I have seen in this regard are sports parents, whose children instead of enjoying whatever sport they are in, hate it and are scared to go to games, because they "have to" perform well or be ridiculed and castigated.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it means anything to anyone, the edits made by the creator[25] are vandilsms, and methods of clogging "Peter Sun," into Wiki. Sounds like a Wikidream. Yanksox 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will die of an overdose of pleasure when someone ~~speedy~~ deletes this. ~~Tagged as {{db-nonsense}}.~~ Unverified, may be hoax. Kimchi.sg 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Peter Sun" violinist gives less than 10 matches. -- ReyBrujo 02:50, 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Danish: Super Snacks[edit]

Non-notable, non-entertaining gamecruft video, also 20 minutes, 7 seconds of my life that I'd like to have back. — Jun. 3, '06 [04:28] <freak|talk>

I wouldn't necessarily call it "non-notable." It did win several first place awards in Xfire/Blizzard's movie contest. Also, the phrase "non-notable" seems a bit harsh. It would almost appear that you have a thing against "World of Warcraft" simply by your last few words. If anything, the page needs more information and/or to be expanded upon. There really isn't a need for deletion. - Zweibel 03 June, 2006, 00:57

Note: this is the above user's second ever contribution to Wikipedia. Bwithh 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, I contributed greatly to the Leeroy Jenkins article, which was deemed notable, in no small part, due to being mentioned on Jeopardy!. — Jun. 4, '06 [06:15] <freak|talk>

Delete So many World of Warcraft videos exist. So many. Many many. This many <----------------------------> (it's a ray, it goes on to infinity, man). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Perhaps not highly non-notable, but still pretty non-notable. I think the nominator had a thing against the video after watching it, not some kind of raging prejudice against WoW itselfBwithh 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the article for the movie preceding this was not deleted, and this won significantly more rewards and is much more widely known.Charlam 00 19:44, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LostMagic Complete List of Spells[edit]

List of spells in a video game. Delete and do not merge into the game's article, as Wikipedia is not a game guide or a fork of gamefaqs.com. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Derivative gamecruft. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Andeh 11:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat 18:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all gamecruft/fancruft/listcruft Bwithh 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamefaqs has it -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That information could be moved to Wikibooks or (more likely) StrategyWiki. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I feel bad for nominating deletion for something you've worked hard to make. But Gamefaqs has a complete list. Please do not feel bad. -- Snaretheplantman 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LostMagic_Complete_List_of_Spells&action=history History

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macro Philosophy[edit]

Non notable philosophy, borderline A7. 407 Google hits, No Google news hits. Rory096 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and the movement it apparently derives notability from doesn't even merit an article. --maru (talk) contribs 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being dogmatic and affirming, this movement is definitely NOT a philosophy, but rather a cult. I do not really know the amplitude of this movement, but it doesn't appear to have any major importance. The two websites I saw were hosted on free webhost servers. --Ludvig 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Macro Society... geocities webpage. - Motor (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if interesting, it overlaps with other philosophical terms (such as monism, especially a theological kind). Cannot see how it could be anything else, and thereby a page to keep. Lundse 23:50, 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 speedy delete (patent nonsense). — Jun. 3, '06 [04:52] <freak|talk>

Texx[edit]

Article contains irrelevant content and serves no purpose as it seems to be about the creator's fan made character. It was created by a user who continues to vandalize other Wikipedia articles. 3bulletproof16 04:35, 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. Good work, people. DS 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tayyibe Gulek[edit]

A vanity page created by her colleague from the "I.S.R.O.-U.S.A.K. Being the leader of such an organization that no one has really ever heard of is certainly not reason for a wikipedia page. Also it is poorly formatted and almost completely lacking in substance. Vartan84 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of it. Really. But perhaps I am no one. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from straining my eyes, I couldn't really get anything out of it. Yanksox 05:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former member of Turkish parliament according to BBC and other sources, hence notable. Needs work though, and her name seems to be Gülek. ~ trialsanderrors 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per trialsanderrors. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per trialsanderrors. --Ioannes Pragensis 17:49, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7, all contributors have agreed to deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of SpongeBob SquarePants songs[edit]

The page is simply pointless. AMK152 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point of having a page like this. ForestH2
Delete It's a confusing artical with or without lyrics --Caldorwards4 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, all 3 real contributors have agreed to delete it. --Rory096 05:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Rory096. --Coredesat 06:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom.--Andeh 11:21, 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 without redirect.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who created the bolivian flag[edit]

Prod removed by IP. It's only a few lines, and there's nothing here that can't go on Flag of Bolivia. Not a likely redirect title. Jamoche 05:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quirkily named non-article.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flag of Bolivia -- Samir धर्म 06:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete to Flag of Bolivia Trebor 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per samir. -- Heptor _talk 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's to merge? The article has no source and doesn't explicate how General Santa Cruz is related to the flag. The article also says that the General was overthrown in 1839, while the suggested mergeto article, Flag of Bolivia, says that the flag was adopted in 1851. A quick google search was not helpful either.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be anything to merge. Article name is no help for typos etc. - Motor (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Motor, who expresses about the two relevant issues the same opinion as would have I, only with much more succinctly and clearly. Joe
Delete - nothing there to merge with Flag of Bolivia or Bolivia. Article should be orphaned and deleted due to awkward name. B.Wind 05:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punkmorten 09:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No content worth preserving, and the title would be useless as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list on WP:DAFT Eluchil404 01:13, 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 delete - also noted that Anthoo has few edits outside of this article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Sucker Theory[edit]

Novelty "theory" with no sources except one broken link. Kusma proposed for deletion, author reverted without addressing concerns. Gazpacho 05:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research or hoax. Gazpacho 05:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yanksox 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep with major clean up. Depending on the search terms used, I've found between 700+ to 700,000+ Google refs. Seems to have been a "joke" theory similar in spirit to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ande B. 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in the same category as Flying Spaghetti Monster. MLA 08:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i will try to clean it up - infamous theory deserves to have its place here. P.S - don't know how i should go about cleaning it up though... Anthmoo 11:25, 3 June 2006
Redirect to Wikipedia:Revenge_of_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense#Dark_Sucker_Theory. Avenue 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that'll do i guess... =P
Delete and salt the earth seeing it's been BJAODNed before. We don't need another article space redirect into BJAODN. Kimchi.sg 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, old joke article that's been bouncing around networks for years. - Motor (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a joke, not a theory. As theory it should obviously go, but as joke someone might establish sufficient notability (but I doubt it very much, so delete). Lundse 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kimchi. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old fax/email joke. Previously BJAODNed. - CNichols 17:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian proverbs[edit]

WP:NOT an arbitrary collection of information, or a repository of proverbs in every language. There is already a Wikiquote page for these. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ande B. 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- cds^(talk) 22:03, 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loob[edit]

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

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

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

Non notable web forum. Has 130 members. See Talk:Loob. Delete. gadfium 05:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Ande B. 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 130 members is non-notable. Kala ni ^[talk] 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a group of people with no assertion of notability. I've tagged it with {{db-club}}. --Rory096 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other online forums have their own pages on Wikipedia Hauser 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB particularly the bit The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. - a 3 month old small forum does not get over the line - Peripitus 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If we had an article for every forum with 100 members wikipedia would be flooded with them.--Andeh 11:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Craccum. --Midnighttonight 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this should *not* be merged with Craccum; Loob is almost entirely separate from Craccum, and is in no way officially sanctioned by the magazine, AUSA or the University of Auckland. --Hugh 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, then it should be deleted entirely. --Rory096 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This forum is well known through the University Of Auckland and is home to many of the contributors of Craccum. Loob has also facilitated a few notorious web pranks that are worth a mension (e.g The Myspace one that got notice on SA & printed in Craccum). Stevee2 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I live in NZ and have never heard of this web forum - plus it could hardly be classed as an historic forum since its only been around (in its existing persona) since february.. r2b2 04:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither - Please read Defence against Speedy Deletion on the discussion page of the article before commenting. The relevant history is the article was listed for speedy deletion after one scentence had been written - at which point the author, (me) stopped writing it. (It has since been breifly expanded by other hands). The present afD listing is an attempt to retrospectively correct the original error of listing the article for speedy deletion but is flawed as the article remains unwritten - there is no point in puting effort into something which may not last 5 days. To delete the article at this point is to judge the article in an embryonic state and reward the intial breach of Wikipedia policy. Winstonwolfe 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anybody needs to judge it by its current state to realize it should be deleted. It's an internet forum with 130 members! --Rory096 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All that has to be done to avoid deletion is to assert notability. It doesn't have to be an article full of sparkling prose. In all the comments left here, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page, I have yet to see one real assertion of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that that's all that has to be done to avoid speedy deletion, not regular deletion. --Rory096 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Comment - Well at least there was a 7 minute delay before that reply :-). There are assertions of notability on the discussion page, and above, and who knows, there may even be one in the article. On the afD process c.f. speedy deletion, there is a discretion to delete the article if there is no notability, not just assertions of notability. But the question is whether that discretion should be exercised, despite the lack of due process shown in listing the article for deletion. Either way, I think we may set an interesting precedent.Winstonwolfe 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I noted in my revision of the entry, the site has close links with Craccum despite its very small size in terms of membership. Were it not for the fact that the site isn't officially linked to Craccum, I'd support it being merged into Craccum as Midnighttonight has suggested, but I think it merits continued existence. Samf-nz 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's not linked to Craccum doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. --Rory096 04:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. I would support speedy as {{db-club}} per Rory: although it's very marginal as a speedy candidate, I still don't see an assertion of notibility. bikeable (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether the tagging process was correct of not (and it appears to me it was), it doesn't change the fact the article does not meet WP:WEB. Rockpocket 05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small web forum, I see no evidence that this is notable. -- SCZenz 08:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speaking as the original author, I give up - while I find it worrying that the majority don't see the due process issue here, this is just not worth the fuss it's generating. Winstonwolfe 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, got to keep things in perspective Stevee2 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the procedural issue (discussed further on the article's talk page); Wikipedia does not prescribe to natural justice, and often deletions are supported for reasons other than (or despite) the ones initially given. Ziggurat 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak). If I didn't take into account the guidelines I'd say it's just on the keep side of notability - it's fairly well known around campus. Maybe. And that just campus, to say nothing of anyone else in the entire world. And when I take into account that the established guidelines are pretty clearly against it... --Dom 12:27, 8 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. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow[edit]

Also nominating every article on that list and the corresponding category. Universities are important, but I think that having articles on each professorship with a list of people that have held the position is way overkill Hirudo 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are also being considered for deletion:
- Regius Professor of Medicine and Theraputics, Glasgow, Professor of Divinity, Glasgow, Professor of Humanity, Glasgow, Professor of Mathematics, Glasgow, Professor of Greek, Glasgow, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Law, Glasgow, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Anatomy, Glasgow, Professor of Logic and Rhetoric, Glasgow, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Glasgow, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Astronomy, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Zoology, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Botany, Glasgow, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Glasgow, Regius Professor of English Language and Literature, Glasgow, John Elder Professor of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Glasgow, Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy, Glasgow, Professor of Modern History, Glasgow, Marshall Professor of French Language and Literature, Glasgow, Gardiner Professor of Music, Edwards Professor of Medieval History

Delete per nom. Way too much! Yanksox 06:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think if you want to nominate every article, they need to have the afd1 template added to them pointing them to this listing. As for my opinion on the issue, there is no reason to have a separate article on each professorship or to mention every non-notable professor's name. Merge and condense would be my suggestion. Perhaps this whole mess could be userfied to User:Veritas1984's userspace where he can refactor and re-present it. BigDT 06:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes if you're right that would be a lot of work adding it to all of them (and then possibly a lot of work removing them if they're kept). I'll check with an admin and will add them if needed -- Hirudo 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't that bad - {{subst:afd1|List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow}} needs to be added to the top of each of them ... see How to list multiple related pages for deletion BigDT 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's done BigDT 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Impressive. Thanks a lot -- Hirudo 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An old university such as Glasgow has had some interesting prominant Professors and a list of the established and Regius chairs with their date of foundation is important and interesting. I see no reason why they can not all be kept. I would support this however only for universities established say before 1800. --Bduke 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously). Regius professors are notable. — Dunc|☺ 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable topics, and I hope we will get more articles and lists like these (we have them already for Oxford, Cambridge and the Gresham professorships, see Category:Professorships), but some limit (as suggested by Bduke) may be reasonable. up+land 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke, Duncharris and Uppland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Bduke's suggestion also. Dlyons493 Talk 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't gone through the full list, but some of these seem clearly notable. I would be willing to consider some of the lesser ones on a case-by-case basis though. ScottW 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a list. -- cds^(talk) 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT does not make this simple statement. If it did, why do we have featured lists? --Bduke 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what I personally see it as. -- cds^(talk) 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evidently not indiscriminate. They are self-limiting and clearly defined (unlike List of unusual deaths say). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is just a lot of pieces of info, if one is notable (plays a certain role in international academia, maybe) we can consider it. Lists of people who held a certain position in a hierarchy opens an interesting floodgate: imagine an article for every position at every university, government office and important organization for every country in the world - lets add them when we have something interesting to write and not just because we have a list to put there. Lundse 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Condense per BigDT. – Zawersh 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' There are far better ways to handle this kind of information. Consider a navigational template or a succession box. ~ trialsanderrors 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Nothing indiscriminate about this - it is clearly defined per Angusmclellan's argument, and noteable per Duncharris. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly what lists and categories are for. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per FM, KC and Dunc Jim62sch 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- remember that WP is not paper. It looks like a lot of cruft when you list all those articles together, but I see no reason why some poor administrator should be forced to merge dozens of articles into one. Truth is, I might vote to delete some of these, or possibly the list, but I think separate debate is needed. Mango juice^talk 20:17, 8 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: I am this close to deleting this advert. There is enough of a majority for deletion to put this within my discretion, and the argument that 'countering systemic bias' means 'let non-English-language organisations violate WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising' I reject completely. However, the parent article International Strategic Research Organization has been kept after an AfD discussion, and Lambiam has made a decent point (in his second post, the first is WP:POKEMON), so I'm lead to close this as no consensus. Perhaps if it was merged with the parent article one it would be easier to clean up the advertising. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of International Law and Politics[edit]

This is published by the person who added this page. It is another vanity page from the person who brought you the pointless mess of a page Tayyibe Gulek. A Google search bring up no more than 13 hits for something of this title, with half of them being related to it being listed on wikipedia (or answers.net which copies everything on wikipedia.) A couple of the other hits are from the publisher's page about it, and that's about it. Also the categories it is listed in are numerous and completely bogus, "charities" for example? While it says it does accept articles in English, its cover picture makes it clear it is mainly a Turkish publication coming from Turkey, therefore I see no reason for it to even be on English wikipedia. Its publisher was the one who added it in the first place, and he has put up quite a few other vanity pages such as this. Vartan84 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika" gives more Google hits.

Delete This appears to be advertising hoping to capture WP traffic and credibility. It is a non-notable project that has not been around long enough to show any significance. If it starts getting quoted by academic or main stream news publications then it can be reconsidered. The complaint that it is not written in English, however, is not a proper argument for inclusion, as I understand WP criteria for inclusion of publications. What really matters is whether it's notability can be verified. In this case, it cannot, thus should be deleted. Ande B. 06:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No mercy for advertisements. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ande B. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me... --Dakart 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a sec. What's going on here? There are plenty of articles on journals and magazines with non-English titles coming from non-English speaking countries, such as Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, Algebra i Logika, Alula, Angewandte Chemie, Annales de l'Institut Fourier, L'Année Sociologique, Anuario Filosófico, Cahiers de Topologie et Géometrie Différentielle Categoriques, Cahiers du cinéma, Ciência e Cultura, Le Cygne, Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, Dziennik Ustaw, Harefuah, Historische Sprachforschung, Historische Zeitschrift, Indogermanische Forschungen, Kailash, Kevätpörriäinen, Maarvon, Maayan, Mathematische Annalen, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Oikos, Positif, Publications Mathématiques de l'IHÉS, Revue des deux mondes, Scandia, Sternenbote, Tehnika Molodezhi, Teknisk Ukeblad, Les Temps modernes, Ylioppilaslehti, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik, Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie, and Znamya. "Non-English title coming from non-English speaking country" is simply not an argument, OK? A possibly valid argument is that this is unverifiable, or lacking importance, or copyvio. See also WP:BIAS. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, the point you are making was already stated. I believe the subsequent votes have been for valid reasons and not for the English language limitation. It might be helpful if the nom Vartan84 used the strike out on that portion of the proposed deletion, though, just to make sure. Ande B. 23:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw, "per everyone above me", thus endorsing the argument I don't accept. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This journal is one of the 1,629 serials currently monitored for inclusion in CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.[26] Among these it is one of the 274 that has "Core" status, the highest of three status levels. That is good enough for me. By the way, I know (by reputation, not personally) the organization behind this, which is a serious and respectable organization. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On this page: [27] you can see that İlter Turan, Professor of Political Science and former Rector at Istanbul Bilgi University, one of the most prestigious universities in Turkey, and also President of the Turkish Political Science Association, member of the Editorial Boards or Advisory Boards of more than a few international journals, serves on the Editorial Board of this journal. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having someone with a wikipedia page on your board qualifies you for a inclusion as well. Besides... a google search reveals allegations from other wikipedians that Ankaram is the same as Sedat Laciner, who created this page and a bunch of others about his organizations. I won't make the same accusion because I have no proof, but seeing as Anakaram updated the Laciner wikipage many times after it was created, the fact he created this page on Ilter Turan is not surprising. What is surpising though is the fact the Turan page is completely in capital letters and in serious need of improving its quality. All his bio states is that he is a professor of Bilgi University (founded 1994/6, I don't think such new schools would be that prestigious). Having published a few books does not make one famous either, quite a few of my college professors were published (and taught at American Universities more people would be familliar with) but I wouldn't add them to wikipedia for that. This is becoming an arguement about Turan's page instead of this organization, but I think I've shown through it that having some guy (Turan) with a wikipedia page who doesn't really appear to warrant having one on your board of some organization (RILP) few people have heard of does not make it deserving of a wikipedia page. Especially when considering the AUTO status of those who created the page. Vartan84 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. Deepblue06 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the systemic bias out of Wikipedia. Grue 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version of blatant advertising stuffed full of links; but let an article on RILP come back if/when there's notability in the content. The point above about "core" status is heading an interesting way, so the author could helpfully cite impact factor (cf JAMA) or some heavily cited article to show it's not an issue of vanity.--Mereda 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador_International_Cultural_Foundation[edit]

