Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 22

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 21 March 23 >

Purge server cache

March 22

edit

Chicken fried radio

edit

Appears to be advertising or vanity. Is this podcast popular enough to have an article? - S. Komae (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid question. And a hard one to answer. What, in your opinion, would you consider the threshold for popular "enough?"

As far as I know, chicken fried radio has an exposure of at least 3,000 people worldwide. I think whether it's popular enough is a call for you guys to make. If your main issue is whether the tone of the article sounds like self-promotion (which it shouldn't be, since non-members of said podcast created this article), this can be remedied. As far as I can tell, everything in this article are laid out as provable or disprovable facts. —This unsigned comment was added by Kwidge (talk • contribs) .

Fair enough. IMO, 3000 listeners makes it fairly significant. However, in the very least, the article should have proper capitalization in its namespace, eg. Chicken Fried Radio, and needs to be wikified. I felt the article appeared to be vanity because the usernames of those who created it bore similarities with the names of the creators of said podcast show, which is why I called its validity into question. - S. Komae (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most of these points have been addressed. The page has been thoroughly revised, and although it is not yet complete, the information is growing. --Dairhenien 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I created the article originally, and I'm also one of the hosts of the podcast. I understand the concern about conflict of interest, but does that necessarily make an entry into vanity/advertising/insignificant? Is the Wikipedia deletion policy a guilty until proven innocent sort of thing? When I created it it was just a few paragraphs. I was surprised to see it so much bigger and thorough and put into more encyclopedic style. So it's agreed that it's not going to be deleted then? --RyanH42
AFAIK, it is not guilty until proven innocent; the AfD tag is simply to call the article under question. I will remove the tag; if there are further objections to the article it can be readded. My concerns have been addressed. - S. Komae (talk) 15:44, 29 March 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 delete. Friday (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Babble

edit

Nn neologism. Would have tagged with speedy but has a nonsense claim to notability. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrackPoint

edit

Delete Non-notable advertising. I came across this article expecting to find IBM's laptop input device. This and its sister article ArticleLive are linked nowhere except from each other. PeteVerdon 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. W.marsh 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian CMS Products

edit

This is not the same article as was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian CMS Products - that was spam, this is a spam magnet which is different. So: what is special about Canadian CMS systems? Are they offered for sale only in Canada? Not as it turns out. Are they notable for being Canadian? No, they are redlinks, so they would appear nto to be notable at all. There are lots of lists of software products of various types, they are watched b y many and purged of spam all the time; this will not be on many watchlists. I think it's a problem. Even if it's not a problem it needs a consensus to keep to avert nominations as {db-repost}. Just zis Guy you know? 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Semple McPherson movie

edit

Promotion for a non-notable movie made with a consumer-grade camcorder starring mostly unknown performers that has never been in general release. Will Beback 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an IMDb page. David Sneek 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sky Pirates

edit

Delete as NN band. Contested {{prod}}. The article claims that a couple of band members are notable for work outside the band, but gives no reason to believe that the band itself meets WP:MUSIC. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entitilitis

edit

Totally non-notable. Neologism and fancruft too. Reyk 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied as copyvio, can be recreated if it seems noteworthy. It was spam about some random book. Ashibaka tock 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret River

edit

Delete this page because it is incorrect Harpercanada 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh(talk) 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalpo

edit

The article is all original research, poorly written, and cites no references that actually talk about the subject matter of the article - worse than this however, it appears to be a complete fiction. Googling came up with nothing relevant. ZoFreX 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per ZoFreX. Googling for "gyalpo" instead of "jalpo" comes up with some results, but this is apparently a common word in the Tibetan language and few if any of the results have anything to do with whatever this article is about. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nat Krause, I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for the following "... undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. That is what you did when you outrightly deleted 20 kilobytes of page at Jonang-Kalachakra Controversy see History : [5]
A pattern of wrongful deleting and of incorrect assumptions so as to create problems somewhat akin to vandalism is appearing with your assertion here that Gyalpo and Jalpo were not found on Google which is blatlantly a lie in view of the plethora of that. Add in gto your previous deleting manner, I found it right to warn Wikipedia of your deeds. I'm also filing for undeletion of Jalpo as your charges are unfounded here. Geir Smith 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, article for keep. The Googling probably didn't work out right but I have references to Gyalpo-Jalpo all over the net. Just it's tough to see, because Gyalpo is also an ordinary name of persons like John or George in English. Here's one reference. I'll give more of such; and for good measure I'll also provide them on the page. It's not a hoax or other things that I've seen it here described as. I'm afraid I've not clearly understood what people read into the page. Corrected here with Google research. This is a case of msitaken identity. Jalpo is not at all what you suspect it of being : either inidentifiable, unverifiable or original research. None of that at all. [6] Geir Smith 10:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strongly/ reference to Melhai Gyalpo (fire spirit, the lord of genii of fire) and Sadag Gyalpo (earth spirit) in one click here : [7] Geir Smith 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitively. The argument that it is not found on Google is not true. Reference here to the king-sprit (rgyalpo) subdued by the world famous Padma Sambhava. There's not much more authoritative source than this in Tibetan Buddhist history seeing he's like the father of Tibetan Buddhism recognized by all schools and sects there. [8] Geir Smith 11:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete nomination/ Google search gives a ceremony of Refuge taking taught by the Karmapa (a very famous lama of Tibet) speaking of appeasing the Gyalpo spirits. [9]
No one in their sane mind can keep on claiming that these spirits don't exist in the Tibetan Tantric Buddhist pantheon. I'm surprised that no one found these references on Google but I'm giving them here so it doesn't matter. But at least the error can be fixed. But undeleting is imperative. Making errors is OK but on condition of fixing them and not leaving unverifable things on the net. The person (Nat Krause) who said Jalpo-Gyalpo is not on Google said this but it's unverifable because I found a lot of Gyalpo Jalpos on it. So, he stands corrected. So, sorry, it's a mistaken identity there for you but I've helped out with references. There *is* a gyalpo-Jalpo on Google all over it really, in fact. There are tons on Google so if needed, I'll just give some more. Thanks. Geir Smith 11:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original objections that Jalpo is not on Google have been rectified so undelete in order. Then objections that neither Gyalpo nor Jalpo were there either also corrected. So, again undelete is in order. The two original objections disowned now; so undelete for all later delete votes that were added in order. Jalpo is a fact on Google and an important part of Tibetan culture and religion. No contest on that one. False case. No merit. People who can't find it by Googling doesn't mean one can't Google it. I've Googled it, came up with 185 hits and posted about a dozen here now. What part of this don't people understand ? How can someone honestly come and say there are no hits when they can just click the host of links I provided here like a takeaway meal ? Geir Smith 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this article even about? The first sentence does not give any insight as to what jalpo is, it just says jalpo should not be confused for something else. That is poor writing.--Pal5017 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a mistake : Jalpo is verifiable on Googles engine
Thanks for the weak delete Aza Toth. The hoax claim is unfounded : the Gyalpo-Jalpo references are all over Internet and it's not a fiction nor a hoax. I think the page should have it's chance to get up some reference written on it concerning the nature of the Jalpo spirits in Tibetan culture. I didn't think of putting them there earlier, thinking the people reading it would all be Buddhists. But for the general public, the page needs just a few references to be written out...and needs a few days for that so weak delete is good if it can just have a few days to improve. Thus putting off a deleting agenda a few days to redo some references is good. Saying it's Original Research, I don't agree with, as I've put up other external links that support the phases of what I say on the page. While I do the new references gleaned from the links I've just given here newly (above), I'll look at the OR issue meanwhile. But the verifiability issue on Google has already been cleared up because evidence is to be found on search-engines. So, with these new links coming on and improvement on the way, a weak delete is proper, if not to say "just a beginning" of getting the page undeleted. Thanks though for this. Geir Smith 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The page hasn't been deleted yet... so you can't ask for it to be undeleted:) ---J.Smith 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did some searching in Tibetan history sites and Jalpo doesn't turn up much and "Gyalpo" only shows up in the context of "Pehar Gyalpo as the Protector of the Tibetan government" in 1662. [17] I looked at some of your sources... they aren't acceptable. First of all personal homepages don't count. Neither do Wikipedia-userpages. This is the only one of your sources that even slightly verifies your claim: [18] and it's on "freenet.de". Not acceptable. We need reputable sources. read WP:V ---J.Smith 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • J Smith, tell me what you don't approve of in the second link that I gave above (the automatic linking gives new numbers to them; but all the following are the same references as those from my first posts earlier. Just new numbers on them.): [19], it gets between half and two million hits a day. It's a peer-sponsored link. See it's descriptive page that states it gets that many hits a day here : [20] Then among the other references I gave earlier : [21] is a Rywiki page which is an established fixture of Wikipedia and peer-approved. What's the problem with it J. ? Just rabble-rousing ? Bad Wikipedia policy again for you then as keeping a civil tone is the rule and not searching for false problems. This is the Sussex University link : [22] You've just been spouting lies J. ! What is this about "we"... "needing reputable sources" J. ? You're representative of Wikipedia ? That would mean poor luck for Wiki if *you* represent it, right ! You're just smearing aspersions here. The links are great links one and all. This link : [23] is to E-Sangha, and it's a well-established and world-wide newsgroup that is peer-sponsored. It's one of Tantric Tibetan Buddhisms premier groups if you want to really know about it. This and just about all these links are unquestionably excellent. Like these two again; one with E-Sangha, and one with "rywiki" (do you question rywiki as sources to undelete this article ? So if you question rywiki, then you're questionning Wiki itself then ! Ha. Weird logic, turning on Wiki in that case then. "Don't trust anyone even your own..." This is the Wiki - "rywiki" - page-site that J. Smith's not accepting for reference.) : [24][25] Definite lifting deletion tag on this article. J. Smiths objections are nul, void, each and every one of them. I doubt if one of his objections is valid even. Geir Smith 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undeleting deletion tag on page[26] [27] So, J. Smith, these two references, that you accept, and the four I have found above, make up six, so what are you talking about these not being valid ? You should do some serious research before "attacking" others research and efforts. Plus you say the second one from freenet.de i.e. Gruschke, isn't acceptable, well come again. He wrote a paper to Leiden University on that page which is just the support for it. So you'll have to revise your statement. Since when is university work to such prestigious universities as Leiden not accepted ? You must be dreaming bad. Case done, made and won. Geir Smith 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • J Smith, I am filing for the "delete" tag to be taken off the page. What do you see wrong in university theses to serve as reference for the page ?

Anyways it's not because Wikipedia doesn't recognize the existence of Gyalpos or Jalpos (for Tibetan Buddhism) that they don't exist : I have the proof multiplied by ten on Google. I don't think that fighting this will be right for you because the outcome is that. Also, I think that the university references that abound in my references links are very good, on the contrary. Geir Smith 11:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Delete tag on Jalpo page. The objections of the two first nominations for deletion by ZoFreX and Nat Krause have been lifted as I've found, produced, and posted about a dozen links to Gyalpo-Jalpos from the web (even if it is just on this deletion-page). Thank you for obliging... as no proof of their claims exist. Given ample proof the onus is on the prosecution to answer. No one is considered guilty until proven to be so. False accusations must be dealt with without weakness. Wikipedia policy. It is against Wikipedia policy to let false accusations stay on Wikipedia and this page is proof of the facts that are put forth for the record. No doubt is thus left in this matter. Geir Smith 15:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJ. Smith, Hi, I've changed the self-referencing links

on the page at Jalpo and the Wiki referencing links have been backed up by non-WIki ones. I think this adresses your concerns and also opens up for the pages being brought into WIki policy constraints. Please keep it's vote. Go from a weak delete to keep. I'll also include shortly, in the references, the "Pehar Gyalpo" reference that you provided above; and the people.freenet.de one (Gruschke) from Leiden University that I think are both perfectly acceptable. Given the three other references from Wiki and E-Sangha; the one from Sussex University; that of sacred-texts.com (one to two million hits a day) that are all perfectly acceptable as references (I think), that makes eight *grounded* and researched references. I've excluded other site-references although they are perfectly clearly appearing on Google, and that may also well be perfectly authentified sources for all that. We're thus looking at a total throve of at least ten to twelve potential references boiled down to a conservative selected number of eight of them. So, as I say, keep it, it's right. Geir Smith 09:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thousands and thousands of words, and I still don't know what it is. This stinks of hoax or OR. If it is not a hoax or OR, I would still support a delete, or removal of all material and reversion to substub since current content is incoherent after more than enough time. AKAF 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I'm working on widening and making easy the search for people verifying the information and trying to make Tibetan language terms easy to scroll down by explaining the names and word meanings involved. I think I've done a good job on some of the links I added to the page today because they're trustworthy reliable sources and easy to understand (or see). The definition window when one opens the page first seems also to appear much clearer for the newcomer now. Please go check it out right now. Geir Smith 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone to vote a Keep now ? Time needed to streamline/outline article; so need some time to do that. But ZoFreX and Nat Krauses first reasons for nominating have been answered with ample Googling provided for the article theme and all impressions of it being a hoax dispelled by that. Just need put it in form. I think the description of Gyalpos/Jalpos gives newcomers a good idea of the article theme now, seeing I've provided new form to the page recently. More on the way now. If someone could put in a keep vote that would take the page off the hotline to deletion for the moment. Voluntaries ? Geir Smith 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEOweasel

edit

Delete Apparently non-notable Flash cartoon, doesn't try to establish notability, there are only 926 google hits for the name, no Alexa rank, and the wiki/forum look to be fairly irrelevant. Prodded, but the prod was removed. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh(talk) 05:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dapreview

edit

This article has been continually re-posted by the author who believes his blog is notable. Would appear not to meet WP:WEB, and is advertising/spam for the guy's site. Harro5 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn Encise 04:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streets of Mayfair

edit

Non-notable article about a mall in Florida. Nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. Moe ε 01:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farbod Fujimoto

edit

Hoax, was prodded once but prod removed by creator. Likely utter nonsense ("Farbod's last name (Fujimoto) has rich Latin American origin"). Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 02:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: "Without question, Farbod Fujimoto's existence will come into debate." - enough said! Oliver Keenan 10:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chug

edit

Delete I could find no reference to this "ship" in a google search, or to the SHAG society in Henley of which this is supposedly the flagship. Also, as the picture in the article shows a 10 foot long boat slightly bigger than a canoe, it seems rather unlikely that this is the flagship of a merchant fleet. Xyzzyplugh 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFractal

edit

Non-notable consulting company. 306 Google hits, a number of which go to their blog. Delete. DMG413 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's interesting. Notability is the criteria? Is Google notability the only criterion for a quality company? Sure. Delete. That won't make the company go away, and won't make it so that the company isn't involved in some of the largest HR and organizational communication projects in the country.


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Flintstone unit

edit

Limited notability; Google search shows only 207 results [29], about a quarter of which appear to be Wikipedia. At best, this should be merged into English unit or some other article --Bletch 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W248AB

edit

"W248AB is the call sign of a ham radio translator of WILI-98.3". Non-notable. Xyzzyplugh 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My First Cult

edit

Contested prod. Bringing here as a courtesy to the person who reprodded it. It's an "online community" founded earlier this year. It's probably not notable enough for an article here, but I'm going to hold out for now in case there's some notability evidence that surfaces soon. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Author: Maybe was a bit premature putting the article up - you've all made good points. There's a CD due to come out in June under the My First Cult record label - would it be better to wait until this has happened before submitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwilson81 (talk • contribs)

Only if the CD gets mentioned in the media. Ashibaka tock 14:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:24Z

Images 1972

edit

Delete; Entire article is simply plagiarized from a review by Richard T. Jameson on Amazon.com Hal Raglan 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepar

edit

Unverifiable neologism. To quote the relevant bit of the article, "The verification of the language is only achieved through the oral tradition in regions of Gaston County in North Carolina". Melchoir 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soulcrew skateteam

edit

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoO3 (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 Speedy deleted —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:22Z

The Leopard 1963

edit

Delete; Entire article is plagiarized word for word from other sources Hal Raglan 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Xaosflux. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers 1978

edit

Delete; entire article is simply plagiarized from other sources, including IMDB Hal Raglan 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE pay-per-view events

edit

Delete - Main point of this article seems to be to promote WWE pay per view events. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 seem to apply. Although advertising space is not explicitly noted, I think the intent is under not a host or page provider. Some of the content may be appropriate within another page. Pro-Lick 03:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to bash wrestling fans? Eenu 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia wasn't entertaining, I wouldn't bother to come here or use it. Even the featured articles that change on the homepage each day are highly enjoyable to read. BronzeWarrior 02:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you ought to propose deletion for South Park, Family Guy and Dawson's Creek while you're at it. You're only attacking it because it's pro wrestling. BronzeWarrior 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge Merge it with WWE, i have read the article fully, i dont see any advertising in it. Snroy 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per BronzeWarrior. --Oakster 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no merge per Terence Ong. -- JJay 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The chronological order in which these pay-per-view events have been broadcast is extremely useful information; there are those who have spent time overseas and may not have had access to WWE pay-per-view events. This chronology allows those viewers to follow the emerging story-lines in sports entertainment. There is absolutely no advertising content in it, and the chronology cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
  • STRONG KEEP As the creator of the article. Merging would only make the WWE article extremly long. I broke it away from the article just for that reason. It's encyclopedic information that should not be deleted and there is no advertising presented in it. Moe ε 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My article was actually merged into this one, I thought it looked similar. :-) Moe ε 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of grime artists

edit


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:20Z

Thomas Hecker

edit

No information given about notability, Google doesn't bring up anything about him either. Crystallina 04:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Delete - Does ADHD make one notable? Probably not.[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 00:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fruita

edit

Possible hoax. -- Curps 04:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutants (San Francisco)