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

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

This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 18:39, 8 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 reported as copyvio. Not a CSD candidate since it was created on April 11, way beyond the 48 hours limit for A8. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sauk[edit]

Blatant copyright violation. Direct copy & paste from his bio on ArenaFootball.com. fuzzy510 06:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A8 -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:18, 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 speedy delete all. --MONGO 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Pentagon, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Flight 93, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers[edit]

Unnecessary POV forking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rory096 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does a physical analysis of the pentagon crash site, and a comparison with the physical dimensions of a 757, have to do with anti-semitism?rich 12:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the Flight 93 one, at least -- there are definitely historical facts that need recording (such as allegations of significant discrepancies about time of crash)

131.111.48.158 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC) djcmackay[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Deltabeignet 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lot of it looks like a copy/paste. If the main article becomes so large that it needs to be split up, ok, fine, but just copying/pasting a section into a new article and changing a few things doesn't really help. BigDT 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does - that's how it works. You copy/paste a section into a new article, then put "Main Article: XXX" where the old section was and drastically condense what was there. --Hyperbole 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork. Rather interesting that the next article listed is about Kooks. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- lmfao! --Rory096 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - these aren't POV forks at all; they're forks for the purpose of splitting up an overlong article. That's standard Wikipedia practice. 9/11 conspiracy theories was becoming utterly bloated and unruly, and this is the logical solution. Sort of how like Jesus forks into Chronology of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Genealogy of Jesus, and about 20 other pages - too much information for one page. --Hyperbole 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ok - if that's the case, that's fine, but a user who has no other contributions created all of the new articles, copied the content, and blanked the sections he copied, replacing them with links to the new articles. Rory096 immediately reverted his blanking. There is no discussion on the talk page about the split. If that's really the intent, ok, fine, but there's no evidence of any attempt to gain a consensus or at least let everyone know what was going on. BigDT 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense. I suppose I should mirror the whole Enterprise Mission site here as NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Face on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Cities on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Alien Bases on the Moon, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page is only going to keep coming back and getting re-created. The content conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, by being based upon multiple written external sources. The main 9/11 conspiracy page is now an accepted part of the WIKIPEDIA, and at over 100kb, was FAR TOO LONG. A concensus was arrived at that the main page was too long, and the creation of sub pages is in accordance with the ALREADY ESTABLISHED CONCENSUS ON THIS MATTER. Above comments are clearly in error, and seem to border on the hysterical. Timharwoodx 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you provide a diff on the discussion page where splitting was discussed? Obviously, it needs to be done ... so you're probably right and this is moot anyway BigDT 09:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_7#Proposal for new sub-articles seems to be the most relevant. There's similar discussions throughout the archives, though, for various other splitting schemes. – Zawersh 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a ringing endorsement ... but whatever ... at most it's a content dispute ... no real point to argue about it here Speedy keep BigDT 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, it's the opposite of an endorsement. Not a single person supported the split in that particular discussion. I'm confused... since nobody supported the split there, and few supported similar splits elsewhere (that I saw, anyway), why is that your justification for a speedy keep? The original article isn't up for deletion, just the split offs. – Zawersh 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Skimming through the talk archives, there appears to be no consensus for splitting. My impression was that more people wanted the article to be editted down to a smaller size. If it's to be split, it should be with consensus. – Zawersh 09:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#This_page_needs_to_be_split. We now have a page. Timharwoodx 09:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to original article. If the page is becoming unruly, tidy it up. Don't just be information agglomerators, be real editors, and EDIT. -- GWO
- Exactly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, it needs the headings splitting off into sub pages. Thats all this is about. An overly long page, that needs subdivision. 98 kilobytes is an absurd size, and vastly exceeds the Wikipedia:Article_size guidelines, which give 20-32 kilobytes as the range to begin to consider subdivision. So logically, following the WIKI rules, AT LEAST 3 sub pages are required, and possibly 5. I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion about something, that is just the application of standing WIKI style guidelines. If this was any other topic than 9/11, it would have been done MONTHS ago. Timharwoodx 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the same thing could be said about this afd. Don't just be deleters, be real editors and EDIT. -- MisterHand 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories is insanely long and out of control. I'm not sure why so many people think that's a good thing. -- MisterHand 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete until decisions have been made on which sections stay or go in the original article. SkeenaR 10:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not 100's of opinions and theories.--Andeh 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapox. Systemic bias, conspiracycruft is greatly out of proportion to its importance. This kind of stuff just hurts Wikipedia. Weregerbil 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much of this material is only supported by citation to primary sources - the conspiracist websites themselves. There is not at this time enough secondary source material to support independent articles. There is barely enough to support one main article; the reason it's so long is every theorist with a website wants his link and a promotional paragraph. There was certainly no consensus on the talk page to do this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, but Keep 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers / ~~Controlled demolition conspiracy theories~~, as it is a much needed daughter article to make 9/11 conspiracy theories conform to Wikipedia:Summary style.--DCAnderson 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Controlled demolition conspiracy theories was as bad a title as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers. A better title would be 9/11 Conspiracy Theories/controlled demolition. For the moment I have moved it back to its original title and also merged in 9/11 conspiracy theories WTC - a repost of the article. -- RHaworth 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who decided to split the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? ILovePlankton 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Weregerbil and Tom Harrison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the articles are not written from a neutral point of view, or contain unverifiable statements, these need to be edited into conformance. But there is nothing wrong with reporting in a neutral voice on verifiably existing conspiracy theories. Some of the arguments given for deletion apply equally to the featured article Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hyperbole, Timharwoodx, BigDT, and MisterHand. —204.42.21.174 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Don't need more than one article on the subject.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this isn't prejudiced, then I certainly don't know what is. --Bill (who is cool!) 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is consensus on the original article's talk page for splitting, OK. Just doing it is a bit too bold, IMHO. Lundse 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary splitting, a dumping ground for amateurish tinfoil-hat blog links. Raggaga 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PLEASE! What, pray tell, is the purpose of this article? The second paragraph says, "These statements are contradicted by the preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reporting an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building." Then one can sum up the whole article thus: "Even though everyone who was there says otherwise, a few people on the Internet who weren't actually there think this happened..." Casting legitimacy on this is like casting legitimacy on Paul McCartney actually being dead. As Weregerbil notes, this sort of content only hurts Wikipedia. (On a personal note, not to be thought of as part of my voting rationale, a member of my immediate family was in Washington that day and saw the plane hit the Pentagon with her own eyes. Make of that what you will.) Starry Eyes 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The main conspiracies article is far too long. These sub-articles pack just the right punch. You can read one then, when you've stopped laughing twenty minutes later, read another. What the main article needs is for a bunch of guys to take matters into their own hands and trim it. --die Baumfabrik 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As stated above "Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense." Brimba 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- disgusting bit of anti-Semitism. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Morton devonshire 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This vote isn't whether the 9/11 conspiracy theories page itself should exist; it's not being voted on for an AfD here. The subpages were created as a result of forking a large page into separate subpages when it gets too large; this is a standard Wikipedia practice. Based on that, it's not really a question at significant issue. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WCityMike. The 9/11 conspiracy theories page is becoming very long. --Zoz (t) 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are used to serve the purpose of cutting down the length of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Also if you look at the main page, nearly all of the comments are supported and verifiable according to wikipedia guidelines.MBob 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all theories are verifiably presented by notable individuals. Wikipedia is not the place to judge whether the theories are reasonable or not. Calwatch 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Forks due to main article length. - CNichols 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a good start at problems with article length would be adherence to Wikipedia policies, notably reliable sources. A lot of the articles are regurgitations of self-appointed "researchers'" blogs and other self-published sources. While I appreciate the stupidity displayed in those blog entries to demonstrate the weakness of the conspiracy theorists' arguments the articles are unencyclopedic messes. Splitting them up so we can pile more junk on top of junk isn't helpful. Weregerbil 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracy cruft. Grue 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a POV fork, but a spinoff article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP These articles have just as much of a right to be here as any. These are not POV, they are debated facts. You cannot keep articles such as Elvis sightings, Kennedy assassination theories, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Illuminati, and Majestic 12 and delete these simply because they are very controversial. Keep them. Andy Filth 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and edit the main 9/11 conspiracies article more concisely MLA 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted these blatent POV fork articles as they violate numerous arguments on discussion pages and they were all created by a sockpuppet of someone...once I figure out who I suspect, I'll take the evidence to RCU.--MONGO 13:25, 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.

>>>> didnt realize this was a freakin' dictatorship what is the sense of having a discussion when you can come in and wave the almighty sword and off with your head....why didnt you just delete the kooks without warning mussolini....<<<<< I Have Now Had My Say!!!

The result of the debate was delete - none of the Maintain from the users explain any notability whatsoever, as well as possible sockpuppetry.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kooks Anonymous[edit]

Non-notable. A meager 34 Ghits, and seems suspiciously exclusive from the article's description. fuzzy510 06:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for rationale mentioned by Fuzzy510. ShigeruNomi 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They actually only have 15 unique google hits, and six or seven are to Wikipedia and its mirrors, and others are not to the group.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain. Kooks anonymous is an active group that functions primarily via email (kooks@yahoogroups.com). While the web presence is relatively small the group is active and worthy of a wikipedia entry. --User:alex@outerbanks.umaryland.edu June 5, 2006
Maintain. The Kooks more than deserve a wikpedia entry, as we are a very active group. We dont like it when others drop in our wikipedia entry....User:jpaterson@bloomberg.net June 5, 2006
MaintainThe Kooks are an active group most deserving of our wikipedia entry. Please honor good surf etiquette and refrain from dropping-in and snaking our wikipedia entry. It's a big beautiful ocean with wikipedia waves for all. User:buddakook@hotmail.com
- What exactly makes the group notable? There's nothing that you've mentioned besides "we're an active group", which applies to about 99% of groups in America, and few of them are notable enough for an entry. --fuzzy510 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey fuzzy why all the bad kharma here? You obviously have some sort of agenda here so why not put it out in writing for every one to view since you were the one who started this whole thing.....User:jpaterson@bloomberg.net June 6, 2006
- Fuzzy; have you used the wikipedia resource lately? for example, go to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encyclopedia where you will note the definition of an encylopedia includes "A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics." Now, Kooks Anonymous is a surf organization. Thus, if an individual wants to do research on the topic "surf organizations in the USA, NYC etc." they could go into wikipedia and find information on the Kooks as well as other surf organizations. If the information is removed, that individual will not find all the relevant information, thereby making wikipedia a less than comprehensive resource. Is that your goal? --User:alex@outerbanks.umaryland.edu June 6, 2006

Fuzzy logic just doesn't get it. Kooks Anonymous exists in the real world, not merely in googleplexdom. Real surfers can get realtime information and shared knowledge of the real world of surfing. Members from three or four continents and several tropical and subtropical islands are in constant communication supporting each other. Kooks Anonymous exists to provide a support network and self-improvement capabilities to the ocean-challenged and neophyte surfer. Kooks Anonymous offers daily news releases and weather forecasting, political and social commentary as well as plain old brother-and sister-hood, not to mention a few good laughs now and then. Furthermore Kooks Anonymous is non-exclusive and open to all comers.

Maintain. I remember finding Kooks Anonymous through the Internet. And when I came to New York, I met some of the real Kooks. They took me surfing, and they rock. Don't delete!! You'll be erasing an online resource citing some of the East Koast's finest bit of surf history. The group is notable for the unique situation of New York City and East Coast surfers. If you search Wikipedia and enter the term "Surfing New York" Kooks Anonymous is the first result, which is right where it should be to introduce all online surfers to the wild world of surfing the Big Apple. - www.kakirine.com - June 7, 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Church of Christ with the Elijah Message - no-one wants this content to exist on its own and it all seems to duplicate what is said in the parent article. Follow the redirect back if there is anything worth merging. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Fetting[edit]

Possible hoax, if not hoax not notable person. ShigeruNomi 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The guy's real, it seems [28] [29], but certainly not notable. --djrobgordon 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; ah, the thing is POV'd up to hell as well. It presents this person's followers' beliefs as if they are absolute reality. I tell you... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per djrobgordon. Merely having a series of divine visions does not notability bring. - Peripitus 10:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Church of Christ with the Elijah Message. Without being access the german texts listed in Otto Fetting in the German wikipedia it's hard to tell but I feel now that he meets WP:V but not WP:BIO as he has had no impact outside the church and the visions. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minor member of a minor church, visited by a minor angel (top christians get spoken to by seraphs). --die Baumfabrik 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! The article needs to be edited, is all. The dismissive remarks here about Mr. Fetting & the faction he headed are "POV'd up to hell as well." There's nothing about this entry that is a hoax, the basic facts can be proven, and are relevant to millions of students of Mormon-related history, not to mention the thousands of believers today who accept Otto Fetting's claim to have been visited by a major figure in Christian tradition. I agree the entry "presents [the writer's] beliefs as if they are absolute reality," and I agree that is unacceptable. Don't delete it right away, I'll see about revising it to differentiate between the facts (such as Mr. Fetting being born November 20, 1871, d. January 30, 1933) and what are claims or beliefs.
Don't Delete! Me again. I only just noticed the German Wikipedia entry for Otto Fetting, and that it is superior to the English-language entry being considered for deletion. ((http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Fetting)).
- This is a visual representation of the article's verifiability and notability: ______ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...so you're still at that stage in the discussion? The verifiability and notability of Otto Fetting is established. I take it you don't read German. Either fix the article or delete it, but how about not using this as a forum to merely disparage a religious faction. Urban2
  - For one: the article is unsourced. For another: the article presents these beliefs as fact rather than encyclopedically (my largest problem with the article, still). As yet, no proof has been provided as to why he's notable, or in Baumfabrik's words: not "a minor member of a minor church, visited by a minor angel". -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the article is sourced, especially by its link to the "Church of Christ with the Elijah Message" entry. For "another," I have said I agree the article is unacceptable because it presents beliefs as facts. I said it needs to either be fixed or deleted. In "edit history" check out what I submitted then withdrew, not sure whether it was acceptable either. As for your claim that "no proof has been provided as to why he's notable, etc.," yes it has. Glance at the German Wikipedia entry for Otto Fetting, please. And glance at the English Wikipedia entry about the modern church he founded, please. Thanks. Baumfabrik's opinion about what constitutes "minor" or "major" in the Christian or any related tradition, is irrelevant. To suggest John the Baptist is a "minor" figure in Christianity is not only arguable, but trashable, especially in the Eastern Orthodox view, which puts more emphasis on John the Baptist than the Western tradition. Articles about religious factions should be edited for verifiability and noteworthiness, not be a kindergarten exercise in "disbelieving" this or that groups' beliefs. --Urban2 | | 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources, not another unsourced Wikipedia article. The sources in that article are all primary sources, ie. sources directly affiliated with the topic in question. If this article can be properly sourced, then I fully support its inclusion assuming that it can be rewritten. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vote switched to a Strong {~~Keep OR~~ {Merge AND Redirect}}, for the heck of it. And Urban2, you can feel free to edit articles that are set for deletion, especially if you possibly render them less eligible for deletion... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote switched from Don't Delete! to Delete or {Merge AND Redirect}} In lieu of the German-language entry being translated into English, I doubt an improved version will be forthcoming. --Urban2 | | 19:44, 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 reported as copyvio, not CSD A8 candidate. Kimchi.sg 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Missouri[edit]

Blantant copyright violation. Copied & pasted from his bio on ArenaFootball.com. fuzzy510 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A8 -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as copyvio. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Not a candidate under A8 as not posted within last 48 hours. Probably should have been tagged and listed on WP:CP as all versions of article are infringing.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:43, 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 reported as coyvio. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keita Crespina[edit]

Blatant copyright violation. Copied & pasted from his bio on PhiladelphiaSoul.com. fuzzy510 07:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:COPYVIO. Kala ni ^[talk] 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A8. Have at thee! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. Not a candidate under A8 as not posted within last 48 hours. Probably should have been tagged and listed on WP:CP as all versions of article are infringing.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:43, 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 amateur player as proclaimed in the title, not meeting WP:BIO.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Smith (non-league footballer)[edit]

A footballer, but not professional, and thus doesn't meet WP:BIO. Punkmorten 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kala ni ^[talk] 08:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from membership of Watford's youth team a far while ago, he doesn't seem to have played for any league soccer teams in the UK. As such, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not notable enough.--Andeh 11:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; article clear that he doesn't meet WP:BIO for footballers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:13, 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readability Studio[edit]