edit

An articlw which has been deleted on numerous occasions, and still does not show the band meets WP:MUSIC. It might be notable, just written terribly, but the fact that it didn't have an article in the past (remember 99.9% of notable bands already do) leaves me as a skeptic. Harro5 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although I've argued here largely that articles that are horribly deficient or otherwise unsalvagable should be deleted and, if on subjects that merit articles, added to WP:RA, this article doesn't seem so poorly written as to be altogether without hope. On the subject of notability, a Google search takes one to the the band's site, where one learns that they have recently played with three bands for whom articles exist (most prominently, Dead Kennedys). Other returns from the search lead me to think that they are notable, although surely the article does not establish notability at this time. Thus, I think perhaps the best course of action is to tag for sourcing and cleanup, although I would certainly revisit a "delete" vote in the future were the article not improved (such lack of improvement would, I think, demonstrate non-notability). If the same user has recreated the article in the same fashion as that which previously has been deleted, I would think it would be appropriate to suggest to the user on his/her user page that such recreations are disfavored where the resulting articles don't represent improvements over articles that have already failed to survive AfD. Joe 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per Joe. Note that this has been speedily deleted twice already as nn-band. Sandstein 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Joe --TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete repost, Not yet notable, Joe's efforts are valiant, but Crystal-Ballish. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Sorry, they still fail WP:MUSIC. Just not yet notable. Nigelthefish 14:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article makes a decent case for minimal notability, and the "99.9% of notable bands already have articles" is spuriously self-proving -- it justifies rejecting any band. And it's pretty clearly wrong -- there was a writeup on lesser-known Grammy nominees in the NYTimes recently, and several of them didn't have articles, even though a Grammy nomination clearly establishes notability in the field. Monicasdude 14:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it'll be hard to find relevant WP:MUSIC references for a band 20 years old, but they did get a feature in Bay Area Music, and that seals it enough for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There are many books that have articles about the Mutants and many publications from Re/Search.Search & Destroy Volume I;Issues 1-6; Search & Destroy Volume II Issues 7-11; PUNK '77: an Inside Look at the San Francisco Rock 'N' Roll Scene, 1977 X-capees: James Stark, A San Francisco punk photo documentary,X-Capees Press; 2nd rev. ed edition (1980). The September 1979 New York Rocker proclaimed "The Mutants are the most polular band in San Francisco." They are listed in List of musicians in the first wave of punk musicRetrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_first_wave_of_punk_music" and other wikipedia articles about San Francisco Punk Rock. They headlined at CBGBs in New York, considered a major punk rock venue. They have put out at least two records on 415 Records and are included on compilations with many bands that do have pages on wikipedia. Actually, many bands that are on wikipedia opened for the Mutants when the Mutants were the headline band (i.e. The Dead Kennedys). A feature length documentary is about to be released about the Mutants, produced by Dirk Dirksen ( of Mabuhay_Gardens fame). A photograph of the Mutants is currently on the cover of Punk Globe magazine: http://punkglobe.com/. And was also on the cover of Damage Magazine: http://www.sfmutants.com/damagecover.html. The Mutants were featured in films: Rick Schmidt's Emerald Cities (90 min., Color, © 1983), Faster, Louder, Shorter directed by Mindaugis Bagdon and in numerous videos by Target Video (Joe Rees). They have been interviewed throughout the nation on radio and television shows including the Uncle Floyd Floyd Vivino Show in New Jersey.
  • Keep Peter G Werner 09:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Keep but Move to The Mutants (band) Peter G Werner 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Keep. I was involved in the San Francisco punk scene in the early 1980s and remember The Mutants as a notable band, within a milieu that's now considered historically important. The statement by Delete voters that the band is "not yet important" is in error - the band is historically important, though less well-known today. The article itself needs work. -- I do feel, however, that unless there's another notable band in another city called "The Mutants" that the name of this article should be "The Mutants (band)" rather than "The Mutants (San Francisco)". Brazilain band Os Mutantes wouldn't count in this regard, as they never used an English translation of their name.[reply]
I checked up on other bands using the name The Mutants. It turns out that there is a Detroit band called The Mutants, active in the same era as the SF Mutants. The Detroit Mutants have an album and a website and are somewhat notable. Anyway, to avoid confusion, the title "The Mutants (San Francisco)" should be kept. Some sort of disambiguation should be written into the beginning of the article stating that The Mutants from San Francisco are different from The Mutants from Detroit. -- Peter G Werner 04:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MUSIC should imho be aimed at vanity articles by no-name bedroom DJs and unsigned bands, not bands who achieved historical importance in genres of old. In such cases record sales don't matter one jot. --kingboyk 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Mutuants were one of the most important punk rock bands of the late 70s and early 80s They were kind of a west coast B52s. They palyed along with the Nuns, Avenges, Dils, and many of the art punk bands of the early punk rock scene in Northern California. They are in the Louder Faster Shorter video and numerours articles had been written about them. Their influance has been felt by a generations of bands. —This unsigned comment was added by User:69.226.108.63
  • Comment: Keeping in mind I was not the person who first called for deletion of this article - I just followed procedure by starting an AfD on a challenged {{prod}} - but I am happy for this article to stay. It needs some work, and I like the move proposed by Peter Werner above, but the article has potential and plenty of sources to work from. Harro5 05:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've just cleaned up this article a great deal. Peter G Werner 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peaberry Coffee

edit

I added the proposed deletion tag, but the page's creator removed it and so I'm bringing it here. Inasmuch as I think it's a close call, I'm not voting yet (though I may), but I wanted to see if others concurred in the conclusion that this is likely a non-notable business, consistent with WP:CORP. According to this, the business has recently sold a good portion of its locations, but, according to this, the company continues to maintain an online presence (in addition to its eighteen stores) and has product sold in several supermarkets for which we have articles (e.g., Albertson's). Joe 04:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasDeleted in mid-AfD {{deletedpage}} tag placed on page due to 13 recreation attempts.  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Gai

edit

Delete - Vanity article, with an unverifiable assertion of notability (Oreo stacking). Seems to fail WP:BIO Blue520 04:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow That was quick.--Blue520 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was quick? NTK 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The time between me finishing the AfD and the posting of your comment, it must have been less than 30 seconds.--Blue520 05:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raskals

edit

Totally non-noteable. I can't find anything about this brand on google. "Styles for Juveniles," the slogan of the company, produces two related hits on google, one of wikipedia and the other of answers.com. Obviously an advertisment, and hopelessly POV. Descendall 05:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 in mid-AfD  (aeropagitica)  07:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo stacking

edit

Exists only to link to a nonsense atricle currently under AfD. Descendall 05:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh, you're right, but it actually started out as something other than a re-direct. I don't know if I should actually take it off of here and put it on there, or just leave it on here (where it will undoubtably be deleted). If it should be moved, let me know or go ahead and do it. --Descendall 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This definitely could be speedied as lacking any real content (perhaps we should have an article on Oreo stacking, inasmuch, IIRC, as the company does sponsor stacking competitions at various grocery stores, but surely this page isn't it). As to nominating on WP:RfD instead, TBC is perhaps correct, though the page as presently constituted isn't technically a redirect. Joe 05:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sergiacomi

edit

Non-notable, unverifiable, probably original research if not vanity. Claims "He is a local celebrity in the town of Bundaberg and is idolised by many young bass guitarists and by charity organisations alike." See also Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions#Daniel_Sergiacomi Melchoir 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Worfolk

edit

Delete Biography, asserts minor notability but seems to fail WP:BIO. Blue520 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wootability

edit

At an Alexa rank of 3,210,620, I don't even think we can begin to talk about WP:WEB. Daniel Case 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Damn CE, always messing things up... - CorbinSimpson 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technosigner

edit

Apparent neologism, six Google hits. Also, text is lifted straight from the first Google result for technosigner.com, to which one Richard Joffray contributes. He is the likely author of this article as User:Rjoffray, so it looks like an advert as well. Sandstein 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic spells in Charmed

edit

Delete, complete Fancruft, very much useless and possibly a copyvio (although not likely) Ned Scott 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual IT Solution

edit

Non-notable company, advertisement, fails WP:CORP, only 125 Google results [34], founded recently in 2006 --TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not SPAM, we are really contributing to Managed Service Providers on Wikipedia, as it's an up and coming sector of the IT Market. Im sure you've heard of an Application Service Provider (ASP) or Internet Service Provider (ISP), this market is booming and we want to contribute to the definition of what exactly an MSP does and has to offer. VirtualITSolution 12:26, 23 March 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. If and when some information from reliable sources surfaces, this decision can be revisited. brenneman{L} 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gangfurd

edit

Unsourced (WP:V), has 37 Google hits, none of which are pertinent (forum usernames, etc.). Sandstein 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Merge with Stirling. Feezo (Talk) 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

retracting my vote for now to make a good faith effort to find an article this could be merged to. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be a hoax. Granted, it wouldn't get many relevant ghits if it was real, but probably more than 0. Grandmasterka 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this article. This article is not a hoax. The last edit may have included a bit of frustration on my part with the comments left by the first critic. I can see by your comments that an article only has merit if it receives a certain minimum number of hits on Google. Very scholarly approach. The rest seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the posts of others. The same scholarly search conducted using "gang forward" would produce a significant number of hits. I am a Stirling. The proper usage has been passed down through my family for generations. We are multi-lingual and we are not confined to an understanding of the world limited to Americanized English.Tijuca 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
This is all true, and I do feel bad about judging this article so quickly in light of your comment. But even with all that it's just a stub about a phrase. Maybe you could recommend an article it could be merged to, such as some sort of list of sayings or phrases. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you misunderstand my nomination. The article must not go because it does not receive a certain minimum number of hits on Google. It must go because it is unsourced. Being invisible on Google is just a quick-and-dirty indication for made-up stuff (of which Wikipedia unfortunately receives a lot). Consequently, as per Weregerbil infra, I would oppose a merge as well unless it is verified that "Gangfurd" indeed means "gang forward" and is the Scots version of the Stirling motto. Sandstein 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe transfer

edit

Unverifiable. It's been an orphan for months; I found it via good ol' Special:Random. There will never be a reliable source for this nonsense. Melchoir 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 all as copyvios, without prejudice against recreation using original/GFDL material —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:28Z

The Cricket (La Cicala)

edit

Copyright violations by User:Derbent 5000 Descendall 05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I also include:[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio (without prejudice against non-copyvio recreation) —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:54Z

The Divine Nymph

edit

Copyright violation from imdb.com Descendall 06:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Then it should be speedied, marked as such. Makemi 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life of a Tennis Ball (film)

edit

This is a non-notable film. You may notice a number of ghits for a similar title, however it seems that there have been many unnoteworthy student films about the life of a tennis ball. Prodded—de-prodded—re-prodded by anon—AFD'd by me, Delete Makemi 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet there have been others. Makemi 06:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somewhere I agree with the below [above] comment: "WTF makes something "notable" to YOUR standards?" One advantage of Wikipedia is the ability to contain many times more articles than other forms of encyclopediae. Each article could have a "non-notable" flag, and viewer's could set a preference to filter these out (which could be the default). There's still discrimination in this case, but it's just categorization & not censorship. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.19.246.232 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Perhaps there is merit in this proposal from an anon editor (although of course there are practical concerns), but surely this AfD is not the place at which to have the discussion. Such a discussion would require the participation of the community writ large, and it would be wholly untoward of six or seven people to remake policy on at a single AfD discussion. Joe 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:37Z

Overlord 1975

edit

Copyright violation from imdb.com User:Derbent 5000 is literally adding copyrighted info and removing AfD tags faster than I can correct them. Descendall 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Commander Keane 07:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attilas '74,

edit

Copyright violation from Amazon.com, poorly named article Descendall 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malawaina

edit

Seems to be a hoax article, found few goole results [35], none of which are relevant --TBC ??? ??? ??? 06:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Important C'est D'aimer

edit

Page was blanked by sole editor. Restored it to this version, which is a copyvio. Descendall 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 07:37Z

L'Important c'est d'aimer

edit

This article, with different capitalization, is already under AfD for copyvio by User:Derbent 5000. Descendall 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Kumquat

edit

Nonsense, or perhaps a poorly conceived hoax: an unlikely name (with no apparent Google results), a given birthdate of April 1st, and overall silly content. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore casual

edit

Neologism, possibly taken from Gamespot's forums (as the article uses terminology commonly seen only on Gamespot). --TBC ??? ??? ??? 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Settimo Accardi

edit

Not sure if I'm on to something or not, but Google only picks up Wikipedia and mirrors.[36] Looks non-notable to me?

  • JackOLantern,
While I make every attempt to include external links, the vast majority of contributions have almost no online references. I don't believe Wikipedia policy establishes notibility based on Google hits (which, in my own opinion, seems questionable particluarly when credible sources are included). However, I have added additional sources and clarified the subjects notibility. Although I do understand your consern, the vast majority of my contributions recieve minimal Google hits and it would certainly seem a shame to delete the countless articles I've compiled based on that fact. Unfortunatly, several of my articles have been nominated for deletion from time to time on the same grounds. I have proposed the WikiProject Organized crime in an attempt for more knowlegable Wikipedians to determine the notibility of what is at times an otherwise disputed subject, although it hasn't had much support. If there is anyway I can more clearly establish his notibility I would certainly appreciate any suggestions. MadMax 21:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have nominated this in the first place. I mostly just wanted to see what other people thought as to the notability of it. JackO'Lantern 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a problem, and it admittedly could have used some cleaning up. Besides it gave a chance to plug the Organized crime project. ;-) Thanks for letting me know. MadMax 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - in reference to the Organized crime project comment - no publicity is bad publicity, I guess. :) JackO'Lantern 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.kalanath Mishra

edit

Delete as non-notable. 14 hits on Google[39], out of which about five are from TutorGig or The Free Encyclopedia(which use wikipedia content). Others include comments on websites/guestbook comments [40][41], photos submitted by the author himself etc. I've already userified the article. utcursch | talk 07:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 19:36Z

Softasking

edit

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Looks like WP:SPAM as well. Their website doesn't seem to give off "company in existence since 1992" either. As a term, it gets 8 hits. Delete. Kinu t/c 07:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Techno scenes

edit

Seems to be original research --TBC ??? ??? ??? 08:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a non-notable bio and waste of afd space. — Mar. 22, '06 [08:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Aldo Comi

edit

Vanity page in the article space. S.K. 08:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 disambig page. W.marsh 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conky

edit

Delete — Hand puppet from Trailer Park Boys. Keep as disambiguation page. Feezo (Talk) 08:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambiguation then? Feezo (Talk) 11:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean towards a disambiguation page as well, since my gut reaction to "Conky" was the robot on Pee-wee's Playhouse. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, change vote to "disambig" then, since there seem to be more other notable uses of the word than I first thought. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 04:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went ahead and converted it. Feezo (Talk) 09:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (userfied), since author of article agrees —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-25 23:02Z

Wolfrum, Stefan M.

edit

Biography, notable? Article author, User:Stefan.wolfrum, disputes notability concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 08:57Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh(talk) 05:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reform of the political divisions of China

edit

DELETE Suggestions of reform based on vague pronouncements off internet messageboards? Wowee! That certainly warrants mention in an encyclopedia! Or not. Typos 09:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waspsi

edit

there is no information in the article except for the name of the society. I suspect that the society does not exist any more, because google finds several links to discussion pages which only exists in google's cache. Austrian 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 hoax. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dauth

edit

Likely hoax, and even if a true person, non-notable. Zero google hits. Ian ≡ talk 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy deleted by Royboycrashfan as WP:CSD A1 (Liberatore, 2006). 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is really poorly written and could even be made up. No sources, no plausible wikification, no real content. Black-Velvet 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual presence

edit

Dictionary definition. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 01:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia romania

edit

Added by the organisation itself or copyvio. Considered redirect to Indymedia but there are no other regional Indymedia redirects or articles, and there is too much content to merge. Badly-formed title doesn't help either, but might still work for a redirect. Canley 10:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 biography. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McCormick

edit

Non-notable musician. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article also appears to be self-written. The name of the user who created it is the same as the email address provided on his website. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasselhoffed

edit

Delete. This article was created by the same people who made the website Hasselhoffed. Seems they just want to try and start some internet fad. Furpee 11:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston McAfee

edit

This appears to be a vanity article. The only edits to the article have been by a user Prestonmcafee of the same name as the article (except a recent bot AWB edit) during December 17-18. The initial edit even has the summary "a self-description". The content of the article reads like a resume or autobiography. The user has also only made edits to Wikipedia during those two days. I left a message on the user's talk page two months ago about this article and have not received any response. Although the topic of the article is a professor, I do not believe there is much notability in it (at least currently). Spoon! 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy Article subject may have some claim to notability, but the autobiographical nature of the article makes it a userpage entry IMO. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (perhaps speedy userfy?), this is a self-admitted autobiography. JIP | Talk 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, per above. PJM 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Obviously notable as published author and recognized expert in field, 50K or so Google hits -- and more than 1600 Google Scholar hits, holds an endowed chair at a quite major university. And you propose deleting the article because he didn't answer the note you put on his talk page? I can't begin to describe what a bad idea this is without saying things that people would describe as civility violations, but Wikipedians ought to get down on their knees and be thankful that somebody like McAfee even bothers with this project. Monicasdude 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, NPOV: Notable, but we can't just let an autobiography slide. What part of this is self-promotion, and what is encyclopedic? This page needs attention, but it also needs to be here. Alba 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though clean-up --TBC ??? ??? ??? 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!! I am very familiar with McAfee's work... I read the article thoroughly and if anything it errs on the modest side. The PCS spectrum auction netted billions of dollars, etc., but none of this is mentioned in self-aggrandizement. The subject is certainly a very notable economist and removing the article would detract from the quality of Wikipedia. Also, everything is documented and verifiable. -- Wilanthule 03:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Required Navigation Performance

edit

Delete. Doesn't really seem to be enough subject for an article. Maybe transfer to Wiktionary? Wickethewok 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as technical dicdef, probably unsuited to Wiktionary. Sandstein 13:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per changes and discussion below. Sandstein 18:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a dicdef right now, but RNP is an important new airline precision landing/navigation technique. It's essentially the new replacement for Instrument Landing System for high precision approaches. It's gotten several mentions in Aviation Week & Space Technology in the last few months. You clearly can't tell any of this from the existing article, but someone should upgrade it rather than nuke it. If it survives AfD, I'll work on it in my spare cycles. If not, I'll see about building it in a sandbox and then recreating with adequate content once it's ready to go. Georgewilliamherbert 23:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Angr (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Slim

edit

Delete Unverified drink. Seems made up. Perhaps not notable. Thanks for providing refs. Still a little dubious. Can you get another reference? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that one reference (plus derivatives from it) is all I can find. Sliggy 18:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Non-verifiable. I just don't know if it is a hoax or not. Shame if it is as pesticide and Gin sounds like such a good drink. Hope some one can provide a reliable source for it.--Blue520 13:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the additon of reference.--Blue520 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel rachel

edit

An article about a musician that fails to provide verifiable sources demonstrating that he meets the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. The principal claim to notability is a "self-financed" album, and two "limited edition" singles. Allmusic.com has no entry. A google search turns up references, but I couldn't pin down a reliable source. Although some reviews on his web site appear significant/noteworthy I cannot get the links to work, nor can I locate the original article(s). He's clearly an active musician, but there's nothing in the article to meet the notability guidelines. In the absence of clear, reliable and verifiable sources, delete. Sliggy 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex richards

edit

delete - non-notable bio UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hall

edit

Looks like a vanity article to me. Only 21 and not found on a Google search. Necrothesp 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, non-notable biography. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wyatt

edit

Delete: Non-notable. The article even admits he is not particularly well-known. Crystallina 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 reverted version. W.marsh 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me & You

edit

Delete. Couldn't find a group by this name. In previous revs, the article contradicts itself, more than once. --Soumyasch 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. I originally said "delete," but looking at the history, this article was originally a legitimate article about an album by Lindsay Hartley, (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_&_You&direction=next&oldid=42812468) and was vandalized and completely replaced by this promo for an unknown group. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_&_You&direction=next&oldid=44578839). Would it be breaking some rule to just revert it back to the original article? Because I would like to. This is vandalism that wasn't caught when it happened. Carlo 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no rule against it at all. Go right ahead. If you don't know how to close this, drop me a message when you're done. Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeans Revolution, Denim Revolution