Copyvio from the official website plus just advertising for non-notable product. Ben W Bell talk 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, balarseebatindowot sjsEEEEEEEble neebs. And furthmore: eeerggreedd loblob. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohyes, this meets criteria for speedy deletion A8. -> Noncontroversial, blatent Copyright infringement without a non-infringing history on the article. I need sleep. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually, it doesn't because the source is not a commercial content provider, and as Fuhghettaboutit pointed out, the article is older than 48 hours. -- Kjkolb 13:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I really shouldn't edit at 2:00 in the morning. Really. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The following article is an "infomercial" -- a commercial message from its maker". Can you get any more blatant than that? The article does not, however, appear to be a candidate for speedy under A8 as it was not posted within the last 48 hours.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, pure spam. -- cds^(talk) 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I wish that was in the criteria for speedy deletion, but it's not as it's far too vague and easy to misinterpret. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I should actually read the comments rather than the votes? MY vote's still a Delete. -- cds^(talk) 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the copy is unreadable. Enough said. --die Baumfabrik 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say that it was nice of them to tell us in the opening paragraph that the article is an infomercial. GentlemanGhost 04:26, 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 Speedy delete. Tagged and deleted as speedy delete (not by myself), so it's pointless leaving it open.-- 9 cds^(talk) 12:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds of Love[edit]

No reliable sources (no sources at all, in fact). No entry on allmusic. No entry on discog. No assertion that this is anything other than a group of blokes with a band. The only remotely notable thing about it is the presence of Joel Veitch, who spun a flash animation habit into some TV adverts in the UK. It was only the line at the end of the article: "7 Seconds Of Love has a small yet growing underground following," that stopped me from using speedy del A7... and that was giving it a big benfit of the doubt. - Motor (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do think this was speedable, as the cited sentence says both small and underground; anyway, patent non-notability substantiated by assertions in article.--Fuhghettaboutit
Merge with Joel Veitch then tidy. (per nom) Leave open to recreation. --Billpg 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they meet WP:MUSIC based on the notability of Joel Veitch. ScottW 18:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is exactly what the part of WP:MUSIC in question states: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..." Joel Veitch has never been in another notable band; he's (barely) notable for other things, and he certainly doesn't reach 30 Odd Foot of Grunts or The Bacon Brothers notability. -- Kicking222 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that Joel Veitch is plenty notable. He's won a couple of Webby's and received substantial media coverage [30]. ScottW 22:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, and is he notable for being in a band? Should we have an article about where he shops, or how about the street he lives in? - Motor (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We actually might. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment, good luck. That kind of nonsense is about the only thing that would drag me into the policy pages swamp. Anyway, someone did what I should have done originally and added {{db-band}}. It's gone. - Motor (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as this really doesn't quite fit under Joel Veitch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, STRONG delete Amazing lack of notability. Advertising. Completely fails WP:MUSIC- one criteria is having a band member who was (before or after) a member of another notable band; being a slightly-well-known Flash animator doesn't count. Perhaps deserves a mention on Joel Veitch's page, but only a mention (a.k.a. no redirect or merge). -- Kicking222 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A I must be getting it confused keep - Googles _really_ well, unless there's another band with a similar name... -- cds^(talk) 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kicking222 Bwithh 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know if this qualifies as a tour exactly, but 7 Seconds of Love has played at least one concert outside of Britain [31]. ScottW 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I think you mean played a "restaurant/bar/hotel". I followed up on your link http://www.winston.nl/. - Motor (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Don't know about WP standards but they are growing in popularity here on the west coast of the US,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.108.3 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh[edit]

No google links, looks like corporate spam Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By no google links, I meant that there are no relevant google links, to assert the notability of this corporation. Does this make things clear? --Nearly Headless Nick 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's comment, over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [32]. Are you not familiar with Google NOT correctly indexing backlinks for several websites when the "link:" parameter is used? Doherty-382 04:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community. [[User: # KyleSandrs]] 20:10, 3 June 2006 (AEST)

Delete nonsensical spam. KyleSandrs removes the afd tag from the page. --CharlotteWebb 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe even speedy, per CharlotteWebb.--Andeh 11:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. I would argue that while the article as it stands should be fleshed out, it is, as KyleSandrs put it, a valuable asset to the Wikipedia community. Phanatical 18:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement that doesn't assert sufficient notability. -- Kicking222 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advert. --die Baumfabrik 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. The original comment sparking the deletion by Nearly Headless Nick is hence baseless. Eric Wikiguru 08:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 22 pages link to this website, according to Google. [33] - Tangot a ngo 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [34]. Are you not familiar with Google NOT correctly indexing backlinks for several websites when the "link:" parameter is used? Doherty-382 04:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSN[35] and Yahoo[36] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me.RedMolla196 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On purely the basis on which the deletion has been requested, this entry should not be deleted. Chefsmeaters 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one searches Google for sites that Contain the term "theSMSzone", we find almost 49000 mentions, including mentions in other entries in Wikipedia itself. Phanatical 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simce when have we started removing articles purely on how it performs on Google? There are many reasons why Google will not index some sites properly. One such reason is the past history of the domain. A quick search on archive.org for 'smszone.com' displays countless pages of a German adult website. As you may already be familiar with, Google does not forget such things easiy.

SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause.

There absolutely is no reason why this article should be removed.Ahmedsays 20:40, 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bach[edit]

Most likely vanity entry, but in any case far below notability threshold for politicans trialsanderrors 10:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn.--Jusjih 10:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - Stevecov 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Coredesat 18:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Saposcat 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for flip's sake, mayor of a 'city' of 2000 people? Do me a favour! --die Baumfabrik 02:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asper nom Bwithh 04:58, 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. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peavley[edit]

A few of us on the aritcle's talk page are questioning the notability on this article, so we'll bring it here for more input. From what I understand, Kyle is a student in this anti-tobacco group, stand, and is apparently highly involved. The group received an award in DC from the Campaign for Smoke Free Kids. Kyle has been involved with a bunch of their projects and his name has been mentioned in some newspapers for it. A Google search for 'Kyle Peavly" returns 415 results. However, if you eliminate all results from "ratemyteachers.com," a site where Kyle frequents the forums, you get 25 results. In my opinion, while it is good work he is doing, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. It seems like he's highly involved with the organization, but isn't THE organization. I, too, am highly involved with a student organization (I'm the national secretary of one that serves over 200,000 members) but I don't think that makes me particular notable. Metros232 10:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable.--Jusjih 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy if User:Advisory is the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 10:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right he is not THE organization, but he is the Administrative Manager of the organization and goes throughout Ohio speaking on behalf of the organization, clean indoor air for the state (including giving speeches at clean indoor air ralleys and cities that are kicking off being smoke free including Kettering Ohio on Money), and is at every health fair in the state giving speeches. He is highly in the media for his work at least 4 times a week in his hometown area and more throughout the state. I have stated previously that I would be more than happy to provide media coverage on DVD and send that in. I just feel that he deserves a spot on here for all the work that he has done throughout the years and continues to do on a state level here in Ohio. He is one of our most notable teens in the state in our opinion but won't state that because it is bias. I just feel there's no real reason to delete this article and if you would let me know what more can be done to ensure it is not deleted I would be more than happy to strive towards acheiving that. Thanks again. -Melissa

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN --die Baumfabrik 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to article, he is "very pationate[sic] at what he does" -- so give him a plaque and sincere thanks, but I don't think he has yet achieved sufficientl notability. BuckRose 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ashamed that most of the interviews are done on the news and are only on video. I think if you were from Ohio and had at least payed attention to any tobacco news (which there has been a lot of it in the past year) you will find Kyle's face, speeches, and quotes plastered all over the news. - Melissa

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment[edit]

common phrase only. Listed for cleanup for 12 months but I cannot see what you can do with this. Not more deserving of an article than the phrase The Prime Minister has my full support. Article is POV, WP:OR etc... but beyond that I cannot see the need for an article on this. Could be transwikied but I cannot see on wiktionary any similar self-obvious phrases. Peripitus 10:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - if it's been listed for cleanup for a year then maybe there's little to be done. The "no comment" concept is probably notable enough given its many contexts but people have had the chance to clean it up and haven't. - Stevecov 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible delete As much as I know that "No Comment" deserves a page, it does rub off as WP:OR. Yanksox 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like how the article is now. Yanksox 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it's worth keeping, regardless of the condition it's in. --Dakart 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article, frankly, sucks at the moment, I can't see deleting it either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is a not a phrasebook. I don't think the phrase is particularly notable either. Bwithh 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. -- cds^(talk) 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps it deserves an entry on Wiktionary, but Wikipedia's Miranda warning is sufficient. Perhaps a redirect.--El aprendelenguas 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a link to Miranda warning would not cover the current contents and the article is all right. Live and let live. I would support a redirect if a better alternative article was found. Lundse 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sure it needs editing, but it's not POV or OR. It deserves independent life, not redirecting. Besides, the Miranda warning is: 'Stay away from Caliban.' --die Baumfabrik 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and expand on the history. Would be interesting to see when the first use of this was by a President, famous uses, etc. Calwatch 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELTE OR POSSIBLY MERGE I attempted to repair the article but this proved impossible. Unless anyone can suggest something to merge it with I recommend deletion. Steve 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Merge to what? Yanksox 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably either Cliché or Oxymoron - Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through this and took out all the unencyclopedic bits (speculation about how journalists respond to "no comment" statements, legal advice, etc.) I took out all the law related bits, since the phrase "no comment" is a journalistic cliche, not a legal one. What remains is a two sentence stub, and I really don't see how it could be expanded much. So I'd say we should either delete this or redirect it to journalism sourcing or some other appropriate topic. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robth - you've gone about as far as I think is possible to. The best that could be done if this is kept is to add a list of significant usages. Can't find more than one or two of these anywhere and no significant mention on Wikiquote - Peripitus (Talk) 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beekeeper Bob[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable. Nearly Headless Nick 10:23, 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. The arguments for deleting the article — one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone — are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)[edit]

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was "Personal essay and interpration of film. This article violates core policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by definition." To that I would add that the large number of "fair use" images, as well as the fact that every single scene of the film is described in detail, infringes on the copyright of the film. The content of this article has been moved out of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) because the main article is too long. For this reason (and because the content itself is inappropriate per the above arguments), merging the content back into the main article is not a viable option. Delete Angr (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Contested PROD?" What is contested PROD? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROD -- 9 cds^(talk) 11:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. But I think a better acronym could be used. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind}

Originally, I was going to say delete, but I will ammend this to a conditional keep, if Mr. Palpatine agrees to work on this page with me to refine it, and do further research with citations. It is a film that needs a longer explination than may be given on the front page, but should not be as long as it is (or have so many pictures as it does) now. There are the workings of a good article behind this-- one which may utilize quotes between Kubrick and Clarke for an NPOV and citations. My guess is that if our effort is put towards it, it can be a functioning wikipedia entry by the end of the week. The Photoplayer 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot of work but I also think we should keep -- Bungopolis 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with original article and drastically cut down detail in this area and others described if length is an issue. SM247 11:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Borderline unencyclopedic. On the other hand well done, verifiable, descriptive rather than an opinionated review, and an influential film. For a lot of other IMDB-top-100 films this level of detail would be insane but for this one it works. Wikipedia is not paper so going into detail is possible. The main article can (and does) have a greatly abbreviated synopsis. Weregerbil 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the proposal WP:WAF describes this situation well, an extended film synopsis (without secondary sources) is too much like WP:OR, the impact of the film on the "real world" is more encyclopedic, but that is already covered in Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey. Regards, MartinRe 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: If a film synopsis is done by a wikipedia editor, then it is WP:OR, if a synopsis is done by a secondary source, then wikipedia can discuss the synopsis as a tertiary source, but analysing multiple secondary sources (e.g. synopses) to create a new one, is also original research. Also, this article does not reference any sources, so it's hard to tell which one it is, but neither are appropiate. Regards, MartinRe 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, editors combine multiple secondary sources all the time; it is only "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data" by the editor that is forbidden by WP:NOR. To my way of thinking, collecting information from multiple synopses is not analysis in the sense that WP:NOR means it; it is just "collecting and organizing".Gerry Ashton 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combining multiple secondary sources to create tertiary sources is fine. Combining multiple secondary sources to create another secondary source is a different matter. Regards, MartinRe 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Jason Palpatine by Scm83x:

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summerised it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analysied several synopses and summerised them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above copied from my talk page by me:

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub article itself] inappropriate. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Phrases from 2001: A Space Odyssey are frequently used in popular culture. The phrase "I'm sorry Dave" gets 139,000 hits on Google. A collection of memorable phrases from this film can be found at [37]. I would favor an article that gives sufficient context to the most important quotes from this movie so a person who never saw the movie could search on the quote and understand the context of the quote. I don't know how well the article under discussion serves that purpose. Gerry Ashton 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious. I am familiar with 2001: A Space Odyssey (film and book), but what is 2001: A Space Oddesy? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Don't insult other's spelling errors. No one is perfect. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought I was being civil. I was serious. I did not believe it to be an error. There have been other works that have parodied 2001: A Space Odyssey, like 2001: A Space Travesty. I thought it was something I have not encountered. One of the earliest such film's was 2001: A Space Oddity (re: Jerome Agel. The Making of Kubrick's 2001) -- note the similarity with the misspelled title? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Weregerbil. If this spurns a series of similar articles, then I'd vote delete. Any OR should be removed, but a pure NPOV synopsis is not OR. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and cut back if needed. -- cds^(talk) 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with original movie article. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this article was originally the synopsis section of the main article. It was created when the article was flagged for size and recommended for split. It was earlier put back into the article when it was marked for AfD. It was immediately cut out by an admin who considers it inappropriate there on account of the drive for deletion of the article. Sorry. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the scene by scene description infringes on the copyright holders ability to effectively distribute their film. This synopsis was forked because it was going to be removed from the main article and replaced with a 1-2 paragraph summary and User:Robeykr did not like that. Fair use issues abound and the article overall is not very well written. Please delete for the good of the Wiki. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record -- That is untrue and you know it. I forked the article because the main was flagged as too big and a split was recommended. Report to Dolores Umbridge for writers cramps please. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be merged because there is no encyclopedic content here. It is not a "sypnosis", and aside from the title, it makes no pretentions to be. It very clearly describes itself as an "interpration" of the film. It is not a summary of other's interprations, which already exists at a seperate article, nor an actual sypnosis, which exists within the main article. It is strictly a personal essay, which is further demonstrated by the fact that writer has allowed virtually no changes to the article that he originally created. This is clearly, to me, an innapropriate article that should be deleted.--Sean Black 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record 2 -- Untrue. What I opposed was/is the article being over-edited. i.e.: butchered. Changes have been made to it, such as the whittling down of the number of images in the article. Edits have been don by other admins, but an intolerant few just will not be satisfied until AfD is complete. BTW -- what is your vote on the matter? -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a vote.--Sean Black 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with original. -- XxLyLJeNNixX 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's only other two edits are blanking vandalism. There are accusations of sockpuppetry for this account at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Brawlers Association. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit. It needs more than a few paragraphs, but interpreting the movie is a bit excessive. Calwatch 07:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?
What is "nom"? --Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I should say something. I was/am the originator of this article. I branched it off from the main article when it was cited as being too big. Since then other sections have also been branched off. Much of his article (section) was written and in existence before I came along and others have said so. Since my original edits and branching, some others have looked at it, ridiculed it, argued with me about it -- one person even LIED in matter. Accusations have been made that this article violates core policy Wikipedia:No original research. In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources. The claim that this article containes any original research is an outright lie! Ultimately, this came to the listing of this article for AfC -- an article about one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. Such an action, if done, would be a waste. -- Jason Palpatine ^{speak your mind} 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 201.130.213.220 (SIGNED ANONYMOSLY)
- nOTE: I placed the signature for this person's entry because they did not do it themself. I am not 201.130.213.220 -- check the history. I would not be so low as to attempt to stuff the box. -- Jason Palpatine 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Will (^E_@) T 14:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manbeast[edit]

bad - faith article creation and what not? Nearly Headless Nick 10:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been a speedy. Please leave your opinions on my talk page. Regards, --Nearly Headless Nick 10:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely should have been a speedy. This is about a NN band, ant the autor keeps removing the delete tag. MichaelBillington 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rubbish. - Stevecov 11:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This is all factual, why is it being deleted?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-rex-craig (talk • contribs) .
Speedy delete, non-notable band. Please see WP:BAND on guidelines what kinds of bands are generally accepted on Wikipedia: albums (plural) on a major record label, international touring, widely noticed by mainstream media, ... Weregerbil 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under {{db-band}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:08, 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Table Team[edit]

Non-notable vanity entry, primarily added to promote unknown group and site; delinked article prior to afd 2005 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, we'd all love a page, but we can't have one. - Stevecov 11:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - needs proof of notability.--Andeh 11:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is the article being deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by T-rex-craig (talk • contribs)

Delete. Even if the members are notable (debatable), their formation of a "team" is not—especially when the word team is being used to imply a relationship that does not exist according to the article's text. They don't function as a team, but rather appear to be simply travelling buddies who play independently in the same tournaments. How is the team designation worthy of an autonomous article? --Fuhghettaboutit 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO could have been speedied A7. Fan1967 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and advertisement, not to mention that guys that play at the same tournaments do not make up a "team". For the record, I follow poker like it's my job, but I've never heard of any of those guys. -- Kicking222 22:10, 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 ... (crickets chirping) .... keep. DS 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket fighting[edit]

Probable hoax. Creator keeps deleting hoax tag. Ace of Sevens 11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination. I tried flagging this hoax per it seems implausible, the reference is not a reliable source and a Google search got plenty of results, but they seemed to also be jokes, which leads me to believe this is an internet meme. The page creator kept deleting the hoax tag without providing solid evidence of legitimacy or allowing discussion first. Ace of Sevens 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion but not a hoax or internet meme and interesting subject. Many sources verify including the one listed in the article, as well as: [38] (New York Times article), [39], [40], [41], [42] and [43]. --Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep Those sources look good, but the article does need some work. Judgign by those sources, the current description isn't quite accurate (not a blood sport by any reasonable definition). Ace of Sevens 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blood sport may not be a perfect idiom for this, but the insects might disagree;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. Article has always used verifiable sources and references from initial writing. SchmuckyTheCat 15:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWAW[edit]

This is either a hoax or just very non notable - it does not cite its sources and Google yields no results whatsoever. See also the talk page for this article -- Joanne B 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verification Ydam 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GassyGuy 12:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- Heptor _talk 19:38, 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gölök Zoltán Buday[edit]

Autobiographical article, contested prod. Main notability claim appears to be running for mayor (receiving 42/222/384(0.3%) votes in different years) which seems to fall well short of WP:BIO. Despite many references, some are authored by the subject, others simply note the subject as being a current candiate. MartinRe 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I beleive non notable, a candidate for mayor yes, but 1 of many. If the article is kept, it needs to be completely rewritten as is it very unencyclopedic as is. HighInBC 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:VANITY, WP:AUTO ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of Non-Notable Vanity Bio. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy crap that's a lot of sources. Nevertheless, perennial election losers are not notable. Grand master ka 04:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and vanity. Gw e rnol 17:58, 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmniDazzle[edit]

Unremarkable software utility of the kind that exists by the thousand, google brings a grand total of one hit [44], and it's a product scheduled in the future on top of that Equendil Talk 12:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the software is currently non-notable. GassyGuy 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; ridiculous software that doesn't deserve its own article.Shutranm 16:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Product announced by notable & award winning Mac software developer The Omni Group. Most of the software the Nom is likely refering to is for Windows, furthermore I do not see any programs of this type in wikipedia for mac. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is not the AfD for Omni Group, but for OmniDazzle. I'm not refering to any platform in particular, and that you don't see any program of this type should have been a big hint that it doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Equendil Talk 23:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with those Fair Use images.--Here T oHelp 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure a Google Search only brings one hit? When I try I get over fourteen thousand (14,100 to be exact). AlistairMcMillan 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, I get that too, no idea how I ended up with one hit earlier. Equendil Talk 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Too be exact, 56 non similar hits returned by google out of 14,100. Equendil Talk 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it's very early in its life, people are going to be looking up this product here. -- Steven Fisher 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable enough, if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 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 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology House[edit]

I know there's some debate as to whether or not college dorms are notable, but this is another questionable college related article. Brown University has some houses that are like fraternities, but instead focus around a specific interest, this one being Technology. There is already mention of these time residential arrangements in the Brown article and I don't think this has notability to stand on its own. Metros232 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete unless some basis of notability are provided other than being a dorm and that members made a large tetris installation. Dorms are not, in and of themselves, notable. CollegeHousingCruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:01, 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 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban wrestling[edit]

Appears to be a WP:NEO with 32 Google hits. Not sure exactly who the "governing body" is that says you MUST have 50 fans. Metros232 12:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Stub with no information on a subject that seems of no great importance. Voice of Treason 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No useful google hits, no sources, etc... Wickethewok 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but only because I can't think of qualifying speedy criteria. -- Kicking222 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no apparent notability, borderline {{nn-org}} speedy. Grand master ka 04:46, 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 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrat leadership election, 2007[edit]

Unverifiable speculation. There is no election scheduled for 2007; the current leader was only elected in January 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kwekubo 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of article to Next Liberal Democrat leadership election requested, in line with similar article about next Labour leadership election.

mingsdynasty 14:15, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Delete and do not rename. This is pure speculation. WP:NOT a crystal ball. There is no verfiable information about it. The Labour party one is a little different as Blair has already stated he will step down before the end of his term Ydam 13:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for crystal balling. --Coredesat 18:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, idem.--Aldux 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pejorative crystal ball gazing. Vashti 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- cds^(talk) 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is an abuse of Wikipedia for party political ends. Written by some New Labour twat, no doubt. --die Baumfabrik 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a case for a general article on how leadership elections are run and current problems, but this is too speculative. And the year's not confirmed either - Ming may not make it into the New Year. Timrollpickering 13:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for crystal balling. ----86.132.192.82 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops Sorry I hadn't logged in above - that poster was me :o) --manchesterstudent 20:01, 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: Speedily deleted - club vanity. - Mike Rosoft 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Fish Society (Group)[edit]

Non-notable grouping of friends. Nice I'm sure, but I don't see how it warrants an encyclopedia article. Probably falls into vanity category... Fourohfour 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I see nothing here that would not meet CSD under {{db-bio}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, also could be {{db-group}}. Yanksox 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Kwekubo 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with {{db-group}}. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 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 speedy delete. Royboy crashfan 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolutionist Party[edit]

I don't think this meets the requirements for notability. It is a real party but it has only one or two members and has fought only one election when it came bottom of the poll with only 0.5% of the vote (see Manchester Gorton (UK Parliament constituency). David | Talk 13:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Eegads its even written in the first person. Speedy for db-bio (group). Wickethewok 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and avoid surgery in Manchester. --die Baumfabrik 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wickthewok. Tagged. Grand master ka 04:49, 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 I think everyone (including, yea, generations yet unborn) would be happy with this just being a redirect. w00t! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoscope[edit]

The term is a neologism. It is not in use to describe a microscope, even in the microscopy community. There are a very few uses in reference to the hypotheical atomic nanoscope, but not enough to suggest that the term is in general use. Note that there are two commercial devices with the name "Nanoscope," that just confuse the issue a bit. One is a controller for an SPM and the other is a medical device. Because of this, a Google search confusingly makes it look like the term is common. eaolson 14:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to atomic nanoscope. —204.42.21.174 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query If the article were deleted and a user entered nanoscope in the search box and clicked Go, would the user be lead to the Atomic nanoscope article? Gerry Ashton 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a redirect, yes. See, for example, Chambana. eaolson 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or REDIRECT to atomic nanoscope 132.205.44.134 02:58, 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. non notable. Fails WP:WEB --++Lar: t/c 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom PC Guide[edit]

Self promotion. "a PC buyer's guide that started in 2006", apparently compares itself to AnandTech or Toms Hardware, however a search on google with 'AnandTech' [45], "Toms Hardware" [46], and "Custom PC Guide" [47] is telling a different story (just a couple hits for the latter). Alexa ranking is not available for "http://www.custompcguide.com/" (AnandTech: 1139 [48]; Tom's Hardware: 1136 [49]) Equendil Talk 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what is the problem. Removed AnandTech and Toms Hardware from similar pages. Custom PC Guide is comparable to these sites,however,in that it is a hardware site. Now what is the problem with having an entry for a hardware site in an online encyclopedia that has a definition for dirty sanchez.--M Nabil 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dirty Sanchez (sex) has gone through 3 AfD's, you can read the last one here, which should tell you why it's still out there. As for the problem with Custom PC Guide, I suggest reading what Wikipedia is Not, this essay about notability : WP:NN, and the associated guideline about web content WP:WEB. Equendil Talk 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:32, 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 redirected to Satanism. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolism[edit]

Proposed for deletion on the grounds of vandalism and notability

On two occasions the redirect to Satanism has been removed and an article inserted by Kyrus and 80.9.139.207. The former is a pseudonym Russell Gray Sneddon uses on Internet forums (one of which I admin) and the IP is similar to the one he has used there. The first edit was reverted to the redirect but the second one seems to have stuck. Putting the entry back after it was reverted is bordering on vanadlaism especially when the "religion" is just an invention by Russell Gray Sneddon and isn't notable and is purely here for self-promotion purposes. I could revert this back to the redirect for a third time but I wanted to make sure it was officially removed once and for all as it looks like this could easily get bogged down in a reverting war. (Emperor 15:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment These are the results for the google test[50] if anyone is interested. Yanksox 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note but I am not objecting to the word Diabolism per se - it is the equivalent to Satanism and was rightly redirected there. What I am objecting to is the information on a "religion" that was inserted (twice) when the redirect was removed. Here is a test for that permutation [51] (Emperor 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Satanism and lock against vandals--Ioannes Pragensis 18:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ioannes Pragensis. --Coroebus 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil Worship or something like that, as this article clearly does not describe Satanism, which is not the worship of devils and demons.

Just a quick comment but the article as it stands doesn't describe Satanism - that is part of the point of it needing to be removed. It should redirect to Satanism and has done on two occasions [52] [53] only for this to be removed and an entry inserted about a made up and non-notable "religion". Diabolism is a synonym for Satanism according to the dictionary [54] and its worth noting that Devil worship already redirects to Satanism. (Emperor 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment To whom it may concern... I did not write the wikipedia page "Diabolism"... My name is merely entered on it. Yes, please delete this entry. Thank You for your concern. Also, it may have been nice if I could have been informed that this was going on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgsneddon (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Bauman[edit]

Vanity page. Prod removed by anon IP with no explanation. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prod removed ... with no explanation" is one of those strings that should never be appearing in an AfD nomination. PROD is designed to be removed if someone contests deletion, and it doesn't matter if they provide an explanation or not. We shouldn't be discouraging this sort of thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox 16:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity is loathsome enough, but political vanity is worse. --die Baumfabrik 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to be a bit more polite in future, please. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete I don't believe this article should be deleted.Many people in Washington, D.C. know "The Bauman" and he will be a known commodity soon.He was a steadfast critic of the war in Iraq before it was popular, he was the first to argue Democrats should highlight security isssues as a central pillar in it's message and correctly called the 2000 election in Florida as the closest in in a generation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~gspm/alumni/spotlight2.shtml

He even sits on the Board of Governors of the National Democratic Club— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.101.13.58 (talk • contribs)

Comment - When and if "The Bauman" becomes a known commodity, then perhaps someone other than him can take another crack at another article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:16, 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. In terms of raw numbers, this is not an AfD subpage I would normally close. However, after looking at the article, this is a clear case of WP:SNOW, and I don't intend to relist only to prolong the inevitable. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising (band)[edit]

Delete - "Only active in the summer due to many of its members being in school". Two half eps, plus three unreleased ones. No Allmusic entry. Almost certainly vanity (article creator was "Uprisedetroit"). Doesn't sound notable to me. -- Richfife 15:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what an article being or not being vanity has to do with its deletability. Also, please remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and one thing that goes a long way towards improving the quality of discussions is having a good nomination. Your nomination is no different from any "vote" that any other user may care to make. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Author of the article removed the AFD tag from the article and blanked this page. I reverted both. -- Richfife 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ponderable - Author of the original article added a "Do Not Delete" vote and then erased this whole page. Do I reinstate that vote when I restore the page? -- Richfife 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. May well be the only one he gets. Fan1967 01:42, 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, unsurprisingly, it's almost certainly a machine translation which is considered worse than nothing. There are in fact references in the German article but they are, in my opinion, inadequately referenced, almost all missing titles, publications or both ("Gamil Rufael, Journalist; verschiedene Artikeln" - "Gamil Rufael, journalist - various articles" - awesome) and I would not choose to translate it myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrism (renamed to Assyrianism)[edit]

This page was created by "Aramean" nationlist who came up with this theory out of nowhere. A google search only results about 20 findings, almost all being either to wikipedia or discussion forums. This term is no where spoken in educational or historical institutes. Chaldean 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One more thing I would like to point out is that it looks like the term was created by the person that wrote this page in the first place!; After the politician and journalist Raif Toma Chaldean 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but "retranslate". This article is a very badly translated version of the German article de:Assyrismus, which is quite comprehensible (if you know German), has been worked on by many editors, and contains some more material. Although Raif Toma is among these editors, the article was apparently not started by him, and it took about a year before his name appeared in the text of the article. The reference is just that Raif Toma is claimed to have some opinion about what Assyrism is (namely not only Mesopotamian patriotism, but aiming at the unity of all Mesopotamians). The google search was not very successful because the article should have been called Assyrianism. I've moved it. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article was apparently not started by him, - How do you know the person that started this wasn't him in the first place? We dont know, and nobody in this world has heard of this silly word that has been created overnight. Chaldean 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it appears that way. Don't you think that if the anon who started the article was Toma, he wouldn't have waited for a year before putting his name in there? And while his name is redlinked, he never created a page on himself. So (next to the slogan: "Assume good faith") there is no reason to think he is a self-aggrandizer. Personally I think the sentence involving Toma should be removed as being unverifiable (unless a reliable source is found), but the presence of this one such sentence surely is not a ground for deletion. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While translation of the German article may be desirable, I only get 300 hits for a Google search of "Assyrianism" see [55]. Moreover, a quick look doesn't show much in the way of reliable sources. A separate search of verifiable sources didn't come with anything. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try "Assyrismus". --Lambiam ^Talk 03:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. The references that this author uses to himself makes me worry if this article contains original research. Perhaps someday this article can be re-created with reliable references & such, but for now I say we delete it. —Khoikhoi 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though poorly written, the article deals with a relevant subject. And indeed, the German version is quite informative. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already mentioned. --Hectorian 19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is original research and absolute BS at that.King Legit

DELETE - Their is no such thing as "Assyrianism", this article is compeletly made up. --A2raya07 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep it is not nonsense, nor is it original research. Please read the German artcile mentioned above. If you can't read German, don't assume bad faith. 70.57.246.220 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless credible academic sources are cited. Equendil Talk 09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (if 10 days can still be considered as speedy). For future reference, transwikied articles can be tagged with {{db-transwiki}}. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (an etymology)[edit]

Merged this in with wikt:jaded, where it belongs. Will b necessary to delete any redirects too. Dangherous 15:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Speedy it dead. -- cds^(talk) 22:15, 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 (No consensus).I think 2 relists is enough to establish we do not have consensus one way or the other. --++Lar: t/c 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow (programming)[edit]

contested prod. Reasons provided ere "non notable software, vandalized for a month" -- Drini 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. "with ADvantages Over Windows" hardly makes it unique. Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Vegaswikian says, at best a Merge into the language article. I've no objection to that being done. Dlyons493 Talk 16:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A Google search for "Meadow" and "emacs" seems to indicate that it is quite popular among Japenese Windows users. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further consensus Computerjoe 's talk 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per Ohnoitsjamie or merge into Emacs J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. No real reason to delete it, and well, almost all open source projects start small. Bryce 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Emacs article and add a one-line mention about this port in there. The article is really devoid of real information anyway. -- Hirudo 14:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is a project to port a language, based on the article. At best this is a Merge into the language article. Vegaswikian 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- <nitpick> It's a port of an editor, not a language </nitpick> -- Hirudo 19:25, 1 June 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!
Prodego ^talk 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not just a port. What Meadows achieves is to extend the capabilities of emacs to make it suitable for use in complicated linguistic environments, such as the Japanese writing system, in which a literate user needs to be able to freely combine Kanji with two syllabaries: Hiragana and Katakana. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether or not its useful doesn't matter in my opinion as far as WP-ness. However, there is no verifiable info/sources or any claims of the usage of such an application (eg. do a lot of people use it?). Not every piece of potentially useful software gets its own article. Wickethewok 20:56, 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 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (photographer)[edit]

Does not meet the standards for notability as this photographer has not been published and received multiple independent reviews or awards for his work. In addition article is apparently a vanity page created and primarily edited by the subject. SteveHopson 16:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable, vanity page, matches CSD A7. Jll 20:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Steve's criteria seem stringent (I'd say that one award, if a "big" one, would be enough) but otherwise I agree. Quote from the article on the subject's modus operandi: the cameras are complimented [sic] by an assortment of lenses, flashes, filters, and other accessories. He also utilizes dedicated digital film scanners to provide high quality digital compilation, archiving, and manipulation of film-based images. Well, yes. -- Hoary 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, as a copyvio of photointrigue.com/html/about_the_photographer.html, which is conventionally copyrighted, as explained here. -- Hoary 11:38, 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 speedy delete. Sango 123 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.hotbuckles.com and Hotbuckles.com[edit]

Advertisement for web site that sells, surprisingly, buckles. Speedy delete tag removed. Prod tag removed by anon user. ... discospinster _talk 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also placed a warning on the creator's page about the removal of the speedy tag. And, did you notice he has a sockpuppet also editing the page? ---Charles 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Argh spam!--Andeh 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant spam, speedily if possible. I've added an identical article to the nomination that I found on New Pages Patrol...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for spam. --Coredesat 18:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strontium and Ulyxitradenium in the Cognitive Kortex and related articles[edit]

Non-verifiable. The 3 results for the book's title are 3 Wikipedia links. Yale University Press offers no results in a search for any books by him. Also nominating:

Alexander Jenson, the article on the author of this book.

Daniel Loewenherz, the author's colleague that is also unverifiable.

Something smells like a hoax to me because the best results I can find through Google and Yale's searches suggest that both Alexander and Daniel are students at Yale in the Class of 2009. If these two died in a car accident surely it would have been mentioned on the Yale site. Metros232 17:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Coredesat 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Larry V (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if it's not a hoax (and it's quite likely that it is), everything is unverifiable. And, as we all know, if it doesn't pass WP:V, it's a non-entity on WP. -- Kicking222 22:13, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Swinton[edit]

Non-noteworthy character, does not contribute to the plot in any significant manner.