edit

Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make the news. This term is a very non-notable neologism, and the contents of the article only a matter of speculation among Wikipedia users about an ongoing demonstration in Minsk following the March 19 Belarusian presidential election. As far as I can tell, the term traces its way back to an article by Independent reporter Andrew Osborn. [50] The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." [51] 172 | Talk 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I added a reference to the original event that gave rise to the term (and Rusian/belarusian terms, for google search). I am sorry I didn't do it earlier. I did not expect that the article will be contested. mikka (t) 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Belarus election riots gets many thousands of ghits, this gets about 500. It looks very much as if either the term has not yet made it into the English language media, or it's a localised neologism. No dispute that the riots took place, but we have not yet seen much in the way of credible evidence that this is what they are generally called. Articles which are "useful to counter speculation" almost invariably violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT (a soapbox). If Mikka can show credible evidence that this is the most widely used term for these events, I will change my vote. Just zis Guy you know? 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not reading carefully. The term is not confined to "these events", if you mean the post-election rallies. In fact, this part of the article must be severely trimmed (done). Also you are forgetting that English language does not rule the whole world. this term is notable locally in Belarus; even Belarus President uses it in his speeches bashing the opposition. Wikipedia is not only for American porn stars, you know. As for English language media, they prefer the term "denim revolution", which is related with this idiotic fixation on "color revolutions" and loses all associations with the word jeans in Russian/Belarusian culture. mikka (t) 18:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. mikka knows what he is talking about. So does ABC News, The Times, Amnesty International, The Economist, etc. -- JJay 21:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:172 wrote: The speculation of a single reporter, and perhaps a handful of other commentators, however, does not make an encyclopedia topic. Based on a search for the term on Yahoo News, not a single media outlet is even mentioning the "Jeans Revolution," let alone referring to the event itself as the "Jeans Revolution." The term is being widely used in the Polish traditional and online press. Here are some links to Polish news pages using the dzinsowa rewolucja, which means jeans revolution about the preparations leading up to the present protests and the protests themselves. Since Belarusian, Russian and Polish press are all using the term, the usage or lack of usage in the English-language media is not a problem for the English-language encyclopedia - there are plenty of things not widely reported in English-language media, but nevertheless factual and verifiable (e.g. by contact with others) to English-only-speaking people. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jeans Revolution, whatever it may turn into, is distinct from the presidential election. If there is too much overlapping material, then the parts more related to the election itself should go to the election page, and the parts more related to an ongoing process - about self-organising political processes self-identified under the name Jeans Revolution - on the J.R. page. Boud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the media coverage, I'm frankly shocked there's this much debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mikka's points are well taken. I can't read Polish, so I have not been able to follow coverage of the protest in Poland. Still, this is the English language Wikipedia. It concerns me that English-language media outlets are still not using the term. [53] I still think the contents should be merged with Belarusian presidential election, 2006 rather than be contained in the self-standing entry on a neologism. 172 | Talk 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • English Wikipedia does not mean English-centric Wikipedia. If something outside the sphere of the english-speaking world is notable, it should always be included. (It can be verified by people who know the language in which it's usually written about.) But I agree with you somewhat: If it is indeed as widely reported as claimed, it should probably be merged into Belarusian presidential election, 2006. Grandmasterka 07:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have orange revolution, rose revolutions, banana revolutions - why not a jeans revolution? The term "revolution" is pretty cheap nowadays. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Dont merge, dont delete! The term has been in use well before the elections, and has been used by Zubr and other opposition groups to describe their aims. I know Amnesty International and several other HUman Rights groups use the term, I'll see if I can dig up some good references. But please, dont delete, and dont merge with a semi-appropriate article. It's distinct enough. Besides, who knows, if might succeed and we'd be sorry to have deleted it! :-) Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a forum for human rights groups and other advocacy groups, even if the cause is a good one. No matter how much some Wikipedia users want to promote a "Jeans Revolution," the term is still a neologism. A good standard for determining whether a term is a neologism or a real movement recognized by the zeitgeist of the English-speaking world is checking to see whether or not the New York Times has mentioned the term. So far, the Times, along with just about all other major media outlets in the English-speaking world, has not used the term. [54] Let's please resist the temptation to make the news. 172 | Talk 08:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha! Read WP:BIAS. The English-speaking world is not the benchmark for what should be included in a Wikipedia! :-) I think we agree on most points, but please, dont pretend that people citing HR groups are POV pushers for that agenda. Notable HR groups as Amnesty International or HRW are also simply sources for notability of such a term, just like you cite the Times. For arguments sake, if the term is widely used in German, Polish, Belarusian and Russian media, but not in English media, would it be notable enough? My answer would be hell yes. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 09:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When it comes to naming, the English-speaking world is indeed the benchmark for naming of articles on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions lays out a set of guidelines under which "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Thus, I would still prefer to redirect the article to a page like 2006 Belarusian post-election protest while the term "Jeans Revolution" is establishing itself in the English-language media. Regarding your point on human rights groups, I think that overall news agencies striving for objectivity are better guides for naming than activist groups, although material from human rights groups certainly ought to be cited. 172 | Talk 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your mixing up two questions. Question one is whether this subject should have its own article. My answer would be yes. Question two is what this article should be called. Jeans revolution seems uncommon as of yet in English media (though not elsewhere). We could rename it to say, Jeans Campaign (as used in this Commission hearing). Still, the term may be much more neutral, but is used even less in both English and non-English sources, so I'm not sure if its a good idea. Still, just because the name may not be notable, does not mean the topic is not notable. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 07:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Mikka and JJay the subject is very notable. If you search for "джинсовая революция" (best not in google but in a Russian language search engine, e.g. yandex.ru) you'll also find a lot. As pointed out by Boud there are a lot of articles in Polish, also. Ben T/C 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment As Mikka points out, since the Belarusian, Russian and Polish press all using the term to a certain extent, I am downgrading my opposition to this article. Nevertheless, I still hope that this AfD nomination serves to provide a caution to Wikipedia editors that the subject is a neologism, and clearly not at this stage a topic that, say, a historian can classify as a real "revolution." 172 | Talk 08:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That these events occurred is not in dispute. What is lacking is verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this is the name by which they are usually called. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As any historian will tell you, the naming of events is central to the interpretation of the events being named. And naming is often very political. Americans, for example, are very familiar with the dispute over the naming of the American Civil War (aka the "War of Northern Agression" or the "War Between the States"). Regarding the topic of this article, while no one can deny that there is currently a demonstration in Minsk against the outcome of the election, the idea of a "Jeans Revolution" may be a mere slogan, and not a real "revolution." Currently there are only around 700 demonstrators in Minsk. The protest has been dwindling since Sunday. Since then, each evening has seen a progressively smaller gathering -- 5,000 on Monday, 3,000 to 4,000 on Tuesday. The hardcore group spending the whole night outside however rose from 300 to 1,000 on Tuesday. [55] So Lukashenko might be able to ride this protest out. (Personally, I hope not. But I'd bet on that.) At any rate, there is certainly room for disagreement on the question of whether or not the events taking place in Belarus are a "revolution." 172 | Talk 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is completely factual, it displays a NPOV, and just because it involves a current event, it does not mean it's "making the news" - you could say that about any article on Wikipedia that involves a current event. UKWiki 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm tempering my opposition to the article. Nevertheless, there are still some real concerns here. Reporting a current event is not the problem per se. Naming and framing the scene of a current event are huge issues in interpretation, which are of concern to an encyclopedia striving to be written from a "neutral point of view." 172 | Talk 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 172, you and me are on the same wave here. Let me repeat that it was me who nominated the previous version of this article for deletion, because it was really preposterious in 2005: it was not at all sure that this neologism would survive. Please pay attention: the term is not about a single "current event": the word "revolution" is kind of misleading here. Initially this guy with denim shirt in the air suggested the term "jeans resistance", which would have been more correct. But the "peer pressure" (to say it politely) replaced it by "revolution", which is definitely way above the heads of belarussian opposition. Still, after the recent events the term generated enough buzz to warrant an article. mikka (t) 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your point. You've helped to clarify the issue. By keeping the subject of the article focused on the term, as opposed to the "current event," you've gotten the subject out of problem territory. Thanks for making this clarification. 172 | Talk 18:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest this be closed per WP:SNOW. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOW is thankfully not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unfamiliar with that "clause." I guess someone could argue that it is a corollary of "ignore all rules" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," which are established policies. At any rate, I'll let other editors hash out that debate. Nightstallion is correct that the nomination doesn't have "a snowball's chance." Nevertheless, in this case, the discussion stemming from the AfD discussion here is helpful and relevant. While I've started to agree with Mikka's point that the term has "generated enough buzz to warrant an article," the boundaries of the subject in an article on a neologism are often very murky. For now the AfD has been serving to help us clarify them. 172 | Talk 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. bogdan 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --DDima (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First step, keep Denim Revolution only as an article about the global fashion revolution about the rise of the denims and jeans wearing culture in the world, which BTW, is the more notable and encyclopedic "revolution". Second step, move this article to Cornflower Revolution, and continue the debate there to avoid confusing readers. In local poetry, the Cornflower is the national symbol of that country alluded to by the protesters, not denims. Please be cautious on relying on political commentators alone, for obvious reasons. Finally, there is no revolution unless the regime is actually toppled, which has not occured. (whether you are expecting it or not) I agree 100% that Wikipedia does not make the news, it only writes verifiably the notable events that reporters write about. I believe these two steps would be an acceptable consensus for everybody. :) --Noypi380 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Jeans revolution" might not be popular in the English-language press, but "denim revolution" certainly has been picked up within the last week. Look it up. Korny O'Near 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a casual reader of news outside Wikipedia, I have heard this term used several times in print. It came into use well before this election week. I'm amazed we're even talking about this. Even assuming arguendo, which I do not, the standard for entries ain't that high. The only real question is should we should call it Denim Revolution? Huangdi 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mariah-Yulia 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This denim movement is definitely present, and it is not isolated to Belarus.

  • Keep Yes, this is what the revolution in Belarus is being called (though it was Cornflower before the elections). With the mounting protests in belarus taking place now, I have no doubt that this revolution attempt will go on for a little while. Plus, this is also notable, since this could be one of the first failed attempts of a color revolution after what happened in Georgia, Ukraine, Krygzistan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand content; merge or rename, if needed If the title is inappropriate or incorrect, the article's contents should not be deleted, but merely renamed (to, for example "2006 Protests in Belarus" or similar) or merged into an extant article. The contents of this article, while contentious (as is the on-going event), and in need of strong editing, fact-checking and NPOV-watching, deserve an entry. Thank you. --NightMonkey 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 centimetre. No consensus about whether that should exist, but this should not: all other articles on metric units use the European spelling. Content is now at centimetre, can be debated on Talk there if people feel so inclined, but no admin action required anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centimeter

edit

How notable are centimeters for Wikipedia to have an article on them? Would it be useful? If not, then this should be deleted. StarTrek 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Comment The article has been reduced to a redirect and then recreated at least 4 times now. It may make the most sense to make it a protected redirect. JoshuaZ 15:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've often seen this argued, but it isn't true. The SI system has seven "base units" and a system of prefixes to create further units from them. The base unit of length is the metre. The centi- is one of the standard SI prefixes, just as the milli- and kilo- are. So the centimetre is a perfectly valid SI unit. See [56]. Gwernol 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to policy we should use what the first contributor used. 64.192.107.242 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is pretty much a re-creation of the content which was originally at centimetre before it was merged and redirected in June last year (see history), that would be the European spelling. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Friends, what we have here is murkier than it looks. A Long Time Ago there were articles on centimetre and centimeter. Both were redirected to metre; centimetre was the older by a few monoths, but content was usually simila and was merged into metre before redirecting in June 2005 (if not before, if I fish around too much in the history I think I'll lose the wil to live). Both have been sporadically resurrected since, and the content of both is pretty similar. Booking563 (talk · contribs) and 64.192.107.242 (talk · contribs) seem to be working on undoing the redirect this time. Part of what is going on seems to be some kind of low-level campaign to Americanise the spelling (which is odd, since the US mainly uses Imperial measures of distance). Anyway, there are as I see it two available and consistent alternatives here:
  1. Redirect to centimetre and resurrect the last non-redirect version of centimetre, which was not markedly different from what is here now
  2. Redirect to metre as centimetre currently does and this did until recently.
Either of these works for me. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should say: either of these works for me in a way that faffing aroun d with the spelling so we have one article on metric units with American English spelling does not. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the user's third edit on wikipedia. --Mmx1 04:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roswellbc

edit

Contested prod. Article about an unreleased game with pending beta release at some unknown future time. The tone of the text also makes the article appear as possible spam. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 talk 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WATB

edit

Slang dicdef. I proded it, creator deproded, has been taged for transwiki to Wiktionary, but i doubt it will pass their criteria Eivindt@c 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Allen3 talk 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be neologism --TBC ??? ??? ??? 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am an active editor and I use the Wikipedia as my first source for extraneous imformation. I see this term being referenced, search for it and the article doesn't exist. The search interface doesn't send you to the Wiktionary. I suspect that many people are looking for the meaning of this acronym at the moment as it is in heavy use at Eschaton and firedoglake, among many other places. When you try to find a term that doesn't exist in the Wikipedia the SUGGESTION is to START THE ARTICLE FOR IT YOURSELF. Done. Wouldn't we rather have a page come up where there was none? The Wikipedia is RIFE with neologisms... It's silly to delete something that serves a purpose once it is established in the Wikipedia. Must KEEP. --AStanhope 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:WINAD and nn protologism. Feel free to AfD those neologisms you mentioned too. Esquizombi 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, default to keep. Stifle 14:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-metrication

edit

This was on prod, but it seems controversial to me. There have been some POV issues, and perhaps there's no need for a separate "anti" article, but I think there needs to be a discussion on this. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original PROD deletion reason by me: No references, no evidence of notability or a coherent organisation; appears only to be presentation of personal POV, not an organisation in the wider world - that is, there's no evidence given in the article that it's actually anything other than a POV rant - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can't get rid of a whole movement, and the associated controversy, by just slapping an AfD on it. I think it's a bad idea to ever slap an AfD on a long article with lots of editors over a long period of time; those editors have said that it is in fact a good article.--Prosfilaes 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and cleanup, POV warring is not a justification for deletion, no matter how severe. That aside, the article does not cite its sources, so it needs some sources. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I marked this as PROD because there's no evidence even named in the article of an organisation. This article doesn't describe someone's attributed views at all - it's pretty much a POV rant arguing the issue itself. There's no article there. If there is, rewrite it to address the apparent lack of a reason for it to exist, don't keep it in the hope one might appear one day - David Gerard 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with a meteryardstick, this so-called article is an obvious POV fork of metrication, is completely unreferenced original research, heavily laden with crackpot theories, and is a rough equivalent of an open-source blog. I say this as a mile-per-gallon American, I might add. — Mar. 22, '06 [16:47] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete: I'm tempted to simply say "nn, delete", but since that is one of the AFD habits which annoys me most…this article completely fails to establish what it is actually about. There is nothing about the history of "Anti-metrication" or who espouses it, it is simply a rant against Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units. The fact that it also fails to cite any references is simply the icing on the cake. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woot. Total lack of sources, only anecdotal evidence, there are kilos of reasons to delete this. If there does exist a valid article somewhere under there, let it be presented to DRV once this one is gone. - brenneman{L} 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd happily withdraw my original nomination (does this count as my nom, as it was brought here as a contested PROD?) if they could just, uh, point me at an organization of this name. Or one doing such a job. That's notable enough to have third-party references. I don't ask much. Really - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you DELETE this article, you need to DELETE the METRICATION article also... Otherwise you are DEFINITELY biased in your POV. This article keeps being being re-written in a pro-metric biased POV (EXAMPLE: "because of perceived flaws in the metric system", tell me that's not biased! When the flaw exists in the Imperial system it's a flaw... When it exists in the metric system, it's perceived!?!?!) The fact of the matter is, any article dealing with this subject is going to be controversial and if Wikipedia deletes all controversial articles, then it's a pretty lame source of information. And it that's the case, I want to see Metric System, SI, and Metrication deleted also because they are all extremely biased! arfon 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) - KEEP - This whole argument is Assinine! This is an article descibing the Anti-metrifcation movement and it's reasons. It's assinine to expect anything BUT A anti-metric POV on it! It's a biased POV when you describe the movement and then add words to make people think that the movement is wrong and it's people are stupid. arfon 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article just needs cleanup. Seano1 17:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources cited; pure OR. It started off being biased original research: why a few editors think anti-metrication is silly. Then it became truly absurd original research: why one editor thinks anti-metrication is our only saviour against the Devil's Units. There is the potential for a good article here, if we had, say, a well-sourced description of the history of metrication and those silly people who opposed it — but this isn't it, and in any case there's no reason why it needs to be here and not as part of Metrication or, if necessary, a better-named spinoff. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep obviously needs several tags (cleanup, sources, POV etc.) but this article does capture a genuine set of arguments that those against metrification use. I wouldn't call it a "movement" because there is (AFAIK) no organized group with this agenda. Some record of these arguments is worth keeping in an encyclopedia. fuddlemark's (MarkGallagher's) suggestion of incorporating some of this material into an "Arguments against Metrification" section of the main Metrification article has merits and may be a good compromise. Gwernol 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can find anything resembling a verifiable third-party source for this stuff - 'cos at the moment it is actually a few individuals' ramblings - it would be most welcomed - David Gerard 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find references to the British "Metric Martyrs" who are metrification resisters: [57], [58], [59] etc. My personal POV is that these are loonies, but I think they do deserve coverage. The more I think about it the more I think merging this into the Metrification section makes sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwernol (talk • contribs)
  • Delete While I believe the movement itself may be notable (meaning: notable if cited) I don't think a POV fork of Metrication is called for here. Opposition to metrication is already discussed in that article. If the discussion in metrication is not sufficient, expand that rather than creating a new article. --Craig Stuntz 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a POV fork. The resistance to metrication is clearly an issue (though poorly described and completely unsourced here) that needs to be discussed within the Metrication article. Fan1967 18:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. Verified, NPOVed arguments can be merged to metrication but Merkin redneck arguments basically saying "I don't like anything from yer darn-tootin' ferrin Yoo-row-pean Communist countries" have to be deleted. JIP | Talk 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, I agree with you, but please avoid the over-generalization based on the occasional American Idiot. Most of us aren't cowboy rednecks, just like few Arabs are terrorists, none of the Jews that I know are involved in an international conspiracy, and most Finns are not---um---whatever the Finnish stereotype is. Oh yeah, delete, btw. youngamerican (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about that. But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry. I stand by my delete vote, though. As for Finnish stereotypes, the Swedes call us silent and impolite, the Estonians call us heavy drinkers, and everyone else calls us Nazis. JIP | Talk 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see where you are coming from. i am a bit sensitive on over-generalizations of America and the idea of collective responsibility for the mistakes of my leaders and/or dumb things said by the fringe. I get a little touchy since, when I lived in Europe, I had to spend about 2 hours a week defending myself from drunken accusations made by people that did not approve of NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia or the music of N'Sync. As for a reason for why I vote delete: pov fork, nn movement, and other reasons given. youngamerican (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, looks like a POV fork to me. I agree there's not enough salvagable content here, so delete or just turn it into a redirect to metrication. Friday (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK per the above votes. Sandstein 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOURCES HAVE BEEN ADDED - Lack of sources is no longer an excuse to delete. 207.200.54.134 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did not notice this vote until I saw it in the contributions list of arfon. I invite people to look at his/her contributions and those of the similar user 207.200.54.134. The metrication article still has plenty of room for more information and I do not think each article describing a process needs another describing an anti-process (whatever that might be). I am watching the comments and considering whether to vote to delete. In the meantime, please look at the edits being made to Metrication by those two user accounts. bobblewik 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Comment - I freely admit that I am both 207.200.54.134 and Arfon. I quite often forget to log in. Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. I bet if I went to Slashdot, I could scare up enough people to vote to shut down the whole wikipedia! 207.200.54.134 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) aka user:arfon[reply]
  • SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT - There is an article (version as of 19:47, 22 March 2006) which so far no one has shown any incorrect information in that people now want deleted because it deals with one-side of an argument and therefore has a POV!?!? arfon 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a case of having a POV. It's a case of being a POV. If you removed the POV stuff, you'd have nothing left. And, at the moment, the POV stuff is so absurd as to warrant nuking from orbit before anybody reads it and comes away with the impression that people who believe this stuff edit Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Damn straight this is an informative article. POV is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If this is a notable topic then there should be an article about it. Ashibaka tock 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, POV is a deletion issue when an article may be a POV fork. I don't think anyone is suggesting that opposition to metrication shouldn't be covered at all. To me the issue is where and how it should be covered. Can you think of a really good reason why opposition to metrication should not be in the metrication article? --Craig Stuntz 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV rant, original research, irreparably biased. Don't get me wrong: If this article was about the anti-metrication movement (if there is anything resembling an organized movement), and if it was written to provide information about the history of that movement, its supporters and opponents, their attempts to influence legislation, standards bodies, etc., it might be salvageable. Or it could describe how the transition to the metric system was accomplished across the world, to what extent this caused confusion, consumer price increases, etc. However, as it is, the article is at best a blatantly biased and incomplete comparison between the metric system and a narrow set of alternatives. Best to scrap it and start over somewhere else: I'd much rather see a properly sourced article on the history of metrication. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centikeep notable sillyness. Eivindt@c 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-iteration of this vote concept- Deleting FACTS should not be a vote, this should be a discussion as to the merits of the article. You guys are looking at an article that is about one side of an argument and then you get mad when your POV (e.g. "perceived flaws in the metric system") is corrected with facts. Now, you claim that an article about one side of an argument has a POV!?!?! OF COURSE IT DOES!! IT'S ABOUT A MOVEMENT ON ONE SIDE OF AN ARGUMENT!!!!!!! DUH!!!! 207.200.54.134 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (aka user:arfon)[reply]
    • You have utterly misunderstood WP:NPOV; in fact, you've misunderstood it more spectacularly than anybody before you. Well done. What you're proposing is called sympathetic point of view, and although there are projects out there that follow this idea (Google for Wikinfo), on Wikipedia it's anathema. Please go away and read WP:NPOV and don't return until you've understood it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may well be room for an NPOV on anti-metrication based on verifiable references. However, this is not it. We have articles based on various forms of political, religious and social points of view. This does not mean that they should either advocate or denigrate the subject of the article. Rather, they should aim to present the reader with information based on reliable sources and written from a neutal point of view. Delete unless rewritten to meet such standards. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIXED POV - Article now REPORTS (3rd person). Opening paragraph may be considered by some to have a POV but it is 100% FACTUAL, changing it will make it POV. arfon 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not 100% factual, and it is not completely sourced. The stuff about French wine, for example, reads like you've made it up ("could only be explained by"), as does "unit confusion" (a case of "many people believe" = "I believe", or WP:WEASEL). The sources themselves are very sad indeed; one of the best is an ABC Radio interview with an English teacher (!) who rattled off a few "facts" he heard somewhere. The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own. So: it is still biased, still original research, and still unlikely to be wholly factual (although nobody has argued for deletion on that particular criterion). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I followed the Metrication article to source it therefore, it's sourced the same way. If the sources are inadequate for this article, then it's just as innacurate for metrication and MANY other Wikipedia articles.
      • "It is not 100% factual" point out the errors, don't just make a broad statement and expect me to accept it.
        • The article states that the fact that French wine wasn't immediately switched from 720mL bottles to 1L bottles "can only be explained by" popular resistance to the Metric system (that the English once had a measure of a similar size is apparently relevant, although the article hints but won't say why). It also says that the bottles were later increased to 750mL, and includes all this "information" in a section about how Metrication inevitably causes traders to try to rip-off their customers ... by reducing the size of their measures. This not only fails the laugh test, but is self-contradictory besides. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • French Wine- This is wikipedia, a group effort, the French Wine information was written by someone else.
      • Unit Confusion- "reads like you've made it up" or not, the unit confusion information is one of the anti-metric arguments.
      • "The vast majority of sources (certainly every one I looked at) came from someone who was not themselves an expert, and who cited no sources of their own." So how do you become an expert in metrication? Is a PhD in Mertication required or will a Night-school certificate suffice?
      • 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, let's just say it's not by setting up a Tripod website transcribing rumours you think you may have heard down the pub, although the music was very loud, and you'd had a few of ... strewth, what'll we call these glasses once they outlaw pints? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with metrication and Redirect. Haikupoet 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. A totally new, completely rewritten article that neutrally reports published sources can be re-created without prejudice at any time. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge and redirect to metrification. There was a big push for metrification in the U.S. in the 1970s (which obviously failed,) but as far as I know (or can tell from this article or the metrification article) it didn't fail because of an equally organized movement on the other side. Thus, I see no need for this separate article. Grandmasterka 07:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current shape, it's a POV fork. bogdan 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The main points of this article could be turned into a single paragraph and put under Metrication#United_States. Pengo 11:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • So far many people have said that this should be deleted due to it having a POV but no one has specifically pointed out what parts are POV (and are not factual). What parts are POV and are not factual???? If POV is all that is required to get an article deleted, I call for the deletion of every article that mentions the metric system and the US (because they are all POV and full of crap!) 207.200.54.134 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article espouses a point of view (that is, it not only explains the side, but takes a side), is not why it's being discussed for deletion.
The fact that it exists separately from the Metrication article (apparently) so that it can use bias is. Even if the information is correct, that is also not the issue, but rather, it's verifiability. Information has to be backed by outside sources, not original conclusions. See WP:OR.
If other articles are biased, simply fix them. Don't complain about things you can fix yourself. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SO FAR, there has been many calls to DELETE this article and yet NOT ONCE has anyone, who has claimed that it's biased, pointed out one single instance of POV (let alone any that are untrue). Every claim for deletion just says POV without any examples... The "DELETE DUE TO POV" claims have included such descriptions as "it is simply a rant against (sic) Cro-magnon reactionaries who prefer old-style units" and contains comments like "But anyone, especially Americans, insulting the metric system makes me angry" which pretty much shows that the DELETE requests are coming from fairly baised people... arfon 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for merging it with Metrication, will just start this all over again when metric sympathetic people re-write the section and anti-metric people re-write it again. The claims of the section being POV will return. arfon 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?) is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. It wallows like a rowboat in a typhoon, and laughable POVs such as "Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other, creating mutual incomprehension between children and their parents. This could obviously assist the sort of cultural revolutions which accompany invasion, subjugation, the fall of monarchies or the breaking of ties with former colonial powers" suggest a full rewrite is necessary. Denni ☯ 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...whether metrication (or is that 'metrification'?)..." - The article was originally Anti-metriFIcation until an editor decided that Mertication was easier to locate in searches. The explanation is on the talk page. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "laughable POVs such as 'Another significant effect of metrication is that, on its introduction, it divides generations from each other..'" Believe it our not, I agree with you on that one! It is wrong, it seems to be the opposite. Old and Young (in Britian) tend to agree on anti-metrification (yes, I can provide a source). I'll go in and fix that part. (no, I wasn't the original author of that contribution). arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This article seems to have difficulty deciding whether... ...is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing..." -That's what happens when you go far a NPOV. arfon 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, add sources and revert to its former name: Metrication arguments and counter-arguments. The article has gone down-hill of late but it's not unsaveable. I believe it was a mistake to move it to Antimetrication: such a title invites POV. There is opposition to metrication which is worth documenting and there's enough to warrent a seperate article rather than merging back to Metrication. Jimp 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or barring that, Merge with Metrication. Anti-metrication movements have been significant in some countries undergoing metrication; anti-metrication arguments (if not an organized movement) have been particularly successful in the USA, considering that moves in the late 1970s for the US to go to the metric system have been completely derailed, making the US the only major country not to use metric measurement. —This unsigned comment was added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Although the article has issues, I think it's not beyond fixing. I also think this is probably too much to cover in Metrication--it looks like a POV fork now, but it would be acceptable as a content fork. Probably move back to old name per Jimp. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a little NPOVing and made some citation requests for statements that looked like they might be OR. Some of them might be supported by the references, but it needs footnotes or something so the reader knows where to look. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems sort of biased to have a whole article on metrification and not one on the counter. Seems like alot of people just don't like a differing opinion and want this article gone...Citizen1984 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is the first contribution to Wikipedia from Citizen1984 (talk · contribs). --Craig Stuntz 14:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's really not unfair, considering that Metrication has a section on opposition, and no one is advocating removing that. We don't have to have an article on anti-everything--it's usually more sensible to cover opposition in the main article, unless it's just too long. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second what Nickel Shoe says. Metrication is a significant process with enormous cultural, historical, scientific, technological, etc. importance. It therefore deserves an article. The opposition to it is also significant. The question is whether there is room in the main article to cover this opposition. It seems that there is not. Thus we have the article Anti-metrication (which, as I mention, would be better renamed). It's not a question of fairness because neither article should be taking sides. Jimp 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vbus