Delete and merge the contents with List of characters in 24. --Coredesat 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appeared in portions of only two episodes of the series, primarily as a dramatic device. Several more notable characters in the series don't have Wikipedia articles. This one should not. Redirect to List of characters in 24. B.Wind 17:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (apologies for not signing earlier)[reply]
Delete per Cordesat Tromboneguy0186 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cordesat. Radagast83 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have some notability, a character on a show is still a character, no matter how important he/she is to the show. Chipka 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteHe is a non-noteworthy fictional character who appeared in a single episode. The waitress that Jack took hostage in Season 1 (I can't even remember her name) had a bigger impact on the show than Harry Swinton.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Witch 3: The Prequel[edit]

This article is an exercise in crystalballism taken to an absurd extreme---the article's author simply has no idea whether the film will be made, and even concludes by saying it probably won't. It is stated that the film is in post-production, then a few sentences later, he states the film has not been made---which is it? Wikipedia is not the place for speculation as to whether or not a certain film will be made. When the film truly exists, then you write an article. Charles 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important clerical notice I just wanted to note for the record on this vote that this article creator is creating multiple sequel articles with no references whatsoever — examples are Signs 2, Blair Witch 3: The Prequel, Speed 3, Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak, and I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer, possibly for sinister reasons (see Fan1967's statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs 2) Furthermore, same creator is continually removing the AfD notices on his pages, so you may want to keep a special eye on the source page for this article to make sure that they don't do the same with yours. Blocking may be slightly ineffective due to the anonymous editors being behind AOL proxy servers (see here and here). — Mike • 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Mike, actually the AfD notice for this article has been removed twice, and I suspected the removers were sockpuppets of the original author. I did not make the connection with these other crystal ball movie articles, though. Good catch. What a nuisance. ---Charles 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It says filming hasn't even begun yet.--Andeh 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Blair Witch scared the pants off me and I would dearly love to see a III, this article is utter speculation and crystal-ballism. D e nni ☯ 20:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Шизомби 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and delete Blair Witch 2 from my memory. Extraordinary Machine 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsensical crystal ballism. And can we also delete the original "BWP" from existence? It is- quite literally- my least-favorite movie of all-time. The only thing that scared me about it is that my best friend's dad paid 8 bucks so I could see it. -- Kicking222 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A shining example for WP:NOT. On the bright side, you can get a great laugh by clicking on the link and seeing the original proposed release date of November 2002. fuzzy510 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article about a movie that doesn't even have a firm plan to be made. Fan1967 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT whether this film is made or not, the creators of Blair Witch are on record about what this film was supposed to be about, why they skipped out on Blair Witch 2, and what chance the film has of being made after BW2 tanked. 132.205.44.134 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Harold Ramis and Dan Ayckroyd are on record in talking about their plans for "Ghostbusters 3", but that article was deleted, too. Many things are proposed, hoped and talked about. Doesn't make them worth an article. Fan1967 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax --Deville (Talk) 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "or probably not". Subpar write-up on crystal-ball article. Voice of Treason 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per original nomination. Author's sole contributions to Wikipedia (as well as from anonymous IPs that have been removing AfD notices -- watch out for this one) has been to create unreferenced sequel articles in disregard of WP:V and WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Mike • 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT crystalball clause.--Isotope23 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalball. The only notable info (that it was announced, but years later still hasn't been made) is already in one of the other Blair Witch articles. --Icarus 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Barn[edit]

This hamlet is a mere farm. Non-notable. Computerjoe 's talk 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a little bit sounded like it was intended for Craigslist. Yanksox 17:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Residences really aren't notable just by themselves. Also, this is probably unverifiable info in the article anyway. Wickethewok 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: where is St Briavels? Who cares? --die Baumfabrik 02:13, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD G4 and Protect from Recreation Naconkantari 16:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder[edit]

This list, like its namesake and predecessor, its totally speculative and unencyclopedic. (From the discussion page it looks like there might have been one sourced statement about Emma Watson, and possibly a couple of others, but I can't get the sourcing links to work for me.) The previous incarnation was deleted; has some information come out since 2005 to cause us to reconsider the validity of this list?

If this info can be sourced and the list pared way down to documented cases, I don't have a problem with this page. But each time the discussion comes up, that seems to be beyond possibility. Better no article by this title than one this speculative. PhilipR 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom
Speedy Delete -- rehash --Rehcsif 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This has twice been deleted, but only via the AfD process, so it doesn't qualify for {{db-repost}}. -- Kicking222 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? The only kinds of deletion exempted from the repost is prod and invalid speedies. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and protect against recreation. That is, unless I become famous enough to add myself to the list. -- Kicking222 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation or original research. Piccadilly 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Everything below is an archive of the last time an article by this title was proposed for deletion. When I added the AfD template and clicked through, this page was already in existence. Fortunately it just makes my point that this has already been decided. In fact, I think this deletion could even be speedy since it's been deleted before, but I might be wrong there. - PhilipR 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This AfD was originally constructed on top of the old AfD discussion. The new discussion has been moved to here (second nomination) and the original reverted. The old discussion can be found here 1st AfD--blue520 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still has the same problems as described in the first AfD and could be speedy deleted as it is reposted content that was removed.--blue520 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list would be better as a category. RicDod 14:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt the earth This is the fourth afd on this related topic: one, two, and three Article db tagged. Regards, MartinRe 14:23, 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 09:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of golden age hip hop artists[edit]

This page was PROD'd with the justification, "While an article can address the bluriness I'm not sure that a straight up list can do that." This list was a fork of Golden age hip hop, so I thought the deletion decision needed some consideration. No preference from me, thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Agreed with the prod'd statement as to the fuzziness of the situation. It seems like pretty much any hip hop artist who was active from '85-'90 could be on this list. Since there isn't strict criteria attached to "golden age hip hop" and it is such a BROAD group of artists, it doesn't seem like it serves much of a purpose. Wickethewok 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Won't be able to address the bluriness (I'm the one who prod'd). --Urthogie 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the above reasons of subjectivity, but then again, I'd argue for the inherent revisionist NPOVness of golden age hip-hop itself. “…ended with the popularity of G-funk.” <rolleyes> “Hip-hop was all about consciousness and positivity, man, and then all these gangsters came along and ruined it! Waaaaaah!” Wiki Wikardo 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and agree with you that it's kind of dumb to go and hate all the gangsta rappers. I think what pisses people off is that the popular market isn't so mixed anymore; it used to be that positive and gangsta acts were popular.--Urthogie 08:18, 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 Delete. Per nom. Listcruft. --++Lar: t/c 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fencing clubs in England[edit]

Wikipedia not Yellow pages; not encyclopedic; it is possible to use categories and external links instead Ioannes Pragensis 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apn ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jll 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good list. Jcuk 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the opening sentence admits that the article is a bulletin board. If you can't work out that Hinckley Fencing Club is in Hinckley, you shouldn't be allowed a sabre. --die Baumfabrik 02:10, 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 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto ball[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up after school one day. Non-notable neologism. The google hits do not seem to be about this particular game. Delete. Mak (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Coredesat 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too obvious... Wickethewok 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT says it all. -- Kicking222 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Lundse 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More whiteboys using poverty as a fashion statement. Wiki Wikardo 16:17, 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 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Jameson[edit]

This article is unverified and unverifiable. The IMDB page is completely empty. She does not occur in the credits of what she claims to be in. The image is of the same person as was on the pages Christina Ritter and Christina Marie Ritter, which is weird. The only ghit which isn't a Wikipedia mirror is about a 3rd grade honor roll student, hardly a claim for notability. Delete. Mak (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable and non-notable. --Coredesat 18:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources + no google hits = DELTEEATED! Wickethewok 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google gave me 4 hits two of which were from wikipedia. Obviously not notable.--Andeh 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it were true and verifiable, an actress with one appearance on an episode of Zack and Cody wouldn't make the grade. But let's face it, it isn't true or verifiable. Fan1967 23:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ConsiderLook, I’m not really defending this, but there are a few things you have overlooked.

From my research, I found that the picture that you claimed was the same from Christina Ritter’s to Mallory Jameson’s is titled Tina's Cute pics! 039.jpg. And looks like this: [56] However, Mallory Jameson’s picture is titled Youngerheadshot.jpg and is not the same image. Also they look similar, but you can tell they are two different people. Mallory is obviously around 12 years old, and Christina much older, probably around 16 or 17. The picture of the older girl has smaller eyes, a bigger nose, and no lips hardly, whereas the opposite with the younger girl. The only thing that seems truly similar about them is the shape of their eyes and their wavy hair. Besides, many people look alike and have no relation at all. That's why there's celebrity etc look alike contests. Again, not supporting it, but just for the future realize those little details you ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.163.119.188 (talk • contribs) .

- Comment There are a number of other photos of the same person on that website, and they look extremely similar, and there are other similarities between the two articles, but that is not the issue, the issue is that this person is non-notable and unverified. Mak (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's add a few other issues: First thing User:Annette fleming did after registering was try to get Christina's article unprotected. The anonymous edit above, as well as an earlier attempt to remove all the delete votes from this debate, and also an edit to the Mallory Jameson article, came from the same Annapolis ISP that was involved in the Christina Ritter episodes. We have the same case of an alleged role in a Disney series, where reliable sources don't list any such person. We have an empty IMDB page with no roles listed yet, somehow, "fans" are already posting on the messageboard, even though that page cannot be reached from the main IMDB site. (When you search for a name on IMDB, it only returns people with credits.) And we have a picture that sure looks a lot like the same girl, despite claims to the contrary. But, as Mak says, the main issue is that absolutely nothing in this article is verifiable, and even if it were, it wouldn't be notable. Fan1967 20:10, 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 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrozinski[edit]

It happens all the time. A person who is non-notable by Wikipedian standards creates a website or webpage. To create some traffic, (s)he creates an article here. The vanity page consists of ravings, exaggerations and unverifiable facts. Basic demographics are not included. Next we, Wikipedia editors, start looking for leads about this person, demographics etcetera, for verification, NPOVing and notability. The page becomes a knowledge-base on the person. However, the person does not like his birth-names, birth-date, a linked page with information about the dip in his career and/or other biographic facts and (s)he starts trolling through vandalism, edit wars, sockpoppeting, dumping ridiculous threats of legal action etcetera. In some cases, e.g. Monica de Bruyn, notability is then stretched somewhat to prove the point that the person cannot remove the page and we decide on the content. I have always claimed that this is a wrong course of action. A biography of a non-notable person should be deleted regardless of his behavior. We have not succeeded verifying Mrozinski's "nr 1 hit" in Italy, his implying that he was part of Cats was imprecise and he is not mentioned anywhere in the All Music Guide. I suggest deleting the article for non-notability. gidonb 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/24 World Concert gidonb 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above comments are inappropriate, as the implication is that they apply to the article under consideration and its editor, which is not necessarily the case. See Jimmy Wales on AfD courtesy problem + Another AfD example. I suggest the AfD proposal should stick to the recommended criteria and not extraneous considerations. Tyrenius 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, Jimmy Wales' message was to be very careful and that's what I did. Lets take this elsewhere. I think this is important. Regards, gidonb 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom gidonb 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in a template and at several talk pages, Mrozinski requested that this article would be deleted. I moved this comment from the article itself: This is Mrozinski, the subject of this article, and I wish this article deleted because several editors keep changing information, adding unauthorized and incorrect information. This is a violation of my rights and privacy and I wish it to be removed. I will have to resort to legal action against Wikipedia and its editors if this abuse is not stopped. Mrozinski 14:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and copyvio of this. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What more can be said? Let the man take his ball and go home. GentlemanGhost 19:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your "kind" comments. May God have mercy on your petty soul. Please do me a favor and delete this article ASAP. Mrozinski 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome! ;-) Please note that if the AfD is successful, the article and its talk page will be purged. This service page, however, will remain part of Wikipedia. gidonb 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mrozinski 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for the closing administrator: Please note that this user was created today and does not have sufficient votes to participate in the vote. He is, however, the subject of the article and its creator as user:2424. gidonb 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Let's delete it the correct way.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't forget Image:Mrozinski.jpg too. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom summed it up pretty well, page author also wants it deleted now.--Andeh 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mrozinski 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for the closing administrator: Please note that this has become a forum and as a result, an indictment for the flaws in the system. Allowing anyone to become an "editor" is obviously unworkable, as anyone with access to a PC can change information, give misguided opinions and/or allow themselves to be self-appointed watchdogs of information for the "public good". I feel that gidonb and GentlemanGhost and their ilk have turned Wikipedia into a public forum rather than a source of information. Sorry that this once reliable source has become bastardized, but I suppose that's what happens when you allow access to anyone, however unqualified. Mrozinski 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment for Mrozinski: You brought this on yourself by creating the thing in the first place. The "flaw in the system" that allows anyone to be an editor is what allowed you to be an editor. Fan1967 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the interests of trying to suppress the truth. Hooray for half-baked conspiracy theories as per above comment. Let me suggest just deleting all the comments from the article's creator and keeping his only valid vote. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the bullshit as seen above. Wikipedia is no longer a source of objective information. May you all get a life. Mrozinski 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote. I'd also like to point out that it's our insistence at keeping articles like this that anger the subjects and give Wikipedia a bad name. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Fan1967 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: just to annoy Mrozinski. Mind you, you can buy his single on ebay.it for a mere €1.60; what does that tell you? --die Baumfabrik 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you're following prices, you might like to know the promo went for £40.40 [57]. Annoying people is normally considered trolling which can result in being blocked. Maybe you should reconsider. Tyrenius 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What it tells me ("just to annoy Mrozinski") is that you have no life and have too much time on your hands to research someone you think is not notable and that Wikipedia has degenerated into a forum of the bored. Mrozinski 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote. I'd also like to point out that it's our insistence at keeping articles like this that anger the subjects and give Wikipedia a bad name. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4
Comment For the record (pun not intended) the single/EP was/were released in 1979 and is/are described as punk [58] and disco [59]. Mrozinski, don't worry, the way things are going this article will get deleted. However, this is up to the editors. You have put yourself in the public domain and if notability can be established the article will be kept. It would be helpful if you could supply any verifiable source for the #1 hit or more details. And for other editors, please AGF, remain polite and considerate and look at this from a NPOV. The views of the subject are not a consideration to affect the outcome. Tyrenius 07:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Lets all work by the book and do what we are best at: making a great encyclopedia! gidonb 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To all above: None of this would be a problem if you didn't insist on undoing my edits. I have attempted to comply repeatedly by editing and/or deleting information that is unverifiable by your standards. Yet everytime I edit the page, another "editor" comes back and reverts it to pre-edit status. I'm sure that you would not want to be represented by erroneous information (such as my "full name" which is incorrect). Anything that cannot be cited or "proven" I have tried to remove, but "editors" keep putting it back. What is the point of this? I would much rather have the article deleted than to have unacceptable info be replaced repeatedly after I have deleted or changed it. If you take exception to my previous tone of frustration and indignation, imagine how you would feel if you were forced to be misrepresented by people who have no clue as to the facts. When these edits are constantly changed by various "editors", I have no choice but to change them again, and as aresult I get blocked and unable to represent myself or state the facts as they are. I have been insulted, condescended to, purposely baited ("just to annoy Mrozinski"), blocked, banned and otherwise dismissed all in regard to an article that is supposed to be about me. Please, guys, give me a birthday present today and just delete the whole article so we all can use our valuable time by attending to other more important matters. Thanks Mrozinski 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't promise you that you will get your birthday wish by today, but it should come shortly, probably by Thursday. According the article on the deletion process, it usually takes about five days for a consensus to be reached and appropriate action taken. Since the votes are currently strongly in favor of deletion, I anticipate that the page will be deleted, albeit more slowly than you desire. GentlemanGhost 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Happy birthday Mrozinski. Please understand that nothing of all this is personal. We are just doing our Wikipedia chores. Enjoy the day, or at least what is left of it! gidonb 00:36, 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 09:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du(k3u++eR[edit]

Was incorrectly tagged as {{db-nonsense}}. {{hangon}} was added and a reason was provided, but I'm not sure if the reason for or against the deletion are correct.~~NO VOTE for me. A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)~~Changed to Delete after reading below delete votes.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete Not patent nonsense, but certainly nonsense and non-notable. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for college pranks by students with time on their hands Bwithh 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with warning to users who created/expanded the page. Unsourced, non-notable nonsense.--Andeh 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I strongly agree with you regarding the warnings. -- Kicking222 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the links are for subgenius and Discordianism. None illustrate any verifiability for the organization the article is about. Google search for Du(k3u++eR gets exactly zero hits. It is nonsense and completely unverifiable. IrishGuy talk 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons above plus vanity. Wickethewok 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's close enough to patent nonsense to be patent nonsense. Or something like that. -- Kicking222 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFT --die Baumfabrik 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Patent nonsense, WP:NOT, and Du{k3u++eR and Politics ~~reeks of WP:HOAX~~ being totally wrong. Kevin_b_er 06:10, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Frankists Jews[edit]

Speedy Delete Ridiculous list making completely unsubstantiated, unsupported, and Wikipedia:NOR claims such as that Frederic Chopin and Adam Mickiewicz's mothers were Jewish. Funny nonetheless though. The whole list and claims were made by one anonymous user. LaGrange 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: Mateusz Mieses "Z Rodu Zydowskiego" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.36.22 (talk • contribs)

Delete unverifiable nonsense as written -Drdisque 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually LaGrange goes round deleting names from lists of Jews, even ones that are well-sourced. --Newport 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. As this is almost speedy material (apart from an unreferenced claim to notability - that the clan is the biggest on a particular server, which could mean anything), I don't believe relisting is justifiable, despite the lack of input. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Security Agency[edit]

Dragon Security Agency does not have sufficient notability.