edit

Delete. This has got to be some kind of a joke. A software package to design cartoonish buses? My limited understanding of Polish allowed me to confirm that the article is not a hoax, but the software package it refers to may well be a hoax. Even if not a hoax, definitely NN. Lots of google hits, but none of the ones I've seen refer to this software. Prod was removed. I think there's some computer hardware piece called "vbus" - but I am totally clueless - perhaps someone can advise on a proper redirect here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StepOne

edit

Is a "drum'n'bass party" notable? I would tend to think no, but am not an expert. It does have a few Google hits, from discussion boards and such, but no news articles that I could find. So make this a Weak Delete vote. -- GRuban 15:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Strothra is a nerd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.226.121 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (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 keep. W.marsh 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mahmoud Hanifi

edit

Article about a seemingly run-of-the-mill college professor. Appears to fail the so-called professor test. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I'm sure he's a perfectly nice chap. But as of yet he's not a full professor and there is no indication of notability. — RJH 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — Thanks for the update of the article. Previous vote was based on content at time of nomination, which was non-notable IMO. :) — RJH 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- No problem, thanks for changing your vote.--Strothra 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep non-notable Updates to this article during its AfD discussion period have greatly improved its verifiability and provided sources that support notability. In particular the Gutenberg Prize is a major award in this field. I'm happy to change my vote to a keep. Gwernol 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Keep, article has been updated --TBC ??? ??? ??? 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many notable professors are not "full professors." By that comment I assume you to mean a "tenured professor." The academic market being so full of political and economic pressures has limited the number of tenured positions for professors. Also, it should be noted that Shah Hanifi's expertise is on Afghanistan and South Asian history, a subject for which there are only a handfull of American scholars. He was a student of professor Juan Cole at the University of Michigan. He serves on the executive board of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies centered at Duke University. For his ground-breaking work on inter-regional trade and colonial state formation in Afghanistan he won the 2004 E-Gutenberg Prize from the American Historical Association. The award is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Dr. Hanifi is also the Principal Investigator and Project Director for The Afghan Diaspora Remittance Project. Hanifi was selected for this prestigious position by Asian Development Bank. The project was developed to estimate the amount and forms of human and material capital infusions from the Afghan diaspora to Afghanistan, and propose mechanisms to more efficiently and effectively attach that capital to development opportunities in Afghanistan. This project is aiding in the development of not only the economic stability of Afghanistan but in reducing the funding of terrorist activities in that state. [62] [63] [64]--Strothra 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wikiepdia "professor test" is not directly linked to whether the person is tenured or not. It is part of the general Wikipedia notability policy. It is certainly possible that a case for notability can be made for Shah Mohmoud Hanifi, but you'll need to make it in the article using independent verifiable sources. If you can do this, I'd be happy to change my vote to Keep Gwernol 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much. This is certainly a work in progress. --Strothra 22:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol - Check the Honors and Awards section. Instead of immediately deleting a page, perhaps you should check it out on your own time to determine if it is bunk. It is obvious that Dr. Hanifi is important to his academic field as he is virtually the ONLY person who discusses Afghanistan. *Warnerhw

Comment You are need help with signing your name and editing your comments. Use that little blue tool bar above the edit box for stuff like your signature and making things bold. put a : to create an indentation and a * to create a bullet. --Strothra 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Test of Shah Mahmoud Hanifi: 

  1. The person is regarded as an expert in their area by independent sources. - PASS
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. - PASS
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). - FAIL
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work. - PASS
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. - PASS
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements. - PASS
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. - FAIL
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. - PASS
  • warnerhw
Comment I have replied to User:Warnerhw in detail on his talk page. For the record I am strongly considering a switch in my vote to Keep per Monicasdude and the recent improvements to the article. Gwernol 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reason follows that the very fact that an individual has a Ph.D. from a top tier university and one of the world's best programs in his field makes him an expert in his field. His work has been recognized my the AHA and international business institutions such as the Asian Development Bank. Further, he has given lectures at several Middle East Institute and MESA events at the request of those organizations. --Strothra 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Strothra. It sounds like you may be referring to the first criteria from WP:PROFTEST rather than the first caveat. Please check out the "Caveats" section on WP:PROFTEST to see what I am referring to. --Takeel 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. That is a good arguement but I don't feel that the professor is notable for only one connection to his work (the dissertation and the resulting award). His work, both academic and professional, is notable.
I have changed my assertation to merge to reflect the recent changes to the article. I don't believe that the gentleman is notable enough to warrant his own article at this time, but information about him would be good to have in an article related to his area of expertise. The text could also use some more work to bring it towards NPOV, which I would like to help with if it is merged or kept. --Takeel 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep Prof test, etc. JeffBurdges 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does indeed pass the prof test. Grandmasterka 08:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the test at WP:PROFTEST (still a proposed guideline, but does reflect significant consensus.) I think only in criterion 8, but still, that should be enough; an academic doesn't have to pass any criterion to be worth writing about. Mangojuice 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that Strothra has been engaging in some vote stacking... see this edit for evidence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. Strothra properly improved the article, resolved the notability question, and asked other editors to comment on whether his efforts were sufficient. This is entirely appropriate, and represents a positive contribution to the project. He should be applauded. You, on the other hand, slapped a deletion tag on article on an article whose main flaw was an imperfect assertion of notability, making no apparent effort to check on the accuracy of your non-notability claim or the verifiability of the assertion of notability. Now you're complaining because he's convinced other editors that you were wrong, and has brought together a consensus on the issue. Why do you think there's something wrong with that? You have, however, convinced me about who I should vote off this island . . . . Monicasdude 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are both approaching very bad territory that is in the neighborhood of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Takeel 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By your own standards, so are you. SchuminWeb's comments were plainly inappropriate, criticizing a user for making valuable contributions to this project. It's not a personal attack to describe conduct and note how it's out of conformity with applicable policy/guidelines. If it were, you should be slapping this note on every comment by every user who makes comments about "vanity," "self-promotion," and such. Monicasdude 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you Monicasdude for coming to my defense on this issue. I intended no such action of "vote stacking." The article was updated according to the criteria set forth in the discussion and I asked an editor to review their previous decision in light of new developments. No ill intentions were in that action and there nothing improper about it. I do not appreciate subtle personal attacks such as those being perpetrated by Schuminweb. As Monicasdude stated, there was little to no reason to put a deletion tag on this article in the first place. The proper action would have been to attempt to improve the article or request others to do further work on the article before attempting to delete it. I have elaborated on these points and Schuminweb's unwelcoming nature toward users attempting to contribute, in good gaith, to Wikipedia at User talk:SchuminWeb. --Strothra 03:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figjig

edit

Delete. This is just silly. UnKnown X 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. W.marsh 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill-Good

edit

No Vote but placing in AfD as NN bio. The article seemed to indicate that the subject is notable at first glance, but in looking closer, I questioned the subject's notability. First "Fresh out of college, Bill was a statistical analyst in New York with Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve."--Does that mean they worked in the same building? Mr. Greenspan is obviously notable, but does working with him "fresh out of college" make the subject notable? Secondly, "He later worked as a news reporter and editorial researcher for the publisher of Barron 's."...not Barron's itself, but the publisher of Barron's. I have also created the AfD nomination for Bill Good Marketing, which currently seems to indicate that the business itself is non-notable, so being the CEO of a non-notable company should not make the subject notable. I don't want to give the impression that I have an agenda with this, which is why I am not voting here, just putting this one up for debate. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Egm NGR

edit

The result of the debate was delete. The rules on verification are pretty important, and this isn't a vote. - brenneman{L} 12:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: How on Earth do you expect this Wiki article to grow if you keep attempting to destroy it every time it's started? These boards have started several internet known trends like the Brian Peppers doctorings. Lucavious

Non-notable web site; no Alexa rank, 35 google hits. De-proded without comment; article in furious nonsense edit war. Weregerbil 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 35 Google Hits? Where did that come from? Also, I have requested semi-protection to halt the edit war. -- Viewdrix 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a version of the article that is about the site. Weregerbil 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article has already beeen delited at least once in aprior incident, speedy delete please
Dear people wishing to delete this article. I decided to look at the Category Internet Forums to see exactly what was considered "notable" by your standards. And after reviewing that list of forums I have to say NGR is much more notable than half of those forums on that list, yet none of them are up for deletion. Necro 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To bulgogi*. Wikipedia is full of tons of interesting things. Did you know that in the year 2078 Soham murders killer Ian Huntley eligible for parole in this year. 1 Or how about the fact that Fahrenheit is a Thai rock band featuring a female lead vocalist 2 Interesting, right? Wikipedia is full of plenty uninteresting things. And iff you dont find it interesting all you have to do is NOT GO TO IT it's not that hard. Apparently this article is interesting to some people, or else it wouldnt be up.

Keep it: As Lucavious said here and Darknecro said in the article's discussion page, in a few days, the vandalism will be over and serious editers can be given a chance to add to it. I'm sure luca and Necro will be more than happy to contribute to the article. And if this is deleted, I suggest that the two keep any reincarnation of the page in the future a secret so that the douches from the board don't vandalize it to Hell.

In addition, Club-Siemens is an Internet forum with literally nothing important about it, but its marked as an article needing importance. Why not delete that than this, the home of the Brian Peppers Internetwide meme? OverlordChris 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is: Whether the reason for deletion is vandalism or non-notability, I believe this is worth keeping. As stated, many other pages for forums aren't as notable as EGM NGR, including low amounts of Google hits and not Alexa rankings, so if this were to be deleted, they should all be wiped clean as well. As for vandalism, once the Wikipedia article is established, the idea to deface it will lose appeal to members of the board, I know this for fact. Please also know that some users that dislike EGM NGR but post there to annoy are attempting to have this article removed for irritation factor to the board members who wish to develop a serious article, specifically Bulgogi [66], as well as another user who we don't know the Wiki username who is upset he was left off the suer list. -- Viewdrix 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the page being vandalized. The main person who is doing it has an IP of 198.69.109.3 I would grealy appreciate it if a moderator could atleast temporarily keep this user from editing articles. Necro 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. --Khoikhoi 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill with fire. It's like forumcruft ad libs: Generic off-topic forum came to be when everyone who actually wanted to talk about the site's subject kicked all the jokers and trolls off into their own junk forum. It has some not particularly funny joke thread, and has had administrator ever since ex-administrator entered into some particularly lame drama. Fads include some stuff that wasn't funny a year ago on SA/Fark/Slashdot, some insultingly basic internet slang, and ongoing joke making fun of rival forum. I don't see any reason we need yet another one of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP.This is getting old having users who know nothing about the history, origin, or relevance of this site already attempting to have the article removed. There are countless and pointless articles posted into Wikipedia which other users won't touch for the sake of losing face to ignorance. I suppose because YOU have not heard of these board automatically marks it for deletion because it isn't based on someone you don't know? Keep the article, get rid of the delete-happy Wiki users. Lucavious 09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struck your "keep" because you can't vote twice, but your commentary, of course, is still welcome. The best way to defend the article is by citing how it meets the consensually-approved guidelines at WP:WEB. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is for a forum inhabited by a bunch of 15-20 year olds who make poop/gay sex jokes to fuel their entertainment. It has no purpose on Wikipedia whatsoever, and it's members are just trying to be some sort of internet pioneers by having this article stay alive. Undoubtably they'll claim they're the first message board to ever be on wikipedia and hold that idea as some sort of sacred accomplishment for the community, as they do everything else that occurs there (See: Brian Peppers tomfoolery) Just delete it. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.60.215.134 (talk • contribs) .

  • I'd like to note that the 1UP boards in general ranks 2,751 on Alexa, and not without a ranking as suggested, Google results are more than 35, the number stated before, though it varies by search terms, and if we are to hold the same standards, including WP:WEB and Verifiability, that are being used as excuses to try and delete the article on EGM NGR, the following on the page are some of the articles which should be nominated for deletion. I skimmed through a quarter to fifth of the list at random and yet found a list consisting of:
TrekBBS
Nintendo NSider Forums
LUSENET
Avidgamers
Conforums
Actuarial Outpost
Cyberkwoon
Fanhome
FlyerTalk
Fucked Company
FutisForum
GamerPlug (already up for deletion)
GameFAQs message boards
HK Golden Forum
Hip Forums
MiceChat
Placeboforum (already up for deletion)
PlayNOW!
Tianya Club
Tapuz
Sons of Sam Horn
Yay Hooray

Yet I don't see any intense "waste of space" cries on deletion pages for these, all of them failing WP:WEB, and unverifiable or unvarified to an ignorant degree thus far. -- Viewdrix 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment arguing there are other articles on Wikipedia that fail the same test that this one does is a very poor argument for keeping this one. You are encouraged to list these articles on AfD if you feel they do not meet WP:WEB. Gwernol 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list was merely expressing my wonder in why this article has been singled out. Perhaps because it hasn't grown to give itself a false sense of justification that seems to pass unquestioned for other articles. Nonetheless, my points of the Alex rank and Google Hits are unaffected either way. -- Viewdrix 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThere is probably an interesting, deep history of this board to be told, but it is COMPLETELY non-encyclopedic! I suggest a member of the 1up EGM Messageboards installs MediaWiki on his/her website so this community can revel in its localized in-jokes, references, and trends, because the content of this article has no relevance to anyone else beyond the tiny community. I should also note that I am a member of the 1up community, albeit a one who rarely posts. As for other forums with wikis that are as or less notable than this one, they should be deleted too -- point them out, and we'll get rid of them. THe only forum with a wiki article I can think of is the Gaming Age Forums, which receives far more posts, visitors, and respect; it has a number of notable industry and media posters and regularly influences the videogaming media. If the 1up EGM NGR (Non gaming related, ahem) rival other forums, with wiki articles, in terms of influence, visitors, and prominence in the online community, I would not want this article deleted.

edit: perhaps the EGM boards could receive mention in the main EGM article as a sub-entry. It's a stretch, but that's as close to wikipedia as I'd want them coming.

edit2: EGM NGR already has a place for their history and other self-important articles: http://egmngr.com/. There's absolutely no reason for this article to exist. Please speedy/permanent delete for the last time (this article was created and deleted before).--Senseiireland 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a fair statement at all. Just because a website has a History section, does that mean it automatically should be deleted from Wikipedia? No. The WEB pages of Wikipedia aren't reserved solely for websites that don't have their own History pages or such for visitors. -- Viewdrix 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry if I wasn't clear, but earlier in my post I suggested they create their own website built on the wikipedia software since this wasn't encyclopedia-worthy, although I could see how the history of their small board could mean something to them (everything to them, nothing to us). When I discovered that they already did have a place for vanity articles, I wondered aloud why this page existed in the first place. Is that more clear?--Senseiireland 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page was on big-boards's list, it would be ranked 1332 out of 1600 messageboards: http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=all

--Senseiireland 03:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windfinder.com

edit

Delete - prod tag removed without explanation. Alexa ranks ~53,000, NN website. Spam/corporate vanity. Wickethewok 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dress Up Shows

edit

Created by User:Bwhittington, who also created a vanity page about himself that's been speedied (now protected against re-creation). I think that this person probably doesn't realize that they're falling afoul of Wikipedia's policies on vanity and advertising, which is unfortunate. But regardless, this particular article is basically a blurb about his business putting on childrens' shows in Houston. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete the stupid thing. It hardly matters. I personally don't see the bias of the article and would find it valuable for all theater and art organizations to have similar listings. But delete the thing and be done with it, sparing us further high-horse histrionics from the likes of Katefan0. Delete. User:Bwhittington
I've been quite nice, I think. Unlike things like this [67]. But the point isn't that the article is biased. It's that your company isn't notable enough, in my opinion, for an article at an encyclopedia, making it basically advertising, which isn't appropriate here. That's all. Of course, others may disagree -- that's the great thing about the Wikipedia community. At any rate, I meant no offense, as I took pains to convey on your userpage. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alluvian

edit

I had listed this as a G1 speedy (patent nonsense), but the page's creator removed the tag without comment. As such, I'm listing it here. It seems to be a summary of some sort of pseudoscience, possibly an alternative medical treatment. Zero google hits for (alluvian "electromagnetic color spectrum"). -Colin Kimbrell 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Wolfson

edit

No evidence of personal notability; being the granddaughter of, or being married to, a mildly notable individual doesn't count. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American History Primary Sources Life in the Cities

edit

I nominated this for speedy deletion but someone changed that to a transwiki request. Is anyone actually going to do that though? This isn't an article, it's just a collection of historical documents, with possible copyvio. From the title, it has no potential to be expanded into an article. Delete? Sammysam 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakran's Law

edit

I had this up for prod, but the creator removed the tag without explanation. It's a non-notable protologism that's not in common use (one hit on google). It violates WP:NOT, and thus should be deleted. Colin Kimbrell 17:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save !! Article provideds accurate and timely description of an emerging and already frequent technique designed to divide and end discussion, rather than to advance it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.3.182 (talk • contribs) host


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Dashboard

edit

Pure advertisement. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 @ 18:33 (UTC)


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

I am new to Wikipedia so I hope I make no errors of etiquette. However, I am concerned about the debate here. Are all of the authors aware that Netsuite have patented the Enterprise Dashboard concept? I am a great fan of Netsuite, love it in fact as I am a massive advocate of SAAS, but do not think this is appropriate to list their (rather crazy - how can you patent teh dashboard???) patent here.

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyricalist Records

edit

Non-notable, vanity, formed in January of 2006. Delete. Fightindaman 18:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harding Road, Nashville, TN

edit

In its entirety, reads: "Harding Road is located in the 11th ward of the City of Nashville, Tennessee." I do not think that Wikipedia is a... whatever a book is that contains all the roads in the world. Earlier versions' claims of notability due to the alleged presence of Adolf Eichmann are obviously bogus. Sandstein 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. This was already closed by W. marsh as a delete, but the close was reverted. I am bringing this to DRV for discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Writers Society

edit

Non-notable website (WP:WEB), Alexa rank 5,293,404. Contested PROD. Sandstein 18:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Probiyantono

edit

I'll have to disagree with the de-prodder here: no, he doesn't sound notable even if he were verifiable. Plus, lack of WP:V is grounds for deletion in itself, and he has one Google hit (which, granted, could be due to transliteration issues). Sandstein 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was not a lot of consensus. Four deletes and three keeps, one of which prefers a merge. There's not a lot to merge, so in the end I'm redirecting to Saved by the Bell Minor Characters. Feel free to merge in any other information from the history of this article. Stifle 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dakota

edit

non-notable, fictional character on one episode of SBTB. Already listed on the minor characters page. Ckessler 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • DON'T DELETE ONE OF THE BIGGEST INFLUENTIAL MOVIE STARS OF ALL TIME, JOHNNY DAKOTA!!! OH YEAH, THERE'S NO HOPE WITH DOPE!**


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace plans ofered during the bosnian war

edit

Bad clone of Peace plans offered before and during the Bosnian War. Notice to those planing to vote for merge: the difference of this two articles is in spelling errors (the one I propose to be deleted has errors, the other one does not) and one sentence which is different is more precise in the spelling-correct version. Therefore I find merge pointles and think this article shoud just be deleted. Dijxtra 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Xaosflux as "nnbio". -- JLaTondre 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIK 201

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Adams

edit

Vanity article? Not much showing up on Google. Thorpe | talk 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilwarfreak615 17:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Frankie is the starting Power forward at my high school. I created this page because he is one of the biggest reasons that our season turned out good, as well as because he is a top forward in the state. If, though, this does meet the standards for removal, then I am sorry that I created this page, and by all means delete it. Oscarmeyer 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with civilwarfreak. It is endorsed by the person it is about and everything it said is true. Why delete it?[reply]

Yes, but still not notable to a lot of people. --Thorpe | talk 17:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.158.104.192 15:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC) to the people where i am from, everyone knows him. That is why i made this site. Everyone in the Big 9 conference, as well as the Upper East TN region knows of him.[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bede Moore

edit

Contrary to the opinion of the de-prodder, press coverage of the dating service this person founded makes the dating service notable, not him. He's got little in the way of Google hits, and being an editor at the Harvard Crimson doesn't quite qualify, as "Any student who volunteers and completes a series of requirements known as the "comp" is elected an "editor" of the newspaper.". Weak delete per WP:BIO. Sandstein 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete JDate is a significant and popular website and being its founder is notable. However I haven't been able to find any evidence that Bede Moore actually founded JDate. The article on Moore has a redline wikilink (it should be JDate not J-Date). If someone can provide a reliable source showing that Moore is the founder of JDate, I'll switch my vote to Keep, but as this article stands its a Delete for me. Gwernol
  • Delete per Gwernol, until someone verifies that Moore founded JDate --TBC ??? ??? ??? 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gwernol. Bucketsofg 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, probably nonsense article. A current Harvard senior could not have founded a dating site over four years ago (as a high-schooler!) and sold it to Match.com without it being mentioned somewhere. Also, he's most likely not Jewish, given his name, so what motivation would he have to start a Jewish dating site? Lastly, I happen to be a Harvard student myself, and the person who started the article in the first place is most likely a friend of his given the internal university directory information. MSJapan 00:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (translations)

edit

Unnecessary and unmaintained duplication of part of the content of List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages. See [68] to compare between the versions; there would be no information lost if this page were wiped. A redirect is not necessary because no pages link to this one. Frankly, I don't think List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages belongs here either, but we certainly don't need a second, incomplete copy of it. Delete. Mangojuice 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bartholomay

edit

Seems to be a non-notable pilot. Delete. Fightindaman 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The pictures of the two F-4 Phantoms were the exact planes as described in "US Navy F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972-1973", by Brad Elward and Peter Davies, 2002 by Osprey Publishing Limited. A portion of the narrative used under the ready room picture and the text to the right of it are excerpts from the book, as well. I have permission to use these from the authors. The MiGs WERE the only two MiG-19 North Vietnamese Aircraft downed by Navy pilots in the war. The MiG-19 engagement is one of the most written up of the war. . A quick look at the quote underneath the ready room picture "...celebrate downing the Navy's only MiG-19 kills of the Vietnam War..." The crew to whom you refer is Mugs McKeown and Jack Ensch, who downed two MiG-17s five days later on 23 MAY 1972. Topgun0272 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just sourced the two photos indicated above. I believe that this is correct. Topgun0272 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Since there is no date on that picture it's possible that it was out of date. Again, the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation says "23 May 1972: Two of the squadron’s aircraft, while flying MiG Combat Air Patrol for a strike in the Haiphong area, were vectored toward Kep Airfield and sighted 4 MiG-17s and 2 MiG-19s. VF-161’s aircraft proceeded to engage the MiGs even though they were outnumbered 3 to 1. In the ensuing battle Lieutenant Commander Ronald E. McKeown and his RIO, Lieutenant John C. Ensch, shot down a MiG-17 and a MiG-19 with Sidewinders. Fightindaman 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but please do something about the formatting. Looks like a scrapboook entry :-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did this as a legacy for my children and grandchildren. I am the pilot referenced and all of this is true. The authors I cited above received my permission to interview me and print the description of the migshoot that included Oran, Pat, Taco and myself between our two F-4Bs and the MiG-19s. Fightindamian, there is NO mistaking the dates.How could there be? Mugs and Jack shot down two MiG-17s. That dictionary is wrong. You need only read any other source or look at our squadron aircraft which sits on the flight deck of the USS Midway in San Diego Harbor (the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum). Actually, it's kind of funny because this is the first time that there has been any doubt in anyone's mind over the last 34 years!Mugsy's retired and Jack, a retired Capt., is Director of Military Marketing for the San Diego Padres and both would be interested to know that they were credited with a MiG-19. Jack's time spent in the Hanoi Hilton might have been a little different had the NVA known as well.As for reformatting the scrapbook, I can do that when I have a better idea of what would look better. Other than that, I really thought that something like this would be helpful to future generations in their research of that period in our nation's history.Bart Bartholomay, LT USNRRet.Topgun0272 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:You say that dictionary is wrong, but navy.mil is a pretty authoritative source. I don't know where the page in the article came from, and you unfortunately are not a reputable source, so I'm not sure if we can take what you say unless you can show a source which backs it up. Fightindaman 04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I'm at work right now (which will explain the IP address as a sig), I actually have photos of the aircraft mentioned above from a recent visit to the Midway. The article here could go into a bit more detail mentioning that this was the first MIG-19 shootdown of Vietnam, perhaps, as that was the story told during the tour. A worthy topic.24.82.16.187 17:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fightindamian, the source you use is wrong and, interestingly enough, it's the ONLY source I've ever seen that indicates Mugs and Jack shot down a MiG-19. They would be proud. But even the North Vietnamese teach the correct version in their own school system. I have facts to back that statement up, too. However, because one of you were nice enough to reformat the article so that it looks good and in keeping with other wikis (thanks, BTW!!), here's a few links that confirm what I have said.The right intake of our bird that sits on the flight deck of the USS Midway (a military vessel now the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum), as mentioned above, and has all of our squadron's MiG kills during 1972. They are even on the superstructure as evidenced by the last link below. There are three MiG-17s - McKeown/Ensch(2), Kovaleski/Wise(1), two MiG-19s - Bartholomay/Brown and Arwood/Bell. Surely, it can't be wrong.The other MiG-17s were from a previous cruise much earlier in the war.If anyone thinks that a more indepth account of my own recollections of the dogfight, especially mentioned here in the wiki article, would be appropriate I can do that, but so much has already been written that it seemed redundant.US Air-to-Air Victories in the Vietnam WarAIRCRAFT SHOT DOWN DURING THE VIETNAM WAR BY USN/USMC PILOTS - see link as military linkFrom the MidwaySailor site. Bart Bartholomay, LT USNRRet.Topgun0272 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Well, as far as your sources go, they seem to confirm that the two kills in question were the only two MiG-19s downed by the Navy. Not the only two downed in total. Your first sources lists many Air Force MiG-19 kills, the other two are only for the Navy/USS Midway. So it comes to this being about a pilot who downed one of two MiG-19s shot down by the Navy, 10 in total. This still doesn't seem notable. Fightindaman 00:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It would seem notable enough that the aircraft used for it is preserved as part of a naval museum, and a fairly significant part of the program there. It's documented in several places. Works for me.Tony Fox 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You Win I won't go further with this.Please either approve it for inclusion or delete it.I will not waste any more time validating what I and my crews did.Topgun0272 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. WP is not for memorials, no matter how notable the accomplishment, and Topgun clearly stated he created this article as a legacy for his family, not as a matter of contributing information. If it truly was notable, someone other than the people involved should know about it and be able to write about it, which they have. MSJapan 00:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Topgun0272, JzG and others above. Would love to see this expanded. -- JJay 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED AS A BLANK ARTICLE VFDs on the separate articles should be resubmitted as a VFD for each article that is being considered for deletion or the articles should simple be merged -Husnock 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes

edit

"This is a series of Articles that, without exception, could be merged into List of Starfleet ship classes. They contain either one sentence description plus 2 or 3 ships known to be that class, or if it was never seen, just a couple ship names known to be that class. Some are even reproductions, adding no new text, to what was allready on the list. Should be merged.

  1. Andromeda class starship
  2. Antares class starship
  3. Apollo class starship
  4. Cheyenne class starship
  5. Chimera class starship
  6. Deneva class starship
  7. Erewhon class starship
  8. Freedom class starship
  9. Hokule'a class starship
  10. Istanbul class starship
  11. Korolev class starship
  12. Mediterranean class starship
  13. Merced class starship
  14. Niagara class starship
  15. Peregrine class starship
  16. Renaissance class starship
  17. Rigel class starship
  18. Sequoia class starship
  19. Soyuz class starship
  20. Springfield class starship"

-Mask   19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many lists with more entries then this has. None of these articles has enough information to stand on their own, and with Star Trek off the air, none can be expanded to that requirement for the foreseeable future. -Mask   20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they can be however this proposal if it suceeds will gurantee them to stay underdeveloped. For example Norway class has only been seen once with little info (even the designers computer files were corrupted). Yet it has developed into a full article over time. There are lots of usable semi-cannon resources for the ships. I for one do not claim to know all star trek and feel articles should be left alone for a while so they can develop. Articles that dont have enough information to stay on their own are called stubs which are welcomed on wikipedia. They are certainly much more usefull than what you propose: tens of redirects leading to one page quite hard to follow.
I am also intrigued at the purst of votes agreeing with you (judging from the timestamps). Interesting coincidence, wouldnt you say?
--Cool CatTalk|@ 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. My first accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm honored, but must inform you that you are, in fact, wrong. -Mask   03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per nom. If the list is well-edited, there is no reason why the list cannot live happily. Lord Bob 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its unreadable. --Cool CatTalk|@ 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, in my view, the list would be poorly edited. See what I'm saying here? Lord Bob 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merging seems sensible unless the articles can be expanded to have considerably more content, and I disagree that a list is inappropriate for articles of this length - it's a bit of a crazy situation when the template seems to always take up more room than the article text. I'm rather doubtful about whether the articles can be expanded, so the "leave unmerged to encourage expansion" argument isn't very convincing. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an improper VFD. Each of those articles should have thier own VFD page and the article at the top should be speedy deleted. I am for keeping the articles on the starship classes but against the method in which this was done. -Husnock 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trvlt

edit

Delete This is a neologism. A google search reveals 210 entries, the first of which is the page itself and at least the vast majority of the rest of which seem to be irrelevant. I am myself involved quite heavily in the heavy metal subculture, and have never seen a reference to the word. Also compare to other metalhead slang, such as 'kvlt', with 114,000 google hits, seeming to refer in the main part to the slang usage of the term, but no wikipedia entry. KharBevNor 19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saved by the Bell Major Characters

edit

Information already listed in main Saved by the Bell article. Ckessler


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Nomination withdrawn by nominator and no remaining delete votes.. Rob 00:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Gumperz

edit

Delete as NN-bio. {{prod}} contested by Monicasdude. No assertion of notability in article/redlink farm. Nomination Withdrawn per Sliggy and references to WP:PROFTEST. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep, vandalous/bad faith nomination, as well as a violation of WP:BITE. Subject of article is extraordinarily notable: the Britannica authority in his field, a BBC consultant, a regularly published author, a noted academic, etc, etc, etc. [69][70] Original article was posted by a new user a short time before the nominator prodded it without doing a shred of checking, even the the article properly asserted notability and gave no indication it was unreliable. After I removed the prod, commenting on the fact that the nominator had made no effort to verify his absurd claim of non-notability, he posted a rude personal attack on my talk page. And the article rather prominently asserts notability, saying the subject's work has "benefitted" several academic disciplines and created a new area of research/work in sociolinguistics. Notability can (and usually should) be asserted without peacock or terms or conclusory phrasing. This nomination is an expression of spite. Can we close this already? Monicasdude 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Vandalous/bad faith nomination"...no. Violation of WP:BITE...I think we can look at the history of RfCs against Monicasdude to get a feel for that. As for the AfD nomination...the article, as written at the time of nomination, provides no evidence of notability. It is the responsibility of the article's author to provide such. Therefore, it is not an expression of spite or vandalism. If someone wishes to rewrite the article in such a way as to make it worthy of inclusion, I have no problem retracting the nomination. As for the rude personal attack...I'll recommend that here in the open...when you place a comment like "...would it kill you to google the name?", I feel that a reference to WP:DICK is perfectly appropriate. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. You still haven't explained why you still want to delete an article about an obviously notable subject, other than your extreme pique. If the current text bothers you that much, fix it. You seem to be on a spree of attempting to delete articles on subjects that plainly meet notability and verifiability criteria, because you're annoyed at the authors. Get over it. Monicasdude 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added a link to Gumperz's list of publications to the article, to provide verifiable evidence. Sliggy 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:PROFTEST. I'm not altogether sure that the nomination was made in good faith, but I certainly don't approve of Monicasdude's imputation of malign motive to Bug (and I agree certainly with him that the creator of an article should make every effort to demonstrate the subject's notability straightaway). Similarly, I don't think Monicasdude's "would it kill you" comment is wholly gauche or untoward and surely doesn't merit a reference to WP:DICK. Essentially, I think this debate should be conducted without reference to the article's creator or nominator for deletion. Finally, though, I must strenuously object to Monica's continued ascription of the term "vandalism" to nominations for deletion, for reasons I explain here (this is the second AfD about the proper disposition of which we've concurred but about which I've had to write separately to distinguish my beliefs from hers, and I wonder if perhaps she oughtn't to rethink how she articulates some of her positions here). Joe 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet the (proposed) WP:PROFTEST based on publication list alone. Based on this discussion and previous experience, though, I can second the recommendation to occasionally peruse WP:CIVIL, at least. Sandstein 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Prominent academics keep ending up on AfD lately. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in spite of the red links. Gumperz is a Professor Emeritus at Berkeley, and passes the professor test. I suspect that if he were a fictional professor in Star Trek, he'd be kept without question. Is there a systemic bias against reality? Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely cited professor. And Brian's right: let's combat the systemic bias against real subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fart alarm