Delete Is there a term for this? Clancruft? --Artw 05:27, 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 was delete. Petros471 13:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinecor[edit]

An advertisement masquerading as an article about a posture correcting brace. An article with this name has deleted twice as an uncontested prod (log). The current article is a very close copy of the text in this pdf. WP:NOT for advertising. Mr Stephen 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CPAScott 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Also fails WP:V. --Satori Son 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is some extraordinary spam we have here. RFerreira 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Strategic Research Organization[edit]

As the publisher of the already discredited-on-wikipedia Review of International Law and Politics, the "International Strategic Research Organization should be deleted along with it. The organizations director created this page for no other reason than to promote it and as a vanity page. It is not appropriate for wikipedia, it is not any kind of leading world organization as it claims. Vartan84 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a serious and respectable organization. I don't buy the "already discredited-on-wikipedia" argument. First, the jury is still out. Secondly, if a bad entry is written on (for example) the Harvard Business Review, so that the consensus is: delendum esse, should that then really imply that the article on the Harvard Business School should also be deleted? What about this hypothesis: the director of ISRO created this page because he believed it would enhance the value of Wikipedia as a repository of encyclopedic information? Why this hostile approach? Assume good faith. Although it is not recommended to write about yourself, it is not against policy. The article can be improved, but it is serious, not gone overboard. It does not claim that ISRO is a leading world' organization, but a leading Turkish organization, which is true in its field. The "pure vanity" lines you removed were not added by prof. Laciner but apparently by Barış Sanlı, IT editor for Turkish Weekly. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, parts of the article are even written in the first-person plural, as it describes the guidelines for accepting submissions. The link to the allegedly famous ISRO goes to some Indian Space Organization. And most of all, if I try to find any cooberating information about this organization on Google I find no more than 10 unique hits, many of which being to its listing on wikipedia or affliates. The only pages that mention it seem to be: once on a Turkish newspaper site (the Turkish Weekly in fact, someone from whom has helped to updated the Organization's wikipedia page), one or two other (sometimes broken) links, and funniest of all a porn page. A sign of its notability would be it showing up multiple times on Google being referenced by outside sources, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Sure if we want to enhance wikipedia as "a repository of encyclopedic information" that's just fine, however that does not mean we put everything and everyone in existence on it. Claiming it was done to enhance encyclopedic knowledge is just a nice way to gloss over the fact it appears to have largely been done for the sake of self-promotion by the journal's publisher. Vartan84

What exactly is your problem? This article should be deleted because the organization publishes a journal on whose page the editor wrote "We welcome" instead of "The journal welcomes"? That is a clearcut reason for deletion if I ever saw one. Did you check? Maybe that qualifies for a speedy! As to Google: try this: "Uluslararası Stratejik Arastirmalar Kurumu". If your Turkish is not up to par, "International Strategic Research Organization" gives enough hits from outside sources. And should that not be enough, here you'll find some more: ISRO USAK. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with lots of eyerolling. Quite obviously this is a project by the members of this group to publish every single tidbit of information about themselves and their institute (including the ever-popular notability-by-association info: We're notable because someone from Northwestern stopped by), but as an Institute they might actually be above the notability threshold. Now can we agree that we keep their entries restricted to the institute itself and its most prominent member, and not give every "world famous" second tier executive valuable cyberspace too? Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep --Cat out 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its content is problematic, but USAK itself is well known, especially in Turkey. It is a respected research organization, it can stay. - Kubra 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Kubra and Trialsanderrors. Must however be rewritten, and all the sub branches of this think tank should be merged with the mother article. Bertilvidet 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the figures in Anatolian Turkish diaspora (that i just tried to improve a bit [60], with explaining everything in the talk page) really come from ISRO, as stated in the beginning of the article (without providing a link though...), i will have to vote for either speedy delete or ask for a total rewrite, so as the article to come up to Wikipedia standards, and say what it really is: a turkish POV pushing organisation, with no neutrality and actual research. --Hectorian 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats intriguing. However your feelings towards the organisation is of no concern to wikipedia. If you can source your claim please feel free to add it to the article in perhaps a criticism section. Also please see the article Think Tank. Such criticism aplies to many other think tanks and they all have their articles. --Cat out 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly know what a think tank is. Apropos, i did not vote for the deletion of the article, but i added a comment (for which i got no answer, though...). My feelings towards this or other organisations or whatever, is noone's business, and that's why i am not pushing POV in Wikipedia. As for the sources of my 'claims', i have provided links about the article mentioned above (common! everyone can see it is POV!). since the users who have voted for keeping it, are probably aware of USAK, can someone tell me if the figures provided are from this organisation? (cause if they are not, i am obviously wrong about it...) --Hectorian 16:25, 8 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 09:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic RPG[edit]

Appears to be a completely unofficial game/article based off a flash cartoon on Newgrounds; is horribly written. RattleMan 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dakart 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are mods of another game, it doesn't say anything about who wrote them or where they can be found thus rendering the article useless. Most game mods are non-notable with only a few exceptions, this isn't one of them. Ben W Bell talk 21:11, 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. The term, IMHO, based on researching links, is notable enough to warrant an article. However this article isn't it. Deleted without prejudice against recreation by an author who is willing to write a good article. Redlinks to this article NOT edited out of other articles, on purpose. Recreation with same content would be grounds for speedy, though. --++Lar: t/c 04:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top-down democracy[edit]

Delete. Adjective/term combo not important enough to deserve its own article; it's a description best left for inclusion in other related articles. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make dogmatic statements. Give reasons. For example, I too can make dogmatic statements. Do not Delete. Adjective/term combo important enough to deserve its own article; it's a description best not left for inclusion in other related articles.Where do we go from here? Skovoroda 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is a conflict of interest as you are the author of the article.

Where does it say that someone who has contributed to an article cannot vote?Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you realize you have a conflict of interest in voting on your own article. Not sure if it's in the official rules, but I gather these kind of votes are discounted. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My statements are not dogmatic--I don't oppose mentioning this phraseology in other existing articles. It's just not enough of a standalone concept and therefore not encyclopedic.

If I am correct, it is of monumental importance. It constitutes one of the basic divisions of democracy.Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into authors before who suggest that I oppose their concept when I think the article should be deleted--the reality is that I'm a pro-democracy activist as well as somebody very concerned about the integrity of the Wikipedia. The inclusion of this article (and the one for bottom-up democracy) negatively affects that integrity. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You throw around terms like "integrity" and "encyclopedic" -- what are you talking about?Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every phrase that exists is encyclopedic. Including any term anyone decides to barf up hurts the intregrity of an encyclopedia. It's why I'm not creating an article for Steve Magruder. He doesn't have encyclopedic relevance as of yet. :) And this also applies to your descriptive phrase. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "barf up" a euphemism?Skovoroda 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I mentioned in the article's Talk page, as written this is merely one person's critique of the American campaign process; it is also tied in with the author's bottom-up democracy work, etc. - David Oberst 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written a critique -- which would amount to an evaluation, hence a POV. The whole thing is a factual description. If you see it as a critique, then you are reading into it something that's not there.Skovoroda 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An “evaluation” is still original research, no? Wiki Wikardo 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an evaluation would constitute original research, but the article has no evaluation.Skovoroda 20:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, it's a term in widespread use. See Google Scholar, for example. - ulayiti (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does neither cite it's sources nor is it written in an easily understandable way. Deleteme42 00:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Driving Brad[edit]

The usual reasons: vanity, non-notability, advertising, self-promotion. GregorB 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claims its an internet fad, but then internet fads tend to at least get relevant google hits... Wickethewok 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Vanity garbage. -- Kicking222 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: depressingly vain. --die Baumfabrik 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh, that is depressing. Totally non-notable. Grand master ka 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very depressing. --manchesterstudent 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don Delete I love bradley. he is way more notable than a lot of other stuff on here.

Don't Delete Driving Brad is a North Texas legand! He's important to several people! DrivinBrad-definition: A man in search of every bingo parlor in Dallas. Please see Luby's cafeterias, Sunnyland, AAA, National Enquirer. R_ _ _ _ _ _ S_ _ _ _ says, "don't delete drivinbrad." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.227.254 (talk • contribs)

DON'T DELETE BRAD- HE DRIVES ME CRAZY!! WOO HOO!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.243.242 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shardcore[edit]

Not notable. Vanity Seaweed 19:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Approx. 800 Ghits, some of which are (likely) this guy's eBay profile and Last.fm profile. fuzzy510 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 09:07, 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 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Park Place[edit]

Delete. Ordinary condo development that doesn't merit an article. I can't think of anything encyclopedic about this one. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until construction actually starts, at least.--Andeh 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be particularly notable --rogerd 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is listed on the official site as proposed, and hasn't been changed since 2003. I think it's a no goer. Ben W Bell talk 21:09, 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 (No consensus) No clearcut delete rationale but not many keepers so... NC. --++Lar: t/c 04:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Russof[edit]

Subject does not seem notable, e.g. doesn't appear to meet guidelines in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). I would have tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but it has been edited by several different people since it was created so it seems better to list it here. Jll 19:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Private films are high profile in Europe and she has had her name in the title in one of them. She seems notable enough in the pornographic film industry to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company is certainly notable, but they have a large output, currently ten films a month[61]. Jll 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even under the (still unofficial) notability guidelines, she passes the bar. 23skidoo 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that she has met any of the criteria suggested in the proposed guidelines. Which one have you identified? Jll 09:49, 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 speedy deleted, non-notable biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe (talk • contribs)

Adam Fisher-Cox[edit]

Tagged as a speedy delete, tag removed by author. Recommend speedy delete as a non-notable bio. cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and note that creators of articles should not remove db tags, but contest them if they feel it's unwarranted. MartinRe 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nn, vanity, etc. Adambiswanger1 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, autobiography/self-promotion/non-notable.--Andeh 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, but, he's "one of the coolest people in the world. He enjoys the web, and random things like rock climbing and swimming and eating cold fish scales..." Isn't that notable? Ok, maybe not Speedy Delete please... --Rehcsif 20:31, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Davies[edit]

Clear and obvious lies - he has clearly not won FIFA player of the year. This guy's article has been speedy'd before. Apparently he has only played on the local level. See the associated talk page. Wickethewok 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom, the image with the caption encouraged me to make it speedy.--Andeh 20:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly vanity. fuzzy510 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFT --die Baumfabrik 01:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, assertions of notability are obvious lies, speedied before, etc. etc. Grand master ka 05:04, 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. Normally the nom and one other commentor might not be enough to show a consensus but this article is a bare stub with no assertion of notability, no talk, and it was created by an anon. No one really cares and it is of dubious value. --++Lar: t/c 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back Of the Net Magazine[edit]

Non-notable magazine. Only 7 unique Ghits (the entire title of the articles in quotes), some of which come from here. It's also been tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since October 2005, and as of yet nobody's been able to explain why it is important. fuzzy510 20:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is nothing in the two sentences indicating other than it's some sports magazine, it makes no assertion of notability. Delete B.Wind 06:18, 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 deleted by Duncharris. Sango 123 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The res3ia Enigma[edit]

lack of sources. Only 1 hit on search engines, linking to the same page on geocities. George100 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - it's presence is justified, it just needs links and needs expanding. Benjaminstewart05 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of one Geocities article does not justify this topic's presence on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article fails to indicate any notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bunch of non-notable, unverifiable nonsense. -- Kicking222 22:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Zoe: Your proposed deletion of my first entry to Wikipedia :The res3ia Enigma

User: science_watch Could you enlighten me as to what exactly is wrong with my entry. Having used Wikipedia for some time, I thought I would make a contribution of my own, only to discover that you had recommended it for deletion within moments.

science_watch

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe"

Delete possibly speedy, OR, nonsense. etc. — Dunc|☺ 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Duncharris : Could you enlighten me as to why you consider this nonsense?

User:science_watch

Speedy delete as repost of deleted material. Kimchi.sg 23:03, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of NHL[edit]

This page is POV, signed by its creator, and redundant with the original History of the National Hockey League page CastAStone|^(talk) 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's already a page on the History of the NHL. Kala ni ^[talk] 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Written by John Baranowski" at the bottom of the article... possibly a copyvio, certainly looks like one. Anyway it should be merged/redirected to the existing History of the National Hockey League which has the correct name anyway. If this turns out to be a copyvio it should be deleted, not merged. A redirect would seem harmless though. --W.marsh 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio from here —M e ts501^talk 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was having trouble figuring out what that site was... it doesn't claim a copyright that I can find, and seemed like it might be a WP mirror just trying to sucker in clicks on its ads. --W.marsh 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the History of the National Hockey League as it seems to be a likely search term. Capitalistroadster 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Roadster... copyvio. B.Wind 06:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect due to redundancy and other reasons expressed here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Roadster. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Roadster. BoojiBoy 02:06, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (17th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Hacking Officer[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism John Nagle 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a neologism, but there appears to be a person at eEye, a computer security firm, who actually has the title "Chief Hacking Officer", and he's responsible for almost all of the 119 hits in Google. The news article cited in Chief Hacking Officer seems to be a re-invention of the term. --John Nagle 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --John Nagle 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Kala ni ^[talk] 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GentlemanGhost 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suggested in the corporate titles page that linked to this one that CHO probably shouldn't be listed, but I'm new to Wikipedia and am still learning how best to do things. Perhaps I should merely have suggested 'CHO' for deletion from the originating article? Sweetman 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari 00:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minority sport[edit]

The page is basically National sport in reverse… For this page to be comprehensive, it has to list every sport that isn't popular somewhere, and every sport, even football, isn't popular somewhere. —Wiki Wikardo (reppin’ the 510) 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination by ~~our nameless contributor~~. fuzzy510 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(my bad)

Delete - and by the way, football is football, not football. ;) BigDT 22:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing hysterically at "reppin' the 510". You, good sir, have made my day. fuzzy510 23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 05:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Patrick Maxwell[edit]

This article has the same failings as the first time it was nominated for deletion. It looks more like a promotion for an individual plastic surgeon and academic than a legitimate Wikopedia article. If one looks at the cited awards, for example, there are dozens and dozens of doctors who have won those awards. The number of publications is not unusual for an academic at all. In fact, many academics have far more than these. It seems odd to highlight one doctor out of the hundreds and thousands that could be highlighted. If indeed this surgeon made an original independent contribution to the field, then I suggest that instead of a separate article, a footnote in the Plastic Surgery article would be more appropriate. MollyBloom 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see any proof he's more notable than other people in his field. Article was nominated for deletion before and kept on the grounds that his notable contributions to the field would be stated eplicitly, but there has been an absolute failure to clarify why he's deserving of an entry. GassyGuy 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for the reasons I stated when nominating.MollyBloom 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed you didn't vote keep ;) Ian13/talk 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- I concur with GassyGuy.Gfwesq 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Dr. Maxwell is clearly a notable figure within the sphere of his specialty, a segment of the medical industry that has a profound impact on a growing clientele. Ombudsman 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Move discussion and argument to talk pages.

Delete as per nom or Transwiki to WikiPlasticSurgery Bwithh 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete--I agree with Molly Bloom and Gassy you have no special reason to be here. Get rid of this ad period.. The PS is no better than anyone else, especially a PS who puts the wrong implants in woman. I just came across this ad he puts out a fake act if you ask me. BSBanshee1

Note: This comment was originally added by an anonymous IP edit InvictaHOG 11:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- I concur with GassyGuy & Molly Bloom. I see no reason to include all surgeons that publish articles, especially one who has dubious ethics. JosephA 23:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above vote was the users first contribution to Wikipedia. Ian13/talk 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion moved to talk pages.

Delete - notability is based entirely on an unreferenced assertion that he is a recognized expert. Take that away, and he is a run-of-the-mill practicing physician who has only risen to the level of (non-tenured) assistant professorship. Actually, what may be most noteworthy about Dr. Maxwell is the fact that he seems to have egregiously violated laws requiring informed consent. Maybe every doctor who does this should be listed, but not in an encyclopedia. --Leifern 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion and argument moved to talk pages.MollyBloom 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking through his bibliography and the role he's played in developing the field and training other plastic surgeons, I believe that he meets the criteria at WP:BIO for notability and that the article should be kept. InvictaHOG 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion moved to discussion page.MollyBloom 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : We've had this discussion before and the entry has been updated further since inclusion. Dr. Maxwell is a prominent international figure in the field who has been one of the most influential Plastic Surgeons of the last 25 years. He easily meets the wiki-Bio inclusion criteria for people in health science/academicsDroliver 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep :notable. My view is in NO way support for this person. We are writing an encyclopedia, not making moral judgements.Mccready 04:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but explain why you think he is notable. Don't just tell us he is notable.Gfwesq 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously, this person is no different than many many many other physicians. Yeah he's written some papers. We don't have every last person who's well-skilled at their profession. There's a laundry list of publications by this person, but there's a laundry list by many other professionals too. This person just seems to have been in this court case[62], but, again, so have so many others. There seems to be some serious fans of this person. Why do you want his article so bad? Please explain this somehow. Until then, delete. Kevin_b_er 08:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another doctor. -- GWO

Delete for notability. See WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illinoiserocks (talk • contribs) .