edit

Under 700 Googles for a joke? A joke with farts in it? Not convinced! Just zis Guy you know? 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what? Is he wrong? Are you saying that he's lying or something? What exactly are you trying to say? Do you know that this article is nonsense? Have you looked into it? Are you an expert on joke toys? What were you basing your comment on? Why is his answer devalued because he wrote the article? Wouldn't that imply he knows more about it than you do?Grace Note 09:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that WP:AFD says "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly"... TBC is more than welcome to point that out. --Kinu t/c 19:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Real, maybe, but I cannot recall any other joke toy scoring quite that few ghits. When you consider the size of the schoolboy population, and the millions of ghits for fart, it's close to invisible. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
try other names then this type of toy is also called "fart detector" and "fart buster" and is common novelty item [71] Yuckfoo 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it is not so important, because this is an article on fart alarm. If it has other names by which it is better known, perhaps they already have articles. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*delete as second grade level humor that is highly non-notable. JoshuaZ 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Redirect and merge to flatulence humor per Booking. The general phenomenon of humor based on around flatulence is midly encyclopedic. JoshuaZ 21:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable product. --Kinu t/c 06:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe redirect to fart detector. When you boys say this is "non-notable humour", are you saying that humorous things are not notable by definition or that so far as humorous things go, this thing is not notable? How are you judging that exactly? When would a humorous thing be notable? Who would you require to note it? How do we know whether it is more or less notable than a particular Pokemon or an episode of the Simpsons? Yuckfoo has shown that www.prankplace.com has noted the "fart detector". So if it was noted, how come it's not "notable"? Grace Note 09:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Pokemon or episode of The Simpsons? Apples and oranges. If anything, comparison should be made to something similar, i.e., the whoopee cushion. But not everything you can buy at Spencer's Gifts is notable. Besides, I would hardly call prankplace.com a source which establishes notability; it's an online store that simply sells it. --Kinu t/c 19:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apples and oranges. If anything, comparison should be made to something similar. Man, are you not getting it! Look, my point is that what's notable depends who's doing the noting and what the thing being noted is. It's not an objective standard. So you can't just say "it's not notable". Because we're saying Pokemons are notable, Simpsons episodes are notable, but fart gags are not notable? How? What's your standard? And friend, if someone thinks a thing is saleable, they think it's notable. Grace Note 06:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article about all possible fart gags, e.g., Flatulence humor, togther with Fart extinguisher and what can be more (eg a summary for whoopee cushion). No sense to keep thiese miniarticles with low chance of expansion. 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and do not merge as non-notable humor. If it's not notable enough for an article, it's not notable enough for any article.--Mmx1 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all joke novelty items to one or at most a small handful of pages. No need to keep creating one new page every time a manufacturer ships another variant of the same or similar joke, address the whole category of items as one big article. --carlb 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auberon Herbert (landowner)

edit

I can't find anything related to this person on Google. Even this search brings up people not the one described in the article. -- infinity0 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article on Aubrey Herbert. What the heck is going on here???? This article cites 9 sources (admittedly all in print, so they're harder to check) and is linked to from 11 main-namespace pages (not counting lists or his son's page). He's clearly a real person, as testified to by the existence of non-Wikipedia google hits like this. In what sense is this non-notable? How can we delete this just as an afterthought to another AfD? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one source is talks about him specifically, [73] - not in print, and with 3 second-hand copies. However, I withdraw my vote for Aubrey Herbert - see what other people think. -- infinity0 21:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Eivindt@c 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Aubrey and Auberon Herbert, father and son, are certainly worthy of inclusion in an English language online encyclopaedia with 1,000,000 articles, many of about truly ephemeral figures and topics. Both Aubrey and Auberon Herbert have a real and intimate connexion with Evelyn Waugh, one of the greatest English literary figures in the 20th century. Aubrey Herbert himself was twice offered the crown of Albania. The son figures, somewhat tangentially, in a number of famous British lives, and he was a very prominent figure in the various emigree communities of Eastern Europeans in Britain during the Communist era. Polycarp
  • Keep. The ODNB has articles both on Auberon Herbert and his father. I removed the AFD tag which remained at Aubrey Herbert. u p p l a n d 07:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Red Bank

edit

Page author objected to prod and so I'm bringing it to AfD. The subject is a non-notable religious youth group; the author himself here describes the group as having around 100 members and seems to suggest that the group isn't particularly important, telling us that "there are some things just too miniscule and trivial to fight". Because he also says that, if this article is deleted, "[he]'ll create another one" and that "[We] can't stop [him]", I suggest delete and protect. Joe 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominate the redirect onto RfD --TBC ??? ??? ??? 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Watters

edit

Not notable. Thorpe | talk 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taylor Lea Thomas

edit
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Resistance

edit
    ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


Links to website and forum have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.97.113 (talk • contribs)

No assertion of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. Fightindaman 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to delete this page. —This unsigned comment was added by 134.124.97.113 (talk • contribs) .

This user has only 3 edits, all in the article in question, some vandalism: [76] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two votes appear to be very similar (in that they are both unsigned votes with "Don't Delete" instead of the customary "Keep"). There is the possibility that these two votes are in fact the same user or editors who don't normally contribute to Wikipedia. joturner 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. UK Resistance is pretty well-known (and respected) in the gaming community. I can definitely see people looking it up in an effort to discover more about the site. --Hn 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Khoikhoi 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, meatpuppet supported. --Rory096 02:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; non-notable website. joturner 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Web, forumcruft, NN Dbchip 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB, forumcruft; the puppetry didn't convince me otherwise, shockingly. --Kinu t/c 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's not puppetry, the site is well known and has been covered numerous times in the gaming media. There are a large number of *different* people posting here, however they are all from the site's forum which is an absolute trainwreck. If anything the site deserves credit and yes, there will be people researching it. But these people want it noticed for entirely the wrong reasons. Snobbery from both the forum regulars and signed in Wikipedia members has become extremely irritating in this debate - all your perspectives are skewed and I'm just trying to be an impartial observer here.—This unsigned comment was added by 219.188.179.186 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep If you have an Old Man Murray page on Wiki then you must have a UK:R page. OMM isn't even updated anymore and still came after UK:R which was the first "comedy" videogames site. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.143.151.170 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep notable for starting small campaigns every once in a while, like the blue sky one. The article does need some work, though. —This unsigned comment was added by 213.35.135.215 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Look the forum members are hardly helping their cause, but I don't appreciate Wikipedians who have done no research on the subject whatsoever voting on it. The site has been cited by bloggers for The Guardian [79], Wired [80] as well as in numerous printed gaming publications, and has even spawned imitations. [81] Obviously this isn't going to do much good seeing as half the Wikipedia's already jumped in all ready with their Delete votes, but this does demonstrate how flawed the VfD process is. --Hn 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Given that (and the alleged but unicted mention already in the article) if somebody could rewrite it so that it made it clear that it met WP:WEB, and didn't list unencyclopedic things like members and how they title threads in the forum, then I'd change my vote. Fightindaman 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and (as it stands) unencyclopedic. In other words, forumcruft. --kingboyk 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not some minor fansite, it's been around for years and has been copied endlessly by other sites listed in wikipedia, it's the original and quite possibly the best. The forum shouldn't even be mentioned as it's not really relevant to the main site. This article is extremely poorly written and should be redone from scratch, maybe by someone who's actually bothered to 'read' the site. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, the influence of UK:R is undoubtable - Thus it should have an entry. --220.240.72.131 05:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete at author's request.  (aeropagitica)  22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animation:Master Toon Render

edit

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete. Fightindaman 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; since there isn't much support for keeping, I slapped the merge tags on all of the articles for those who know better (I'm not qualified to merge these...). Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things in Atlas Shrugged

edit

Unencyclopedic fancruft; I am also requesting comments for all such subpages (listed at Category:Atlas Shrugged - there are currently 8 subpages for this book). I'd list all of them for deletion, but that's way too tedious for me. -- infinity0 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any arguments / discussions to make about this AfD, please do so on the talk page of this AfD, instead of cluttering up what each person has to say. -- infinity0 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: 9, Delete: 4, Keep: 5

  • Merge and Purge all subpages except "Characters." It needs to adhere to encyclopedic standards and cover the main elements only. There are salvageable elements to all subpages but most of the content is dreck. I question the motivation of the nom given the comment above, but he has a point. Atlas Shrugged is significant as political statement, not as a literary piece (honestly, I think it's literary drivel - go see my user page if you think that's a bad faith comment). Were it a comprehensive literary universe like some other series, you could argue it. But having subpages on the literary nuances is overkill for this one work. I wish we had more eager deletionists piping up when the Sci-fi fancruft comes up for deletion, though. --Mmx1 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Delete unless rewritten during AfD. Things currently include The future and a bill. Dlyons493 Talk 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a low quality entry, and it reeks of fandom. The title is ridiculous. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "list of general items" doesn't jibe well with WP:NOT, even if it is from a specific piece of work. --BWD (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Purge all subpages except "Characters", which just needs to be cleaned up. Having said this, some of this material is too diffuse and irrelevant to be merged, so it should just be removed after an attempt at merger fails. Alienus 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per infinity0 nom and vote. Shaggorama 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The smaller things could probably be merged, but the more useful things would be well off here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything worth noting with Atlas Shrugged. Purge the rest. Lucidish 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep / Rename - Atlas Shrugged is not the bible. It is, however, the second most influential novel in the USA. This article (and the others in the category) gives a valuable cliff notes type overview of some of the important concepts in the book. It could easily be expanded. The entire Atlas Shrugged category could use a cleanup. Deleting these articles (which have value to many) in a limitless space encyclopedia would IMHO be counter productive. HSchickel 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. I am literally unable to respond. Alienus 10:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Purge. - Let the Randites present whatever information they like, but they should keep it to one article per book, maximum. KSchutte 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, etc. A useful selection of potential search items that will be valuable to readers. The degree to which this nomination seems to emerge from an enmity to the subject or its politics is quite disappointing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Purge. - This information really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia except where it is relevant to the discussion of the book itself on that page Ig0774 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merge and Delete is an unclear vote, since the reason for AfD'ing something instead of simply putting in a redirect is that the article in question, its edit history, and any future edit not involving a major rewrite are not useful to Wikipedia.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsvandia and Constitution of Bolsvandia

edit

The Bolsvandia article was deleted due to a previous AfD consensus in January, and has been reposted once, before being speedy deleted under criterion G4, "recreation of deleted material." In current reposting, the content has now been expanded upon sufficiently that I don't feel comfortable speedy-ing it again (although another admin is welcome to make their own call on that, I shan't be offended). There is also the matter of the newly created Constitution of Bolsvandia article, which should be considered for deletion here as well. There are still only a handful of Google results that even support this micronation's existence, and no new claims of notability since last time that I can see. Specifically regarding the latter article, Wikipedia is not a web host, and even if Bolsvandia stays then a simple external link to a copy of the constitution on their own site should suffice. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic restroom

edit

712 Ghits, most of which are for automatic restroom accessories. I see no evidence that this term is in widespread usage, or indeed that fully automated restrooms are in widespread usage. The superloo is as close as we get, I guess. Probably original research, given the content nd lack of sources. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"neogolism" was a typo for "neologism".

  • Thanks for the compliment. Please be civil. Neologism can be an expression, like charter-jet conservatism. --23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fart extinguisher

edit

Non-notable potty humor. 350 Ghits Mmx1 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xniio

edit

Nonsense article about a "part-discovered substance", must be a hoax. Eivindt@c 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Miles, Morris W. Offit, Edmund S. W. Tse, Michael H. Sutton, Stephen L. Hammerman and Donald P. Kanak

edit

One or two-line stubs on the directors of a company. User:Monicasdude opposed the prod listings as "Being a director of ninth-largest business in world isn't a clear indication of notability?". Well, no, not really. How many directors would then need to have one-line stub? It would be very difficult to find more bio info on these guys, even if they were notable. At the very least these should be merged to American International Group, but all it would have is their names mentioned. Delete. Harro5 22:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Monicasdude is probably right, but it's hard to tell fomr these articles. Surely there must be more than this we can say about these guys? Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harro, those were my proposed deletions. Thank you for submitting them for re-consideration here. I can see Monicasdude's point, but in my mind these people don't reach notability, despite the fact that they guide a very large corporation. Corporate boards usually have 12-15 members and can be populated by relatively famous figures, George Schultz comes to mind, and maybe CEOs and CFOs of other corporations, and maybe people who have operational expertise but are unknown outside their own organizations. IMO corporate board membership does not by itself make a person notable or influential. One source I found (http://www.boardmember.com/member_directory/dbase_brochure.pdf) suggests that, if you count up the board members of major publically-traded companies you get 53,000 names, and these names change all the time. The fact that the membership of these boards interlock and comprise a government-educational-corporate sort of ruling class is a significant, but separate, issue. User:Chadlupkes will want to know, since he's been filling in a lot of these names. My vote is Delete but this deserves further discussion here. If we do delete these three, then other American International Group board members should go with them, if they are listed only because of their board membership: M. Bernard Aidinoff, Pei-yuan Chia, Marshall A. Cohen, William S. Cohen, Martin S. Feldstein, Ellen V. Futter, Stephen L. Hammerman, Michael H. Sutton, Edmund S. W. Tse, and Frank G. Zarb. I would keep Carla A. Hills, Richard C. Holbrooke and Martin J. Sullivan as significant for other reasons based on what I see. --Lockley 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing me into the discussion. I'll vote for keep, because I have a particular interest in developing these sorts of lists for research purposes, but I'll understand if the community disagrees. The cross-board membership of so many people is of personal interest to a lot of people I know, and Wikipedia seemed to be the best way to keep track of this sort of information. There are a few other wiki sites out there open to collect it outside of Wikipedia. 53,000 is a pretty large number, although I've mostly been concentrating on the DOW30. Is there an article related to the subject of board members being part of multiple boards? Chadlupkes 14:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, it's been very difficult to find bio information that doesn't come directly from the corporate websites, and I've been scolded for that. I don't see the point of protecting that sort of information, but that's another discussion. Chadlupkes 14:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Ashe

edit

Notability not established -- and none seems to be establishable. 25 movies to her credit. Seems to have been active only in 2005, therefore appears to be a "one shot" deal. Ergo, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Thomas

edit

Hardly notable. Article seems to have been created due to the fact that it was redlinked in the interracial pornography article. Performer has been in only three movies, spanning from 2004-05. Ergo, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete She is mainly an internet phenom. Semi known among circles that follow inter-racial adult stars. Consider keeping 23 March 2006
  • Do Not Delete 3 Movies??? Hardly. She has her own site with probably 100 movies, she's been on spunkmouth.com, sweetapples.com, jomg.com, blacksonblondes.com & is hugely popular becasue she now only does black guys & has quite a mouth on her. She's also been mentioned on howard stern & even he was pretty disgusted with her. heh
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemplar

edit

Delete Looks like advertising or a phonebook entry -- Mareklug talk 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Matkin

edit

Delete - Insufficiently significant musician Dunstan 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling Showmen in the UK

edit

Delete - No information given on the importance of the subject; simple list of unwikified (and likely non-notable) people. An {{importance}} tag has been up for over a month, and no indication of importance has been given. JerryOrr 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Regions

edit

Delete This recently created article/fork is redundant with continent, region, and subregion – it also appears to be a means of circumventing or promulgating specific intepretations of the Americas that are already accounted for in numerous articles (e.g., Americas (terminology)). Moreover, upper case titles are discouraged. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KPXC-TV

edit

Delete- This article does no more than tell us the local call number of a local branch of the i televison station. Ljlego 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Gaithersburg Metrorail Accident

edit

Delete or Merge. Subject matter of article is already mentioned in the broader article Washington Metro. This article is redundant and should be merged or deleted. Strothra 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron_Horsley

edit
  • Hey, guys, look: I've gotten emails about this the last day or so, and I'm flattered that Zeppelin thinks I'm noteworthy enough for a Wiki article. When she first told me she'd done it I was upset that she hadn't asked first, and also bothered because it's become just another place where anonymous jerks can cast their insults at me because they can't deal with me directly or straight. I can even appreciate that she's passionate about what she thinks is right and that other people feel the same about their own convictions here. I like Wiki myself even though I'm not a regular visitor.

But the fact is, life's too short to be arguing over nonsense like whether or not a website article is "worthy" or something like that. Just take a break, go pet a cat, go visit friends. I know personally that none of this matters in the long run, okay? Take a cue and just go find things worth arguing about.

Zeppelin, calm down please, okay? If people want to attack me that's just them wasting their time on useless stuff, don't get caught up in it thinking you're somehow protecting some vital national resource. I'm just not that important.

I gave you the picture and the sources because you said you wanted to validate the article and improve it and I'm not going to say no to someone wanting to write about my work, and I stand by that work for the same reasons you've gone on about here. But I didn't give you the info or the picture or anything else to contribute to some vandal-defender war and abuse this site, all right?

Don't take it personally, it's just a website reference, okay? I've done what work I can in the time I've got and if I produce more or manage to get a bit more notice, fine and dandy. But this isn't the place to push such things and there are obviously people here already looking after the integrity of the site and its contents. Thanks. And Zep, thanks for letting me have some editorial say on the article, but as of now I'm done with it. --Ron Horsley

Vanity page Kynn 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The author and work has merit, even if the author is not a 'nationally known' figure. Only one work has been truly brought under question but other works of the author, either art or writing, have verifiable sources with legitimate publishers or websites.--Zeppelin85
  • Delete. This page is a vanity page. Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press) --Kynn 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stories were published in recognized presses or are being released from recognized non-"vanity" sources (see the article. Locus Magazine's index has him listed for his book art and for his story publications, and one of his stories hasn't even been out yet but is already acknowledged on Shocklines). Are you only allowed writers if they're known for novels? I don't see that as being listed in the Wiki rules. We have poets here, as well as short fiction authors.--Zeppelin85
  • Delete vanity or possibly attack page, as much of the content is pretty inflammatory. The website in question has no Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a serious author and/or artist of nascent popularity. He has published and been paid for his works so I think that qualifies as notable and verifiable. The article could use some Wikifying though. –Shoaler (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, published and been paid for his works isn't the standard used by Wikipedia. --Kynn 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If published and paid for works isn't the standard, then why did you mention at all that the one book Mr. Horsley *edited* was a "vanity" press? Shouldn't that be inconsequential then, if we're discussing the "overall" merit of someone to have a Wiki article about them? Unlike some authors here, there isn't even a link to his site or any promoting/sales sites for his works. The only time it came up was when I (in error) did so to try and defend against the vandalism that occurred on the article (which, in fact, it was the vandals who first made any mention or link to his site). So if the sources are now provided for the claims, and the works have appeared in not just POD but legitimately-recognized publications, what exactly are you claiming as your source for merit? How many books or stories it was? What organizations a person is or isn't a member of? What authors they're friends or? If you can clarify exactly what your barometer is, I think it would help clear up what is your issue with nominating this for deletion some months after it was already on the Wiki system. And if you have some clear guidelines for your vote, then perhaps we could take those and see if there's any other article on Wiki that you've nominated (or maybe just overlooked) that come under the same guidelines. Wiki has to be treated with some consistency, even when we have case-by-case issues, or else its integrity would be compromised. If you're just ultimately saying "nobody's heard of him," then we could again go through Wiki, even just the writers' sections, and see if anybody's commonly heard of a number of authors in those areas.--Zeppelin85
        • As for why "vanity" press, see the rules on notable on wikipedia. I quoted from that directly. By the way, who are you and what's your name? You know mine, and yet you've accused me of being a fake person. Who are you and what do you do? (Are you Ron?) --Kynn 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My name is Mary Lennell, and I am not a professional author but a fan of the horror fiction field. No, I am not Ron, as I've already said. I believe in his work because it attracted my attention when another author I like, Gary Braunbeck, began to mention his work on his site and through having Mr. Horsley design some of the book covers for his collections. As for what I do professionally, I don't see why you're supposed to have so much more information on me, I'm not more 'anonymous' than any other registered member of the site, merely a newer one. I had some interest in maybe writing fiction and started writing to Mr. Horsley about a year ago when he started promoting his availability to read and give honest reviews for people's work. I work in a customer service office, a floor supervisor for a medical supplies company. And lastly: you are still misunderstanding what I originally said when I had doubts about your motivation. I have *never* said you were 'anonymous,' I have never said you were anyone but who you say you are. The only time I mentioned anyone's 'anonymity' was with respect to the vandals who kept vandalizing the page for their own reasons. All I've ever mentioned doubting about you is your truer motivations behind asking this article be deleted months after it was created, and especially now that I've added the sources to verify its claims to legitimacy. You don't seem to be having any votes for deletion towards many other author articles with even less reason to be on Wiki and no verification sources cited. Go through what I wrote. I never once said anything about you being somebody else.
  • I wrote this article for Mr. Horsley as he is a correspondent and writing friend of mine and I thought his work merited note just like many contemporaries of his that are also on Wiki. He did not write it himself. He is aware of the article but the vandals who have edited in the past with inflammatory remarks are to be blamed, not him.

The only time prior to my most recent edit that his website was even linked on his article was when vandals were attempting to draw further attention to him for purposes of defamation. They also posted links to another author's site, and those were similarly removed. I didn't put the page up to promote any product of his, only to show that he has worked to contribute to writing and book cover art design.

Many books by other authors on Wiki are POD releases or small-press releases. It's debated, but not any official recognition that these are the same thing.

I doubt many "vanity" press releases got noticed by the Stoker Awards or are given honorable mention by the Year's Best Fantasy & Horror for that year. Also, Gauntlet Press is releasing Masques V, which contains Mr. Horsley's last story, and it is not considered a 'vanity' press.' Nor are the other publications where Mr. Horsley has appeared. The book mentioned the Midnighters Club was edited by Horsley, not attributed as one of his novels or short stories. Other authors are recognized in the same article I wrote, and this article recognizes their contribution to that collection as well.

Wiki's own rules state: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

"The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them."

I know of Mr. Horsley through both personal correspondence and professional appreciation of what he's done the last few years in his field. That was why I wrote the article, and I felt it deserved recognition and accurate record (which Wiki prides itself on being and which I agree with). User: Zeppelin85


    • One last thing...just in randomly going through US writers stubs like the one I wrote, there are a number of authors with little or not information about any major accomplishments or clarification of their importance, either. Are all of those subject to deletion then? and I don't mean to sound like I'm casting aspersions, but I have to question motivation on this nomination in the first place. it's been on Wiki for some months now, and the first name I see here, "Kynn," is not listed as a registered user of Wiki, and when I did a search the only search result that came up was Nick Mamatas, an author who is one of the main critics of Horsley lately. Doesn't seem like a very objective, encyclopedic motive for someone asking an article be deleted for relevancy or vandalism, I'm sorry. If "Kynn" is voting for its deletion on realistic grounds, that's fine and open to discussion as it is here...but it doesn't seem like that's really the motivation behind this request, or else maybe Kynn should've been saying something when I first contributed the article. --Zeppelin85


The Midnighters Club was "published" by infinitypublishing.com, a vanity publishing service. It is the only book Horsley has produced. Incidentally, the Bram Stoker award process is open to any sort of work, even vanity published work. This is a matter of some controversy within the Horror Writers Association, and receiving Stoker recommendations (one or more members voting for a short story or other item) in itself proves nothing about the status of a vanity press. A vanity press is a press where the author or editor pays the service to produce the book, and the service then owns the book. Infinity Press, the "publisher" of Horsley's only book, undoubtedly qualifies.

The HWA, which administrates the Bram Stoker award, has this to say, re: the importance of Stoker recommendations (http://www.horror.org/stoker-etiquette.htm):

You may mention that your work has appeared on the Stoker Awards preliminary or final ballot. However, you may not promote your work at all as "Stoker Recommended." See point 6 below. And you may not refer to your work as a "Stoker Nominee" unless it has appeared on the FINAL ballot.

You may not promote your work as "Stoker Recommended." Receiving a handful of Stoker recommendations is a far cry from winning the award or even from being listed on the preliminary ballot. It devalues the Stokers to have their name attached to works whose only defining characteristic may be that one or two HWA members liked them.


A "recommendation" is nothing more than a bookkeeping formality. It takes a large number of recommendations to achieve the preliminary ballot, and then the preliminary ballot is voted on by Active HWA members to create the final ballot. "Stoker recommended" can thus mean that only a single HWA member, including a beginning Affiliate member, enjoyed a story. It is not in any way a sign of superior quality or virtuous publication.

The same can be said for receiving an "Honorable Mention" in the Years Best Fantasy and Horror. Literally hundreds of stories per year receive "HMs", as they are known in the field. The back matter of ann annual YBFH will have dozens of pages listing honorably mentioned stories in a tiny font. It isn't unusual for an author to gain four-six HMs in a single year. Receiving an HM is of virtually no value.

      • MY apologies, Kynn. When I last clicked on your name entry, it didn't come up with your account. Today it does. For some reason, though, when I did searched on the user name via the search field, the only article that kept popping up was the Mamatas entry.

And for the record, I never said you WERE that author, merely that that's the article that came up when your name was searched through that option. It did seem to make it suspect that you were asking for the article's deletion on top of having that reference result to your name.

And I might add that Wiki itself recognizes print-on-demand publishing for what it specifically is (here, just to help clarify, is the Wiki article Print on demand). Just to help clear this up once and for all, the DEFINING difference between a vanity press and a print-on-demand service is that a vanity press claims to be a publisher while charging fees from the writers. A print-on-demand publisher is up-front about charging fees to writers so that they have the facilities to self-publish their works for release (such as promotional books for copy, as well as small-press books that don't have their own resources to print). Several of the small-press groups in the horror field right now have utilized or are utilizing sub-contracted printing options such as this. It doesn't automatically make them 'vanity' press. A vanity press is often used to describe the scam groups that are trying to wholly masquerade as 'publishers' and actively solicit writers to get their money. Infinity has a website and a storefront; from what I see, they're not on any lists for soliciting or spamming anybody.

In fact, if you google them, Infinity looks to be one of those few POD publishers who are NOT pulling off scams and bad-quality print deals with the people who go to them.

I realize it's a fine distinction sometimes, what is vanity and what is POD, but it seems to me the biggest difference is who is printing books and who is just after people's money without producing anything. But again, even on Wiki's entry for "vanity Publishing," it says specifically:

"On the other hand, many reputable companies offer printing (and perhaps limited distribution) for a fee. If honest, such companies will explain their fees, what they do offer and do not offer, and how their service differs from that of a traditional commercial publisher. Such services can be a viable way for an author to self-publish without owning printing equipment."

I think that clarifies that at least for purposes of argument here, there IS a very clear difference still in existence between a POD service and a vanity press. If you honestly think Mr. Horsley only commissioned the book to be printed for his own amusement, perhaps you should contact any of the authors from that collection and ask if they were paid royalties from any copies sold, or if they were paid only partial fees for their stories. You won't necessarily hear about payment or royalties from some other supposedly-legitimate presses, and some of those aren't even still in business as the POD printers are.

And by the way, regarding the rules of etiquette on the HWA you refer to...these rules are with respect to promoting a specific work with the intention of helping its sales or award-recogntion, particularly during that period in which the work is still within the awards period.

It says nothing about being permitted to mention that a work is Stoker-recommended WHEN IT WAS in fact so recommended, as a matter of record. That's like saying we can't ever refer to a book as having been published if it didn't sell 'x' number of minimum copies.

The mention of the recommendations is a matter of fact, and I put that in because it is, in fact, true about the work and the stories that were recommended in it. It's only of the reasons I made to mention Darren Godfrey, Edmund Plante, and William Gagliani, all of whom had stories that got critical recognition thanks to their appearing in this book.

If you read that section as thoroughly as I did, you'd see that in the very first heading of explanation, it even says

"To clarify what's acceptable and what's not when promoting a work for the Stokers, HWA's Officers and Trustees have formulated the following guidelines."

I think you're missing the words "when promoting a work for the Stokers." It says nothing whatsoever anywhere in the etiquette about the mention of the work in perpetuity, in other contexts, with respect to its recommendation.

Wiki articles are meant to convey accuracy even if it's one that some people seem to find for some reason of their own undesirable to have recorded, and yes I have not written or edited many articles...for someone as familiar as you seem to be with policy, maybe you should also refresh the point about how it's not about how many articles one user has or hasn't contributed to.

I appreciate your argument, but I think it's based on popular misconception and not necesarily on any real desire to make sure that 'inaccuracies' are removed from Wiki. The article now has verification sources for its claims which should be sufficient to verify that it is accurate insofar as his work in book designs and publishing, only ONE credit of which is related to this POD/vanity debate at all.

John Kennedy Toole only wrote two books in his life, but the main one, "A Confederacy of Dunces," considered now a classic, even though it wasn't recognized until twenty years after he died. Would you like his entry removed because he didn't write more, or because his one book was only published because his mother solicited people to please publish it after he died? Or that we can't mention the Pulitzer it won because it's not Pulitzer committee etiquette to mention any such wins, nominations, or recommendations that the novel received?

Not to make a really absurd point, but nobody seems to mind Oprah's 'recommendation' being slapped onto the printing of a book cover today, and that's not even an award, it's just a celebrity thinking everybody should read a particular book.--Zeppelin85

    • I wish that Zeppelin85 could figure out who exactly it is responding to (hint: I only wrote the parts I signed), and I think the comparison of Ron Horsley to John Kennedy Toole is a pretty lame argument. But I've made my vote and made my case, so I don't see much point in continuing to argue. --Kynn 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was answering all the points that had been brought up since last participating, Kynn, not just your own, sorry for your confusion. And I was not comparing the two men in terms of literary merit or influence. Once again, you're mixing up one aspect of the argument for another in order to not get the point. If you read my comments with respect to Toole, what I meant was to compare that the man is recognized for having literary and social significance even though his body of work was small and was only initially published at the urging of his mother after his death, not by his own promotional effort or a publisher being willing to undertake his work, but perhaps more from the motivation that his mother seemed to impress on those who later saw the book as viable. Even I'll agree that Horsley isn't Toole, please try to keep the idea of what's being specifically addressed straight.

And since you've made your case and stand by it, I think that's fine. As it stands, there are already votes sufficient to keep the article and sources cited to verify its claims, and all literary or Wiki issues regarding it meeting standards of non-vanity article are satisfied. I appreciate your effort to help keep Wiki truthful and accurate, but I think in this case the issue has been clarified enough. You might not agree that Mr. Horsley is worthy of note, but if that's the case then you and I could easily cooperate in clearing out a lot more articles that are currently uncontested on Wiki, and perhaps either way the standards will improve. --Zeppelin85


If Wikipedia defines the difference between vanity and POD as stated above, then the vanity press article needs correction. The distinction between vanity and self-publication is not chicanery on the part of vanity presses (Vantage, for example, self-identifies as a vanity press and is honest about the fate of most of its titles), but on who owns the books once they are produced. If the author who has contracted with the printer owns the units, the author has self-published. If the "publisher" owns the books, and pays the author royalties based on sales, and offers the author an "author's discount" for purchasing units at a price above the costs of production, overhead, and the profit received as a printer, then the author has vanity published the book. This is the case with Infinitypublishing.com. The Midnighters Club is vanity published. It is the only book Horsley has produced. If individual short stories were sufficient for a wikipedia entry, there would be hundreds of thousands more of "authors" eligible for listing.

    • You make a solid point about differentiating the two types of press, however again I have to bring up that Wikipedia's own article still states that vanity presses can be considered legitimate forms of publishing for authors and writers who do not wish to go through the traditional and costly methods of publication/distribution. Also you state that a difference is whether or not the author receives payment or royalties. Mr. Horsley isn't the author, he's the editor of the piece. He chose the stories that went into the collection and made the arrangements for the publication they were to appear in. The funds sent to him, as I understand it, were then paid out as royalties due to the authors whenever copies were sold. If we're going solely by publisher definition, then it's still a fine line. If we're going on relationship from publisher to author, instead of just publisher to editor as middle-man in the relationship, then in this case the authors were paid royalties by the editor, via funds sent by the publisher to be so distributed. In the office I work in, such distinctions are fine but they're important in determining the definition of a given relationship. The original printing service may function to its direct author-contractors as a vanity press, but to the authors whose work was contributed to the majority of the book, it was a small-press publication via a POD relationship. Their work sells and they get royalties from the editor as the book is sold to a customer. Perhaps some clarification needs to be explored in the vanity press and POD articles, but it still seems like a strong difference to me.

The main reason POD has so quickly become associated with vanity press is not just the mechanism of distribution being similar, but because vanity press by its frequent abuse is already a lumped-in category of scam-artists and bad product. The fact is, POD is still a relatively new method of taking advantage of electronic advances in publishing. It doesn't mean it's to be immediately and forever discounted. If that's the case, then we can go ahead and say that websites and the internet in total are completely ridiculous and not serious avenues of commerce (which we all agree is long-since established not to be the case). The internet, even eBay, has been used for scams and bad management. So to has POD and small-press publishing. But you don't autoamtically say that eBay is a fraud, or that every website that goes up to sell something is automatically something to be laughed off. The dot-coms were a tremendous, public failure, just as many bad POD's and vanity presses have failed. It doesn't mean we write off the whole concept or say that it's forever second-rate. A lot of physical book chains laughed off Amazon.com when it started, too.

And again...if you're going to say that short stories are somehow not valid publishing credentials...then you're going by a discrimination against a single form of art and still allowing numerous others. In terms of content, you can't argue it:H.G. Wells was known for many short stories and essays, not just novels. In terms of literary recognition, go to any school English class and open the text: most of the material printed for education purposes are short stories. In terms of length, you can't argue: poems, haikus, and "flash" fiction are all far shorter, and still recognized as valid even here on Wiki (we have articles for Edna St.Vincent Millay, Robert Browning, etc.).

In fact, in going through some of those same articles today in response to your comments, I found an interesting bit in Browning's Wiki article:

"In May 1833, Browning's Pauline: A Fragment of a Confession was published anonymously by Saunders and Otley, in many ways a vanity publication financed by his family, and this marked the beginning of his career as a poet. "

Just because we've got the hindsight of the future to say it's valid because it's Robert Browning, doesn't make the commentary of this definition of his very beginning work as a significant poet any less of merit with respect to your argument.

If Mr. Browning can have his first major publication as poet discounted under your standard, and if the rest of his work can be discounted because it's poetry and therefore physically of less length than the average short story...and if we go further with your logic that it's the notoriety of a given subject that warrants note (look in the same article; it says clearly that in his first several works Browning received little if any public response to his efforts), then every argument here suggests that we should consider discounting at least about half of Browning's work, so that it's in keeping with a Wiki ideal of not recognizing anything but lengthy works that sold a lot of copies and were only novels in nature, not any short genre fiction.

I think if you can appreciate it'd be silly to discount someone like Robert Browning, then it would be similarly silly to start making unwritten rules that short fiction can't be noted for an author's record or their merit to be recorded. And as for the idea that we'd have that many more short-fiction authors listed on Wiki....are we running out of room here, necessarily? I realize there are server and bandwidth limitations, but are we really in peril to Wiki being "too big" with reference information about any and all viable subjects? --Zeppelin85


      • Just for further reference on what we're debating here, you might want to look at these articles:

David Schickler Ana Castillo Breece D'J Pancake Michael Byers David J. Schow Noah Cicero

All of these, by the way, were found specifically in the Wiki section for American short story writers. So we can't discriminate against an author for being noted as a short story author. Some of these authors are little-known, some of them are only known for very little bodies of work, some are known only by having written short stories, while still others have had publications that have appeared thanks to less-traditional methods of publication or "vanity" press systems, still others amongst this list were people who are noted for having received awards, scholarships, fellowships, etc., from highly specialized and not-widely-known sources.

All of them are being, I presume, uncontested entries here on Wiki as valid records of valid literary contributors of one stature or another. (I list David Schow because he is a prolific and highly-regarded author, but even he has had his work appear in small-press publishers such as Subterranean Press). And Noah Cicero is noted as having his work "extensively published on the Internet" as a majority of his cited writing credit.

I think Wiki's big enough to list a lot more writers, big small and of all types of genre of writing. If we're going to start policing it based on certain arbitrary measurements, then we're not saving its integrity. We'll just be cutting subjects out that have merit in being part of public record. --Zeppelin85


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

The result of the debate was delete. When looking at this and the previous AfD, there seems to be only the issue of when a neologism crosses then line. The comparison presented in the (combined) discussion is that to "metrosexual". If we compare the profiles of these words, it becomes apparent that there are several orders of magnitude between them, but more importantly it's easy to find metrosexual in use in multiple reliable sources. Determining the "notability" of a neologism directly by looking at how many people are using it on livejournal, as most of the evidence provided asks us to do, is borderline original research. We're thus left with the testimony of several editors and a single link to a review, a thin gruel with wich to feed the beast of verification requirements. If and when this term enters into common parlance and citations are avialable, it can be restored.
brenneman{L} 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual

edit

Neologism created by a blogger. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn neologism and WP:WINAD. Esquizombi 03:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Esquizombi. No Guru 18:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This word, while of recent online coinage has penetrated to the real world -- as can be attested to by I, and others who voted on the previous AfD, that first heard this word offline. As to online penetration, some 500 users on Livejournal list it in their interests, along with at a glance about 50 users on the popular dating site OKCupid and almost 150 members of the sapiosexual "tribe" on tribe.net. Obviously, a small but growing population of people is using this word, far beyond those connected to the original LiveJournal post. If the current article is not sufficient, it could be potentially expanded to include more detail on the spread of the word after its coining. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, neologism, WP:WINAD. Oliver Keenan 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism and an ugly word to boot. —Keenan Pepper 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Weak keep. —Keenan Pepper 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I came across the word offline and searched it on Wikipedia - the entry serves a purpose, and a wiktionary listing wouldn't do it justice. dramatic 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google returns 780 hits for the word, the first few of which are urban dictionary, wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. Still a neologism. JoshuaZ 07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - for all the reasons that were discussed in the first time around - barely three months's ago - this is a word in current online and offline usage. Just because someone didn't suceed in forcing through a deletion before doesn't mean it should come back quite so quickly imho. --Vamp:Willow 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary: There is useful information here that does not exist in the Wiktionary definition. Either this article should be kept so that this infomation remains available, or should be folded into the Wiktionary article. Also, second VampWillow's sentiment about the recentness of the first deletion attempt. --Black Paladin 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Todfox. Obviously it is more than just a "neologism created by a blogger"—the article has citations of its use by others. Making the reason more accurate by saying, "Neologism created by a blogger and adopted by others" would actually make an argument for keeping. Whether it's non-notable is debatable (and I come down on the "notable" side, clearly), but the original nominator's reason is inapplicable and so is insufficient reason to delete. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have just edited the article to place the concept as the subject of the first sentence, rather than the neologism. (I believe that an article whose title can refer to both a concept and a term should be about the concept, since mere terminology is less notable than actual real ideas.) Obviously the article needs more about the concept to balance all the information on the term as a neologism. (This is me making sure I'm up-front and not appearing to "sneak" the changes in during the AfD.) — Saxifrage ✎ 23:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Saxifrage (who also just made some excellent improvements to the article we are voting on here). Blogs have reached the point where they affect politics and culture on a large scale, spreading memes, ideas, or philosophies and even creating new ones and breaking stories. In light of this, the very fact that this word originates in a blog is not a reason to delete. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 23:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have made some more changes to this article, extending the changes made by Saxifrage. I think this is clearly more than just a dictionary entry now. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the cited sources in the article meet WP:V. Does someone have a better source for the word? JoshuaZ 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on how they fail WP:V? If not here, then at the article Talk page? (I ask because a clearly-defined problem is easier to solve.) — Saxifrage ✎ 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, they are all essentially personal websites which are frowned upon, and a personals website hardly constitutes a reliable source which fact-checks in any way. JoshuaZ 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that they are the primary sources for the topic, it's not really possible for them to fact-check anything. I think verifiability might not be exactly the issue you're alluding to—an argument for this article being original research is a more likely challenge, I should think. Am I reading your concern right? — Saxifrage ✎ 10:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yes. I need to review my wiki policies more. There is an ORy element, and certainly seems like a synthesis of information here. JoshuaZ 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it currently constitutes OR, but I know that there's can be fine line between source-based research and OR. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems informative but perhaps doesn't deserve article. Can it be moved to more appropriate place eg part of list of slang words, part of a lifestyle type article ? User:Cefas26 Mar 06
  • Strong Keep, for several reasons: As VampWillow said, it's a word in current usage, and there shouldn't be second AFD that fast. For the origin, Rock808 pointed out in the first nomination: „Blogs ARE the new media. More paper news print will be replaced with news blogs and RSS. Just because you see something on a blog doesn't mean it should be discounted. The validity should be based on amount of use/acceptance.“ And with lacking a substitute for "sapiosexual" and its popularity rising, I think the article's relevance is not only given now, but will also increase in the near future. — Shantris Te'Amdoraja 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Blogs may be the new media but they don't meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The policy of verifiability is necessary because „it is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide.“ However, the controversial subject is not whether the article is making unproven statements, but the relevance. And it is reasonable to measure the relevance by looking at the usage. Therefore it is not important if the word was coined in a blog or not, and it doesn’t matter if it is used in blogs or in real life, too. I cited User Rock808 because the reason for deletion (“Neologism created by a blogger”) reads as if the word would be something of minor value due to the origin. - Shantris Te'Amdoraja 06:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Wikibofh(talk) 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911_Eyewitness

edit

POV, propaganda and advertising. nihil 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this looks to be ugly. First pass at votes, only signed votes, by registered users with a minimum of 15 posts pre-vote:
    • Keep: 8
    • Delete: 24