Keep as per InvictaHOG. There are plenty of less notable people on here. Andrew73 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, publications and positions clearly establish notability. All this talk about legal problems really makes this AFD look like the tail wagging the dog. --Sneftel 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the lawsuit has nothing to do with the reason for this Rfd. Please read the reason above. Maxwell's legal (and other) problems were discussed in the context of the existing Wiki article - NOT a reason for deleting the article itself. The reason for deleting the article is amply explained above. Wikopedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for a loving student to burnish the credentials of his mentor. MollyBloom 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong keep. Midgley 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continued on the talk page due to incivility.

Strong delete per GassyGuy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Long list of publications, excellent article with a fascinating paragraph on professional misconduct + article was previously nominated just two months ago and was an overwhelming Keep: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Patrick_Maxwell. Maxwell clearly needs to stay and I wish all articles were this good. --JJay 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfwesq or I added the paragraph on professional misconduct, and Midgely and DrOliver have consistently vandalized it by stating it is irrelevant. Before, the article looked like a puff piece. I still do not see this particular doctor more notable than many many others in his field. This is a loving gift from a student attempting to burnish this doctor's credentials. Nothing more.MollyBloom 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, excellent article and thanks for contributing. Add more info: it can only get better over time. --JJay 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established by NY Times reference. T@lk 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/Comment I can't convince myself that notability is established per WP:BIO. In attempting to follow up on this, I clicked on the NY Times reference. This seems to violate WP:EL, "External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." The NY Times is referenced as "2005 cited in the New York Times as one of the United States top plastic surgeons who do breast implants [[63]]," but this is a PDF on another (non-Times) domain, which appears to violate NY Times copyright ??? I'm inclined to vote to delete as non-notable, but want to understand this issue as well. Sandy 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The copyright status of the quote is of no relevance to my vote. I suggest you take this to the article's talkpage. JFW | T@lk 09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A zillion and a half references does not automatically make notability. --InShaneee 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well referenced and apparently notable in his field. Silensor 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. and GassyGuy AvB ÷ talk 14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved incivility and argument to 'talk pages'. Sigh.MollyBloom 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can be expected from any physician that he or she has had works published, and quite simply, this guy is no more notable than the next. Also, if writing an article about an insignificant person, it is imperrative that the article clearly states this, so the reader does not falsely believe him to be world-renowned or famous. Adambiswanger1 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per InShaneee. If this is a notable physician, then Wiki's standards are too low, and every run-of-the-mill doctor can advertise on Wiki. Many doctors are published, and that doesn't always amount to a hill of beans. I also hope someone who knows more about it than I do will look into the possible copyright violations on the article entry. I looked at WP:Copyvio and it's Greek to me, but I've noted the issue on the talk page and deleted the link for the second time. Sandy 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 05:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has come a long way since it was nominated for deletion 3 months ago. The subject seems notable to me via WP:PROFTEST; he's got a lot of publications, and he's at a reputable school and has been active for a long time. Concerns about neutrality are reasonable concerns, but not a reason to delete in this case: this topic CAN be covered neutrally, it's not so obscure as to render neutrality impossible. Mango juice^talk 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this person is notable by the proftest Yuckfoo 20:35, 8 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) 10:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear test and earthquake correlations[edit]

What at first appears to be a legitimate page and topic is in the end a pile of conjecture, a dump of links which often have nothing to do with the subject, and ridiculous amounts of POV (the author clearly wants to believe that nuclear tests trigger large earthquakes, even though according to almost all reputable sources they don't. It has sat around with a cleanup notice for months, nothing has happened with it; I don't see anything positive about having it around, any useful information can be merged into the "earthquakes" section of Effects of nuclear explosions. Fastfission 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the effects page -- seems to be lots of sources at the bottom of the page discussing the correlation (or, rather, the lack of one.) If it's a myth, we should talk about and debunk it. Sdedeo (tips) 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In it's current POV form, it should definitely be deleted. Deleteme42 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Looking at the author's contribs, that is his hobby horse. Induced_seismicity will need to be cleaned out as well, and I suggest a trawl through that author's other contributions to find the other seeds of the uncited meme. Delete the author as well? Midgley 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mere conjectures not supported by seismology and otherwise an unnotable footnote in the history of crackpottery. Equendil Talk 06:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men's fashion freedom[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Unbifurcated Garment and its DRVs (1, 2).

This term (in quotes) gets 333 Google hits, all apparently from blogs, forums and such. For that reason, and judging from the links that are supplied, I have strong suspicions this "movement" consists of a handful of individuals at best, and is therefore not sufficiently notable for inclusion (let alone attested by reliable sources). What encyclopedic content there is (about skirts for men) is already replicated at Skirt#Men_in_skirts. Sandstein 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was at fashion freedom (23k ghits) but was exclusively about fashion freedom for men so I moved it. I am not convinced it is significant. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable movement. Fan1967 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's semi-obscure, but not any less worthy of inclusion than a lot of semi-obscure things (such as Jordanhill railway station). The word "movement" may be a little misleading (if it's taken to imply any kind of centralized organization), but it is in fact a real phenomenon. As long as the article is not a platform for Dr1819's personal advocacy, I see no reason to delete it. (If it reverts to being a platform for Dr1819's personal advocacy, then it would be worthy of speedy delete). Churchh 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Semi-obscure" is a very good argument to delete, as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned. --Ezeu 00:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why don't you propose that Jordanhill railway station should be deleted first? Actually, it's not a "very good argument" at all -- there are scads of Wikipedia articles on minor medieval monarchs who are also at least "semi-obscure" (for example)... As long as Dr1819 can be kept from exerting the leading role on the article (something which was a proven recipe for disaster in the past), I really don't see why "Men's fashion freedom" can't be a perfectly legitimate (though rather minor) Wikipedia article. Churchh 01:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can visit the Jordanhill railway station yourself and see the evidence with your own eyes. Where is the evidence of sufficient usage here? Gamaliel 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I bet that "Jordanhill Railway station" would have gotten much fewer than 333 Google hits until a few months ago... In fact, "Jordanhill Railway station" -Wikipedia still only turns up 96. [64] Churchh 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

Delete as neologistic non-encyclopedic inherently POV cruft. In other words, dump it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

My goodness, this seems to be the same bad movie we've seen several times already with MUG, all over again. There is way way way too much gafla to wade through in Dr1819's comments and NOTHING that satisfies the basic principles of meaningful sources, verifiability, notability and so forth that we have repeatedly pointed out govern the process here. Dr1819 you give every impression of being a vexatious litigant on this topic, and you really need to internalise the way we do things here or go away. You're, in my view, cruising for a block if you do not change your ways (hint: calling us ignorant folk, or deceptive, won't win you any fans). JzG is being more patient by far than you, at this point, deserve. Delete this non notable neologism. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments here removed to talk for clarity. (by JzG)

General comment -- please don't vote to delete this article because Dr1819 doesn't work well with others on Wikipedia; vote on the merits of the proposal. Thanks. Churchh 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Then rename to the far better known Male Unbifurcated Garment, for which numerous references exist. --JJay 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That could work -- the problem with Male Unbifurcated Garment last time was the content, not really the basic premise. Churchh 01:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object because, as you can see from the links at the top of this discussion, "Male Unbifurcated Garment" was repeatedly recognised as non-encyclopedic by the community. Then as now, the problem was not the underlying phenomenon — no one disputes that some men do wear skirts — but the protologistic coining of terms to describe it by what appear to be a very few people on a mission. The actual phenomenon is quite well covered at Skirt#Men_in_skirts, I think, and can be expanded there if necessary. Sandstein 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - That would be nice, but people keep deleting references to men's fashion freedom and MUGs there, too, again without taking the time to learn about how many people actually use these terms, both of which have been around for at least a decade. Also, Men's Fashion Freedom is a large superset of MUGs, and includes everything from wearing foreign (non-local) garb for men to the wearing of clothes generally intended for the opposite sex. MUGs, on the other hand, refers to the wear of a specific type of clothing that's primarily intended for wear by either men, or both men and women (as are sarongs in the South Pacific). Put another way, MUG-wear isn't generally about men's fashion freedom, and lumping it in with the Skirts is errorneous, as there are many forms of MUGs that are not skirts at all (Caftans, etc.) 12:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Men in skirts is the wrong way to go. I would also point out to Sandstein that when a term is being used by major print sources on four continents, designers and manufacturers, it is no longer a protologism. I would ask that he stick to the facts. --JJay 12:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'd be glad to vote "keep" if "Men's fashion freedom" were in fact a term "used by major print sources on four continents". The problem is that it is not. Dr1819 has posted a list of links (now in talk), of which all but one referred to forums, blogs, personal websites and other such internet ephemera. So we'd like to see (after what's now a week of discussion) some actual reliable print references, please. Sandstein 13:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer back to my original comment, you would see that I was talking about MUG, for which, as you know, there are considerable, valid, printed references. --JJay 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence presented that this is a phrase with widespread usage or anything more than a website. Gamaliel 23:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - unsupported claims and assertions which have been thoroughly debunked. This often-cited nonsense has been strongly countered with clear references to many thousands of men at numerous geographic locations around the world showing keen interest. The only thing that's apparent about comments like thse is that the commenter hasn't taken the time to peruse the links and discover otherwise. This form of abuse, making wildly unsubstantiated claims is a form of abuse and against Wiki rules. It will be reported if continued. Dr1819 12:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the responsibility of the article to substantiate the claims it makes, not for me to go around and prove that it is or isn't true. And as for your threat, go ahead and report me! I insist upon it! I also insist that you refrain from threatening any more users in this manner. Unlike your threat, this is an official warning. Please conduct yourself in a civil manner without resorting to the use of threats. Gamaliel 17:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Just for the record, the good Doctor has also threatened to haul me before ArbCom for my various hideous offenses relating to male sartorial preferences. I'm shaking in my boots. Sandstein 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are about 500 hits for "men's fashion freedom", 850 for men's "fashion freedom", and 1160 for men's unbifurcated garment. It seems to be a real movement (ie way of thinking), and has a fair amount of internet sites specifically about it. I'd like to note that wikipedia isn't about censorship, and small items like this men's fashion freedom movement is at very worst, harmless. Please don't delete an article because its badly written, or because Dr1819 might be acting like an ass. Delete an article if its on a topic that should be written about AT ALL. If it simply isn't well written *rewrite it*, thats what wikipedia is for. Small topics deserve pages just as much as large ones do. Fresheneesz 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to disagree. The unbifurcated garments are no longer at issue here, and the internet movement regarding "fashion freedom" seems to consist of a few dozen bloggers and forum participants at best — at least no one has shown otherwise yet. We don't really cover interest groups this small (see WP:WEB, WP:CORP for analogies). Sandstein 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MUG is over 50% of the article. --JJay 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is some sort of official site. this one is a list of many sites relating to the issue - most of which are not blogs. an example from that site. this site specifically refers to "a movement for men's fashion freedom". This is not just a forum phenonmenon. Fresheneesz 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 114 different google hits for "men's fashion freedom" [65], that's too obscure a "movement". Equendil Talk 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to count the hidden results. Fresheneesz 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't, sub pages within a domain artificially inflate the hit count. Equendil Talk 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really artificial, as sub pages can be as large an independant as full pages. Fresheneesz 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the case [66][67][68][69], for that matter quite a good many of the 114 distinct links are irrelevant [70] Equendil Talk 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that on the page Notability, it says that "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion" under the header Notability and deletion. The article goes on to say "The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." and "The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity."

It should be remembered that deleting based on non-notability is NOT policy. Its interesting to note that the main reason to delete non-notable pages is that they "clutter categories", which isn't a huge issue to begin with.

Is there any possible way we can merge and redirect this page - is there any article on a similar topic? I knew nothing about this topic until looking at that article, and I think its simply an interesting passing topic. Please ask yourselves why you want this article to be deleted - I'd be interested to know the downside of keeping the article. Fresheneesz 02:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably should be moved to Men's Unbifurcated Garment, but that one got deleted last time around because most of the content of the article was by Dr1819, and he/she rather conspicuously didn't win friends or influence people during the deletion debate (I myself voted to delete). Churchh 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per which above? I think its reasonable to give some explanation for a vote, so people can either agree or disagree with specific points. Fresheneesz 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, but a discussion. And I nicked your reference here - I hope that's OK. Stephen B Streater 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the purpose of notability is partly to ensure the ongoing accuracy of an article. See, for example, this edit in the software debate, where the article on a minor piece of software is inaccurate but it is not important enough to fix. Notability also gets away from WP:OWN and ensures that many views are synthesised into a balanced article. Most new articles have a main mover, but my preference is for notable minority content to be added as a short section to a more widely edited relevant article first. When it has received peer review and grown established, it can be moved to an article of its own - as recently happened here, for example. I haven't looked into the content of either article in detail, but a (possibly cleaned up version) of this could come in a section of Fashion, with MUG being included in Clothing. Stephen B Streater 06:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suspect that neither the most of the regular editors of "Fashion" nor of "Clothing" would really want to deal with the topic in any systematic and sustained way within those articles, and I'm not sure that dumping the problem child on their doorstep actually accomplishes anything. There are plenty of stub articles on Wikipedia. Churchh 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps we can find a better home. It only needs a handful of experienced Wikipedians at any one time to provide and keep balance. There is always the prospect that this subject will accumulate press reports and notability with time, though given that my small company gets hundreds of press reports a year, I think they have some catching up to do. I think the bit about MUG (strange name!) is quite interesting. I'll add a condensed version of this article to Clothing and see if it gets reverted. Perhaps they'll appreciate it. Obviously I have no WP:OWN pretentions if it doesn't work out. Stephen B Streater 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This edit is a start. Still needs cites, but these are promised. Clothing has a reasonable number of editors, so we'll know if it doesn't fit soon enough. Stephen B Streater 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't yet seen sufficient press coverage to ensure a whole verifiable article. I'm happy with a mention in another article so if people do search for the term(s) in Wikipedia, they will find something rather than nothing. As said above, a section can be expanded easily as coverage increases. Stephen B Streater 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would warrant about a one-sentence mention in kilt, at best. And I do mean at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like theres consensus to delete, so I won't push my points further. But i'm personally curious to know peoples' opinions as to what is wrong with labeling an article with {{cleanup}}, {{notability}}, {{sources}}, {{POV}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{NOR}} , rather than deleting them? I.e. what harm to stub non-notable articles like this do? Fresheneesz 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More entries in the database doesn't make it run any faster, it makes the life of cleanup ant workers that much more difficult, it clutter categories, non notable subjects detract from the notable ones basically. Besides if a subject is not notable, no sources are going to be available for writing a proper article. Worse, it's a slippery slope, deletion is what shields wikipedia from hundred of pages every day that could be "stubbed" and "kept". Equendil Talk 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The database is filled with *large* histories of notable articles. Small non-notable articles aren't going to be a significant weight on the database. Of course, if theres more content, cleanup is going to be harder, and cluttered categories aren't an imperative problem.

One thing I could suggest is split up categories into notable and non-notable articles - with notable articles most prominantly displayed. I would think that would solve that problem. A similar thing could be done with cleanup work, notables should get precidence. However, since wikipedia is meant to be improved for the *readers*, I don't see how any of those arguments argue that deletion improves anything for readers. In my point a view an article thats labled as shitty (and is shitty of course), is much better than no article at all. Fresheneesz 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised when I found out that 100 articles go through AfD each day, with many more speedied, avoiding considerable clutter. I like to preserve the compactness of information, and if useful information is spread over many insignificant articles, it becomes the job of every reader to collate it. Deletion should also help train editors on what is required and improve the quality of new articles they write and edits they make, so one deletion may result in many good articles. The discussions also ensure we talk to each other about what we are aiming for, stopping us all drifting ever further apart in our aims. Stephen B Streater 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But information is information, and deletion is basically censorship. I have absolutely no problem with full merges of material - merge and redirect. Whenever I find a search item that I expected to go somewhere, but didn't, I'll redirect - and thats what should happen to lots of this information, not a delete. Fresheneesz 07:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encylopaedia contains knowledge, not just information. The information in this particular article may be more useful in context, and may have found a suitable new home. Having 200 articles, 50% of which are accurate, is deemed less valuable by WP than having 100 articles which are all accurate, even though this involves deleting 100 articles. I believe there are other wikis which prefer quantity to quality. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete... Non notable neologism/game/sport/thing made up in school one day. --++Lar: t/c 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushjumping[edit]

Non-notable nonsense. Less than 600 Ghits. fuzzy510 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to BJAODN BigDT 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delele as per above. But man, I couldn't help smile when I first thought it was people jumping at a certain president.... -- cds^(talk) 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When I first saw "Bushjumping," I though it had to do with Bush. But anyway, this article is garbage, and IMO, it's not nearly funny enough for BJAODN. -- Kicking222 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we call it 'hedge-jumping' and it's good fun until you get arrested. --die Baumfabrik 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Bush jumping" (two words). "Bushjumping" (single word) could be a redirect, as could "Hedge jumping." "Bush jumping" yields 12,100 hits on Google and appears to be increasing in usage. We have an article on cow tipping, and "bush jumping" is another activity—nonsense yet still notable—that is getting more common.--El aprendelenguas 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Bollux. Anyone who needs an encyclopaedia to jump into the oograh is not going to benefit from an encyclopaedia, and the rest don't. Midgley 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense Deleteme42 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bejnar 20:49, 8 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 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egonian[edit]

Non-notable constructed language made up in school one day. PROD was contested. Erik the Rude 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom. Cute story about a bunch of crazy kids Bwithh 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Kala ni ^[talk] 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete crap SM247 02:52, 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 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard P. Simms[edit]

Joke/hoax/silliness. But that aside, there is a Howard Simms on the Political Graveyard site, but I contend an alternate delegate to the DNC is not notable enough. HollyAm 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NFT --die Baumfabrik 03:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eluchil404 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense. NawlinWiki 12:55, 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 speedy delete. Sango 123 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baitout[edit]

Vanity for a "REMARKABLE counter-strike source team." The "REMARKABLE" was added in after I marked it nn-bio. Staecker 22:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and Protect. Only content is from "Dat1337vet", who has also continuously removed the AFD tag and has violated WP:NPA on Staecker. And it isn't even notable! Logical2u 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as above BigDT 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. -- DakPow e rs (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete NawlinWiki 22:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. It's a vanity page that is now periodically being flooded with ad text that's also being used to vandalize the user pages of Dakpowers and BigDT by 68.147.119.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Omicronpersei8 22:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JX hand sign[edit]

Non notable... hand sign. No Google hits. Rory096 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (no hits). Kala ni ^[talk] 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, erm, makes no sense whatsoever. --Kiand 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (uhhhh... yeah.) --0zymandias 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:47, 8 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 I was a bit tired and emotional when I came across this AfD, although I was sober as a churchmouse... There are some arguments for keep but they're not very strong. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me and it's the sort of listcruft that can grow without bound. If someone wants the text so they can put whatever is useful in Wikisaurus, please contact me and I'll userify it for them. Delete. --++Lar: t/c 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for drunkenness[edit]

Not sure why this long, unsourced list of words is encyclopedic as opposed to a target for vandals who want to add in their own made up slang (which seems to have been going on already: see [71]). Delete Sdedeo (tips) 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think it could be useful in a way, if there was something along the lines of an explanation where some of the terms come from, but as it stands, I don't see much room for expansion. fuzzy510 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a useful social document, but then I'm blootered. --die Baumfabrik 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty funny and could be included. —M e ts501^talk 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki verifiable parts and delete, the place for this is wikt:WikiSaurus:drunk. I don't see encyclopedic content in this list. Kusma (討論) 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiSaurus per Kusma.--El aprendelenguas 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as alchohollistcruft. Whether I'm smashed, tanked, wasted, or merely tipsy, listcruft must go! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, spam-magnetic listcruft. I've enjoyed tinkering with it now and again, but I wouldn't miss it. Deizio talk 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad idea article. WP is not a dictionary or a thesaurus, and there's no hope of ever sourcing this entire list. Mango juice^talk 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for articles made up when, or relating to, tired and emotional. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentator's curse[edit]

While this is no doubt a trend, this isn't a term used for it. Less than 200 total Ghits, and as a devout sports fan, I've never heard this term used before. fuzzy510 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn OR. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either OR or nn neologism. SM247 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR —M e ts501^talk 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colemanballs. MLA 08:05, 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: after three AfDs, it's time for our first pillar of Wikipedia:Verifiability to assert itself. The external references (both those in this AfD, and the previous ones) make it very clear what this is: that now and then, someone points out that Newton was born on 25th December in a non-standard calendar, and makes an appropriate pun on 'Christmas'. But nowhere has it been remotely verified that significant numbers of people actually celebrate this as an organised holiday. I'm sure Pharos' science teacher was a damn good teacher, but he's not a reliable source.

To head off protest that the majority for deletion isn't enough - AfD is not a vote, and the discussion here, as well as the previous ones, have served their purpose by showing that while lots of people like the idea (particularly the young scientifically-oriented ex-Christian Westerners that make up much of our systemic bias), it hasn't caught on enough to be worth including in an encyclopaedia. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonmas[edit]

Usually nominated at or about Christmas, for reasons which evaporate as soon as you check Newton's birth date, this is a festival apparently proposed by Gordon Worley which has never really caught on. Unusually, I'd say the Google Test says it all: Newtonmas: 845 ghits. "Pi day" (quoted): 357,000 ghits. Michaelmas: ~1m ghits. Lammas: ~1.6m ghits. Christmas: >350,000,000 ghits. So: this is, according to the Google test, approximately 0.0002% as significant as the mainstream festival which would fall on the same date if it weren't for the fact that the calendar changed in 1582. This appears to be a conceit (in the second sense) with no substantive evidence of significance or currency. Disclaimer: I am a great fan of Robert Hooke and if it were Hookemas... I'd still have AfD'd it. Probably. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas/2004-12-24, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas

Woeful Strong Delete I love the idea, but it does do badly at the google test Bwithh 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google test is never definitive; there is useful, sourced information in this article, and the thing is explicitly not just a creation of Worley as claimed by JzG. Sdedeo (tips) 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the four external reference links in the article - one is some guys homepage where he admits that that not many people are celebrating newtonmas but asks us to "trust him" that its going to be "a big hit" (and also please click on some of his ad links); the second link is to an obscure, bare webpage on Transhumanism which lists brief mentions of a few holidays including Newtonmas as well as "Speck Day" which is to celebrate the 1996 event of a speck of dust "inspiring" a wannabefamous transhumanist, Darren Reynolds (Googling "Darren Reynolds" and speck give a grand total of 3 (three) google hits); the third links is to an article which uses the coincidence of Newton's birthday and Christmas to make a pun in its title but does not mention Newtonmas as a festival; the fourth link is to a excerpt from an obscure science fiction story where "Gravmas" is celebrated in China (Europe has suffered some kind of apocalyptic decline) some time around the 38th century (I'd mention that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this is just ridiculous). And finally the 1984 radio broadcast by Michael E. Marotta mentioned in the article is totally unreferenced and, in any case, is not evidence of an actual festival. Bwithh 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Follow-up Here is an physics listserv/newsgroup email from Michael E. Marotta from December 2005 where Marotta - the person who is claimed to have been the first to come up with the festival idea- says - partly in response to the wikipedia article -that he has been sending Newtonmas greetings since the mid-1980s, but also describes this practice this way: "It was always a personal quirk which my friends accepted." Bwithh 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Follow-up to the follow-up In Marotta's followup Dec 23 email to his original Dec 17 Newtonmas greeting to the physics listserv/newsgroup, as there have been no replies from anyone to his greeting, he sarcastically suggests that next year he will be giving his greeting a controversial title such as "Was Newton Gay?" rather than "Merry Newtonmas". Bwithh 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My main concern with marginally-notable holidays is that by WP endorsing it, WP becomes a promoter (Google scrapes WP in no time, it seems, and puts the WP entry at the top of the list) and hence WP becomes a holiday-maker. That is an active role that is unacceptable for a neutral observer, which WP must remain. However, in this case I found this, on a fairly popular site, which shows me that we won't be first to embrace this new holiday. Another criterion I have is whether any commercial or money making enterprise is banking on its promotion - in this case I don't see it. Add the 'WP is not paper' policy to it, and it becomes a keeper. Crum375 00:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think that site may have picked up an earlier WP version, so I reserve judgment for now. Crum375 00:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After some more Googling, I think we are too late on this one, it looks like an old version of the article on WP did act as a promoter, and now the cat's out of the bag. So it will probably be a keeper but I will remain neutral. Crum375 00:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia creates, it should also be able to help destroy. muahahahaha. Bwithh 00:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure. You cannot unbite an apple. Crum375 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up by an atheist while drinking eggnog on Chrismas eve, wondering how one can continue a seasonal tradition, while at the same time stripping it off its original meaning, and at the same time keep one's reputation as an excentric now that neighbour also has bought a hybrid car. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am neutral on this, but 'atheist' is POV - if enough people of any persuasion celebrate something it becomes notable. Also, XMas to the best of my knowledge started out as a pagan holiday long BC. The issue is only is it notable and can we verify it. Crum375 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware that XMas (sic) started out as a pagan holiday, I celebrate Yule, not Christmas. Newtonmas or Leonarday or Einsteinukkah are all made up "traditions" and not notable IMO --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make it as clear as I can. Every single holiday or tradition is 'made up'. The only issue for us here in 'admitting' is whether it is notable enough or not. We don't judge notability by our opinion of it or by whether we like the name, or whether we like the people that celebrate it. We base notability solely on reliable and verifiable sources that tell us whether it is 'widely celebrated', at least among some communities. Note that I withdrew from voting on this particular topic, so my point is generic. You can have the last word. Crum375 23:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its a personal quirk. Happy Festivus. -- GWO
Delete per Bwithh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of this one before. Grue 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My science teacher had us all celebrate this when I was a kid. It was not made up by Gordon Whorley at all.--Pharos 07:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DUPSA football league[edit]

Non-notable league. The organization itself only gets 510 Ghits, which is further narrowed to 9 unique hits when "football league" is added. fuzzy510 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this NN garbage or I'll retaliate with an article on the UUJSBE cricket club. --die Baumfabrik 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete NN intramural sports league -Drdisque 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend (fashion)[edit]

The original dictdef has been removed, leaving a description of the blindingly obvious (wearing the boyfriend's clothes) but stated in "interesting" (i.e. uncited) terms. I would suggest that this is essentially a non-article; the terms cited (boyfriend jeans and boyfriend jacket) have some currency butnothiong beyond the blindingly obvious. Just zis Guy you know? 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was helpful in covering a fashion industry term that describes a particular style. [72],[73], [74], [75]. Was not at all blindingly obvious to me, especially as the "boyfriend" look seems very girlish. Examples include the boyfriend skirt [76], or the boyfriend tank with pink facets [77]. If anything should be expanded. --JJay 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's been around a long time for a one-two sentence stub, but I think it could be a legit topic. It either needs expanding, or should go. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Delete. Aside from being no more than a dictionary definition, it's offensively stupid: 'more unisex....still designed for the female form'? --die Baumfabrik 03:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But it's the trend that's stupid -- the article is fairly accurate, as I understand it... --Rehcsif 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JJay has reasonably demonstrated that this article can be well expanded. Silensor 07:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, Boyfriend clothes are more like tomboy than unisex, and when we introduce boyshorts, things tend to need some encyclopedic text to do some explaining. hateless 07:32, 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 09:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Event (sports)[edit]

WP:WINAD. There's no way this can be expanded to be an encyclopedia entry. fuzzy510 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is strictly a Wiktionary item. Crum375 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef —M e ts501^talk 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too wide a topic to organize into an encyclopedia article. I would support an Olympic events article, though, if we don't already have one by a different name.--El aprendelenguas 21:09, 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 speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty McLarnon[edit]

Complete nonsense article, fails WP:BIO -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom., nonsense, hoax, made up at school one day, take your pick. Crum375 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and for not taking the opportunity to make a reference to time-traveler Marty McFly. fuzzy510 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as NN bio —M e ts501^talk 04:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete rubbish nonsense tag added --manchesterstudent 23:03, 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 09:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush family conspiracy theory[edit]

Do not delete--highly relevant links and informations!

After all the original research has been cleared out, all that is left is a single paragraph and a huge list of external links. DCAnderson 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AntiBushcruft SM247 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless —M e ts501^talk 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally pointless conspiracycruft that hardly even explains itself. Grand master ka 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, plus conspiracycruft, cause I like that word. Morton devonshire 07:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we delete this, will the author(s) think we're part of the consiracy? ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE ANYTHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.160.146 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom; too few secondary sources to be viable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have an actual article/explanation above all those links... I wouldn't say "delete", though. It's worthy of discussion, yes?
Delete Nothing in it worth keeping at this stage. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Cleanup The fact is that there are numerous Bush family conspiracy theories - which is the focus of the page. Remove the abundant links and start over. To delete it is to disallow the reality that there are theories which belong on the page, when they can be appropriately cited. Wikipedia is not censored. S-P 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This is the user's 2nd edit, first being creating their userpage.[reply]

Delete I respect the devotion put into collecting those links (must have spent hours bookmarking and stuff...), but it's all the aforementioned cruft and more. --0zymandias 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's just a collection of links which Wikipedia is NOT. Scoutersig 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too respect the time that went into the creation of this, but feel it just doesn't belong here. GassyGuy 07:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o5 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren w. moore[edit]

Delete as nn-bio. Article was tagged for speedy as such, but contested by author. Also fails WP:MUSIC, violates WP:AUTO and is speediable as reposted content of Darren "Jesus" Moore. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. This may also be one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever seen from someone who's past eight grade. Fan1967 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:54, 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 redirected to Matador, no verified information to merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faena[edit]

Far more information is contained at the (featured) article bullfighting, really making this page kinda pointless unless someone decides to expand it more than it already has been in its 8 months of existence. fuzzy510 23:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to matador. Yanksox 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to matador. —M e ts501^talk 04:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's definition is simple and doesn't show much chance for expanding into a full encyclopedia article. I don't think it deserves a merge to Matador, either. It seemed out of place when I read the matador article. It has a place in Wiktionary, though, if it isn't already there.--El aprendelenguas 21:19, 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 was Keep - appears to be a consensus that the subject is notable, if the article is poorly sourced. Unsourced material can be removed until source. Wily D 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Radu[edit]

Where to begin? First off there are many leaders of small chamber groups, and many random Romanian musicians, who in both cases are not renowned enough to merit a wikipedia article. A quick perusal of the article shows that those who constantly update the page are prone to hyperbole to make him seem more famous, for example claiming that Devon Prep's musical productions which he directs are locally known when in fact they are no better known than any other Philadelphia Catholic high school, if at all. A brief lookover of the history of updates makes it clear that this page makes a mockery of wikipedia as on a regular basis students of Dr. Radu drop by to write jokes and outlandish statements about him, only to have them reverted and then another take its place. I see no reason for why he is famous and believe this should be promptly deleted. Vartan84 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a peaceful little page that's been on my watchlist for ages, since it's vandalized by his students once every other month. Frequency of vandalism is not normally considered to be a reason for deletion, and in fact this is a very low frequency. He has two albums listed at allmusic.com that are released on the Lyrichord label. This seems to satisfy the requirements for notability under WP:MUSIC, so I'm not sure where you got the technical term 'godforsaken' that you used in the edit summary. No evidence has been offered that God is displeased with him. I'm not in a position to evaluate the 'Grand Officer of Cultural Merit' offered by Romania. Since no reference for that claim is provided, perhaps it should be removed from the article. But the record releases seem to establish notability. The Lyrichord label doesn't have its own article but it's referred to in 16 other Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting my points. Constant vandalizing is obviously not a reason for deletion, but it's clear that this page is used as one big joke by his students and that they constantly use unsupported hyperbolic statements as a reason to keep it. Also your logical leap of "a few other people who have released an album with Lyrichord have wikipedia pages, therefore all people who have released anything on Lyrichord are automatically famous" is a fallacy. Not all Lyrichord-releasers are created equal or equally famous, and as mentioned below it is hardly a major label to begin with, hardly complying with the wikirules as you say it does. Vartan84 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to the issue of whether Lyrichord ought to be taken seriously as a record label. Note this wording from WP:MUSIC, when discussing notability of a performer: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). According to its website, Lyrichord has existed since 1950, so it meets the requirement of 'more than a few years.' Having a roster of performers, many of which are notable, seems to be satisfied by this list of musicians who have Wikipedia articles, and thus may be considered notable, and have works published by Lyrichord: Verna Gillis, Alejandro Planchart, Liang Tsai-Ping, Ephat Mujuru, Shafaatullah Khan, Laxmi Ganesh Tewari, Colin Turnbull, The Jolly Boys and Guilherme Franco. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that most of those artists' articles are either stubs or contain paragraphs and paragraphs worth of unsourced claims. It makes one wonder whether Lyrichord itself isn't creating these pages for its artists, which would constitute a gross disregard of wikipolicies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.5.144 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guidelines state two or more records released by a renowned / reputable label. Lyrichord is hardly such a label. The article should at least be revised, and if nothing else, the claims that lack citations (most of them) should be deleted, as well as the overly dramatic statements involving Devon Prep. Once all of those things are deleted, we'll hardly be left with any article at all, so why keep it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.129.155 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling encouraged by the dialog here, I removed some promotional statements from the article. I removed the note about the 'Grand Officer of the Cultural Merit' of Romania, since it's unsourced and is anyway not an award documented in Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind if his work was evaluated on the same basis as other classical musicians, but it would take some research to check how others are treated. Having 12 CDs released should count for something, and recognition within the relevant circle should be considered, though I don't know who else is in that circle. Determining that would take actual research. I agree that the status of Lyrichord as a label makes a difference to WP:MUSIC, ~~so that would take still more research.~~ EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See my note higher up that seems to establish that Lyrichord is 'one of the more important indie labels' according to the standards of WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links you gave to other Lyrichord artists is hardly compelling. I had actually checked them myself when this first came up and found most of them to not really belong on wikipedia either. One actually has a notion that the profile was added by the subject's son, another is just a huge listing of songs and recordings without any real information, and all of them are without citations just like Mr. Radu's (I mean Dr. Sir Maestro Count Grand Duke Superstar the Great). What I think is funniest is how the person you are debating with and who first questioned the famous status of this person is a former student of Mr. Radu's and knows him personally. Meanwhile you apparently have no apparent connection to him and yet are defending his being kept on wikipedia vociferously. Not to accuse you of anything, but if you have any connection to the subject I think it bears admitting now for the sake of fairness- especially with so many of his former students running around here. I just don't understand why someone with no connection would have been keeping close watch over this page for a high school music teacher with a couple of Lyrichord CDs. Just sayin'. Vartan84 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I have no connection to Mr. Radu. I didn't even know he was a recorded conductor before this AfD. The article first came to my attention a long time ago since it was being vandalized, and I reverted that. I don't have strong feelings whether this article is kept or not; I hoped that by researching this a little bit, I'd learn more about WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepand source better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston, subject appears to be mildly notable within his field. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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