This is 75% delete. Consensus. Wikibofh(talk) 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I want to thank those of you who have actually taken the time to edit and make it reasonable to this entity. I think that the link to the businessweek article from Sept 2001 was important to the credibility and the fact that the "zapruder" type tape did exist from that time. I guess you moved it to Ricks page. But thank you to the ones that saw, took the time, and did the job. Now it only remains to be seen how this works today, the 5th day. 911 Eyewitness 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the businessweek article relevant to Rick Sigel:
he top news Web sites--msnbc.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, abcnews.com, usatoday.com--command from 3 million to 10 million visitors per month, according to Jupiter Media Metrix. Contrast that with New York-based OnlineTV Inc., one of the few independent sites that provided Webcast footage of the World Trade Center attack rather than TV news clips. OnlineTV, which usually offers entertainment fare, got only 334,000 hits that day, says CEO Rick Siegel. His company is barely making it on the $4.95 monthly fee its 31,000 registered users pay. Big media companies "will dominatethrough their ability to fund," says Siegel. "It's impossible to compete with them."
It says nothing about this video, and it's not very significant about

Mr. Sigel, either --Mmx1 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Agent Mmx1 has a problem with details, spelling and getting its facts right; it is obvious that it has a problem with that and POV. Just jealous? Where can we send his print stuff scanned for this? The man has stuff from major magazines and Newspapers before the Internet. Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Financial Times, etc. 911 Eyewitness 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Making attacks on editors who disagree with you will not help the page be kept. JoshuaZ 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article would be like trying to cover up history
  • Keep Why delete an opinion? Michael Moore's page is still up and running, or maybe because he got too well-known and famous to wipe out? the fact that people are not allowed their freedom of speech around this subject only exacerbates things and creates even more suspicion
  • Keep Freedom of Information
  • Keep Why banish this?? I mean,, isn't wikipedia a encyclopedia?? well, keep it a encyclopedia and let it keep it's Freedom of speech so that everyone can learn from this..
  • Keep "Fight censorhship! Keep this article online and demand your right to freedom of speech!" I agree, what ever happened to free speech? yes I understand that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is just wrong, but it even more wrong to sensor things like this.
  • Comment I'm the kind of person who prefer to improve content over deletion, so I have made a first try to improve the quality and content of this article. Please take time to review it and fix it any discrepancy. I'd like to point those of you who haven't seen this video yet and would like to help improve it that there the article provide an external link to watch the video on google video service. thanks for reading Izwalito
  • Keep Regardless of its implications, it's a documentary with relevant information regarding 9/11. The only reason for wanting it removed is because your political views disagree. We're already to the point major news networks won't or can't talk about it, articles and forums like these are one of the only ways of freely expressing your opinion left. Don't censor it just because you disagree with it. DgtlDreams 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fight censorhship! Keep this article online and demand your right to freedom of speech!
  • Keep If you remove this, you might as well remove reference to any and all videos/documentaries/films from wikipedia. There's no difference. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.95.18.195 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Award Winning Documentary with free link to google video is not advertising. Propaganda is subjective and obscure. POV is what it is, actual point of view of a video camera on Sept 11, 2001 with scientific evidence that you can use to determine what is going on.

Agents will not stop this or the truth. 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To censor this page is a classic case of censoring honest debate. This is a huge issue of debate, that is growing every day, yet there is no public forum availabe in the mainstream. Should we delete and censor pages about border watch, or the war in Iraq?

  • Keep Wikipedia is for information not censorshipt. A leading documentary cannot be left out and be complete. While you leave a documentary like Loose Change on which is selling streams on its page you claim can claim my page as advertising? What it is the most dangerous piece of evidence of criminal doings in the demolition of the 3 Towers in NY on Sept 11, 2001. 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a forum for debating the events of 9/11/01, and neither is this vote for deletion. The above user deleted the following comment: "Do not delete this or we will continue to post it again and again." 911eyewitness 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC). This is an obvious threat of vandalism. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 02:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the talk page User:911eyewitness claims the documentary has won an Oscar, having searched for it, I can't find any sources confirming this statement. Eivindt@c 02:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect and censure article creators for making threats. Haikupoet 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above, vanity and spam, nn documentary not on IMDb, no apparent media coverage. The director's article Rick siegel has NPOV problems also. Esquizombi 03:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect Wikipedia is not a soapbox or webhost. Get someone else to cover your movie, and we'll reconsider it. Until then, no. --Mmx1 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod that was removed without comment. --Rory096 05:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Censorship is different than POV. I cant help your lack of skills in google, or your laziness in following links. The best I can do is add the links to the awards, media coverage, etc. Since the "media" is part of the problems this movie exposes it is not impossible to get them to incriminate themselves. Instead people do it themselves. It has the awards in less than 3 months from when it was released. It has already been shown with Dr. Griffin presentations as well as shown in Salt Lake City Library, Utah for a huge public gathering and at Palatine High School for an assembly of students and parents. For a grass roots film it is moving like wildfire. April 10 Mr. Siegel goes on national radio on Coast to Coast, next week on Republic Radio. The documentary is massive. 911 Eyewitness does not need this as a webhost or platform. This entry is here because the 911 Eyewitness is real, it is here in this world, it is reality. As a piece of history that is gathering momentum, you would be wise to not be censoring it because you disagree with what it may show. The only thing such deletion will show is that Wikipedia is just *Agents trying to remove 911 Eyewitness because it exposes too much about the frauds. What are you afraid of? 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion this is a public encyclopedia - if removing this is a form of censorship, than it should not be done, I think as an encyclopedia this should be a wealth of information - it should be up to the reader to decide or look into with their own open mind as to if this eye witness text is valid or not. Just like the news, just like everything else in life... think for your self, question authority. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.30.49.199 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete: Obvious Advertising/POV, seems to have no worthwhile content beyond that, since it doesn't assert notability. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertising (User:Ricksiegel posted comment here that "The production team created the 911 Eyewitness page") --mtz206 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So will you remove the zapruder entries too? How far does censorship go on this site? A free editing style does not mean to exclude the obvious. Your disagreement with content does not erase the existance of the entity. For whatever intent or purpose you find to argue the inclusion of this films entry, or my own Rick Siegel entry, the fact remains, this is the zapruder film of this century. You will become a laughable entity bare minimum, even more than you are now. Keep the entries, sooner or later they will be there. You cannot stop what has been already done and erase history, it will catch up. Ricksiegel 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Comparing your work to the Zapruder film is logically nonsensical -- the Zapruder film is a primary source, and a documentary by its very nature cannot be. Haikupoet 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- The documentary contains the complete 38 minutes of continuous footage, uncut or censored - that is the part - and is the zapruder film of this century. There is no doubt the footage has been used by researchers since the day it appeared on Sept 11, 2001 on the Internet. It is a large slice of history in its completeness.911 Eyewitness 08:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is the 9/11 zapruder equivalent how do you explain Rick Siegel saying: (...)the Russian TV in Jersey City was broadcasting and showing the people jumping. (...)They had studio gear, real professional cameras with those wonderful lenses, from their high-rise across the river. (...) I think their stuff would make mine look pathetic.[83]
  • Keep SAVE THE TRUTH
  • Strong delete and protect. This is essentially a very biased advertisement. It is very POV, and not really an encyclopedia article. 911 has added this to shoutcast. Just read the arguments of the "do not delete" (keep) camp and you can see this is clearly not objective, which is why it has no place in Wikipedia. Apfox 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the agents try to curtail you from registering and taking part in the so called "democratic" process here remember if you do not they are the only ones heard. You can see by the warning they already know their attempt at censorship is being heard around the world. Is truth to be buried?


We must not delete this. Freedom of speach should have no conditions. What are people afraid of? Why should this be deleted? 911 Eyewitness 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--If this issue were not important then there would not be this much debate. Obviously the firestorm over the content in Wikipdeia on this subject, at the very least, is enough to include this information as a growing portaion of our population are interested. The subject of 9/11 is ambiguous to some and set in stone to others so we must make our best effort to offer both sides of the story with the hope that a general concensus can be found. This, however, does not mean one will be found and since this site can be edited by its users we must make sure that each side is given the chance to present their own compilation of information while informing the readers of the nature of the information.

  • Wikify and Keep

CENSORING A REAL 9/11 EYEWITNESS AND HIS HISTORIC FOOTAGE SHOWING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER is clearly against the design of Wikipedia as a historic information source. Charlie Sheen's radio interview on CNN must have forced the 9/11 coverup team to leave the reading room and get back to work putting out information awareness fires like here on Wikipedia. 911Eyewitness won the Portland Independent Media Oscar for Best 9/11 Documentary 2005 for those who have trouble typing and using search engines.

  • Comment Maybe the "messenger" is a bit "weird" or the message a bit too off for some, but the "paper" it's written on (the video) is too important to be lost, hidden or whatnot. Anyway it now can be found in many more places, even if its being deleted here. *Comment Maybe the "messenger" is a bit "weird" or the message a bit too off for some, but the "paper" it's written on (the video) is too important to be lost, hidden or whatnot. Anyway it now can be found in many more places, even if its being deleted here. ok, i edited some of my comments. The Video is actually accessible for free, using search engines DOES help. people... remember "divide and conquer" and "qui bono"? —This unsigned comment was added by 212.202.4.227 (talk • contribs) .
  • wikify and keep- I don't get it. I looked up "The Matrix" and "The Fortune Cookie", so Wikipedia has articles about movies. The controversy stems from the fact that the movie itself has POV, not the article about it. When I read the article- (3/23/06, 19:00 EST) I saw a description of what the documentary alleges. Are descriptions of controversial films verboten on Wikipedia now? —This unsigned comment was added by 68.100.42.194 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP- Ok wether 911 was staged or not, the big dogs got to tell their story in the media and most of their information is on wikipedia. Now let these guys put this up.
  • KEEP- Information = Free. Not Censored —This unsigned comment was added by 67.177.225.246 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - Advertising/spam - Hahnchen 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SAVE THE TRUTH This is a Watergate tape, a Zapruder film, a historical record of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION during FEMA's TRIPOD 2 TERROR DRILL at the WTC running from the PORT AUTHORITY PIER 92. Just look at all the doublespeak ad/spam comments attempting to open the memory hole and protect the evil doers responsible for 3,000 deaths.
  • Keep - it's just info about the movie, why the hell it should be deleted? It's info it should be in wikipedia! —This unsigned comment was added by 193.219.62.88 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep If you can keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FahrenHype_9/11 and call it something other than propaganda (much the same can be said for Fahrenheit 9/11), then you can certainly leave this be. It's amazing how fascist people can get when their established reality is called into question. Civilization would never progress in the absence of reason and question. I believe 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy as much as I believe that JFK was the target of the cuban mafia working together with the Soviet Union and elements within our own government, but I believe every opposing viewpoint should be heard from.
  • KEEP No reason to delete it. —This unsigned comment was added by 12.168.204.126 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep- Ridding of this page would be a direct infringement upon ones first ammendment right. We are not in China here and we deserve our free speech. Wikipedia should not have to subdue and delete this article just because it is in the governments best interest. Doing so would be the next step in complete internet censorship, something that the US is proud to not have to do. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.12.163.99 (talk • contribs) .
The last time I checked, there was no "first amendment" to Wikipedia which gives you any rights at all. I think you're already getting a lot of mileage out of your "American" first amendment rights with your own website. Slowmover 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please do not allow the deletion of this article. It is necessary that word spreads about the murderous and treasonous events that took place on 911. 6:51am MST March 24, 2006 —This unsigned comment was added by 216.87.93.145 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - whether the information on the documentary is correct or not is irrelevent, its about freedom of speech, you can't remove something just because you don't like what it's saying. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.33.156.253 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep - Some of the facts and eyewitness accounts mentioned are undeniable. As such anyone purpoting to delete these entry should consider the facts again. To delete this entry would be paramount to political censorship!! —This unsigned comment was added by 137.205.164.131 (talk • contribs) .

Strong delete as advertisement, but it probably deserves a mention in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it isn't already there. All the sockpuppetry going on should be severely punished! Slowmover 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the views above about (1) censorship, and (2) comparison to other film articles. It isn't censorship to object to a blatant promo by the makers of this film. Anybody who wants to can create an article about this film in the manner of other film articles (objective, written by a 3rd party, supported by 3rd party references). The article on King Kong, for example, is not written by Peter Jackson and isn't designed to get Google hits for marketing purposes. Slowmover 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, this was comic, we posted the same idea at almost the same time. nihil 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As not to lose information of the documentary per se, it could go to 9/11 conspiracy theories page. However, I believe keeping the page would lead to a revert war, as is shown from the article creator's behavior. nihil 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The author is not behaving like someone who will accept any changes to an article he writes, contrary to the most basic concept of Wikipedia. He wants freedom to edit for himself, but not for others, IMHO. Slowmover 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is bliss slowmover, it is already mentioned substaintially in the conspiarcy sections by other works. This is the original. I suppose some idiots would try to bury zapruder into the conspiracy section and leave the actual work or the out. Leave the kids alone.911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smallwood 16:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This world need records from every body about every thing. How else or our children going to learn our history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.63.9 (talk • contribs)
Comment The above user attempted to misrepresent himself as Slowmover --Mmx1 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of you seem such fascists. They probably just put their comment in without understanding the convention. This is not an easy system. It is obvious the right wing nuts here have the ability to swing the system with this knowledge. However my original statement stands, it will return again and again as other people will not understand why the work does not have its page. You sorry excuses edit my posts too, so stop the mental mastrubation. Sorry that we are all watching. Are you nervous?? 911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP of course, and if there is some dispute as to the accuracy of it, include a disclaimer the same way other contested information carries such. All this protesting, to me, is a sign that people want this information. The best way to deal with it is to provide evidence to prove or disprove, support or undermine it... don't just censor it.
KEEP needs to be expanded and wikified though. and the documentary is definitely worth viewing. Izwalito
Comment You arogant toads get off your stool and edit it then. Bunch of fairy princes blowing wind. Complain and do nothing. Anyone can edit a article on this an "information" site. EDIT! 911 Eyewitness 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for this un-necessary flame and advice, that's what I've been doing, as you can see, I even added a comment on top of page to say so. Could you be by any chance that henrik melvang guy mentioned by Richard Siegel, or maybe a part of the cohort, or maybe that obsucre danish reference or at least the same 911eyewitness that has been posting here. Izwalito
  • Delete this non-notable work of sock-supported tinfoil-hattery. Lord Bob 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For me, the question is whether or not the video itself is notable, regardless of its content. The problem is that I can't find a good source to verify it, since a bunch of links go to the video's site or to blog links. This would put it on par with a lesser internet meme, which probably wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. The snarky comments and sock/meatpuppet votes are also really annoying. The part I find amusing is that people insult Wikipedia and the consensus process, and yet they still want their articles here. --Alan Au 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About 10 pages deep in google and still only blogs and such referring to this makes it non notable, looks very much like an advert. Sfnhltb 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Relavant information about the DVD, unless all DVD info gets removed from Wikipedia

keep it

  • Keep (after severe cleanup). While I do see how this is a clear violation of advertising and other policies, there is some amount of information that should be included as part of Wikipedia, and if this is not enough for an article without the advertising junk then it should be merged with 9/11 conspirancies. IMHO comments such as Lord Bob's above are not constructive... The issue is not whether or not this film is credible or, in your eyes, based on crackpot theories. The issue is whether or not this article merits inclusion on Wikipedia. If this many people care so strongly about its existance, then it probably deserves some kind of presence here. Someone mentioned FahrenHype 9/11 above. I think that article is appropriately formatted for Wikipedia, free of POV, and of an appropriate length considering its importance. We should do the same for this article, regardless of how its creator is behaving, because others who aren't behaving inappropriately agree that it should remain in some form. If you want to ban or censure the creator, do that, but there's no reason to take down an article that could potentially be cleaned up and provide information about a documentary that DOES exist.-- Mac4drew 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable CT video. There are a million of these floating around. Rhobite 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure theres adequate room for any unconventional 911 theories on pages that aren't trying to sell you a video.
  • Keep What is the ACTUAL basis for wanting this removed, under which specific articles of Wiki's deletion policy does this violate, the obvious: Advertising is suggested but various documentaries are equally presented like this one is minus the lengthy detail. Aside from personal opinions we must look at it in such detail as that Does the entry actually convey a point that does not border "advertisment"? Or is there an Underlying reason why this specific item is under review where many other entries of documentaries are VERY Similar in presentation, IF this goes so should all other entries on documentaries under the rules which govern the whys of wiki as each and one of them would be violating the same rules that this supposedly does. OR better yet, Just EDIT the page to give it more detail so that it doesnt look like an advertisement. (if.thats.the.case)

ZaGZaG 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fake signature, user ZaG does not exist.
  • Keep If there's a Wiki article on Farenheit 9/11, why shouldn't there be a Wiki article for 911 Eyewitness? Protect the internet's freedom.

Keep it.

  • Keep This really isn't an advertisement. By starting this big controversy, so many large news sites and such have MADE this video significant. Keep it all.
  • Keep KEEP THE TRUTH. History untill this time is made by the winners. We need the truth no matter how we feel about it. Lives fill our lives every day to make our lives "feel" better. Truth is has more pain and pleasure when it is whitnessed first hand. So the account of what happened is never lost. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.159.94.54 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: What's the real difference between this film and any of the other 9/11 conspiracy theories out there? What makes this one notable? (Other than the fact that people are protesting very loudly to have this one kept, that is.) --Elkman - (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the purpose of wikipedia if information is censored!!??!??` —This unsigned comment was added by 24.42.114.215 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  1. Keep Noteworthy despite what one may/may not believe. TruthCrusader 11:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep Don't let Bush control our minds.sickre 11:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An INVALUABLE piece of source material (And primary source at that) to anyone researching the events of 9/11. It would be insanity to delete such an item. SpeakEasy 14:07, 26 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep This is information about the documenterary. You don't delete information about the documenterary just because you don't agree with the message or thing it's in the wrong direction, you rewrite it! You talk like it's advertising, but you don't want to put up proper information about it. To me, it sounds more like you want to cover it up than fix any problems this article has. Have you ever heard of "freedom of speech"? I think you have, it's that pesky first ammendment you want to do away with so well.
  • Keep I know Bush would like to pretend there isn't, but there IS in fact a constitution, which includes a bill of rights that says this article may stay.
  • Keep only if it's going to be rewritten, preferably by a neutral party than the article creator. The grammar, writing style, everything is really blech, however I don't think it should be deleted just on that basis. The What the bleep do we know page still stands and that "documentary" is equally as sketchy as this one. As a New Yorker I invite dissenting opinions about 9/11, but this article really needs to be fixed and cleaned up and someone not so personally involved with the movie should do it. - mixvio 17:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non-notable movie. Toss your tin-foil hat and use the common sense you hopefully have. If this is censorship, why isn't this article being deleted? This article contains all the theories this movie might shove in your face, and you don't even have to pay for it. Joffeloff 17:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep freedom of the media, this is media, if its true or not, who cares, if any of you are true americans, then you'd keep it.
Since a lot of people are screaming about First Amendment rights in regard to this AFD, I thought I'd quote the First Amendment here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere in this text does it say anything about Wikipedia, or what it can decide to keep or delete. For that matter, the First Amendment doesn't force newspapers, radio programs, or TV shows to publish everything that someone has to say. A newspaper editor or a TV program producer decides what's published based on standards of newsworthiness and noteworthiness. (And advertising popularity, unfortunately.) So why would the First Amendment application to Wikipedia be any different? --Elkman - (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an advertisement for a documentary that is neither popular nor outstanding. "Freedom of speech" does not apply on a website with rules and regulations about what can be on here and what can't. That's why there are style guidelines and candidates for deletion in the first place. Why aren't all you freedom of speech martyrs on the other candidates for deletion screaming "freedom of speech!"? This is not a case of freedom of speech, it's a case of "why is this necessary"? Ryan Salisbury 19:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CLEAN UP FOR NEUTRALITY In the version of it which I viewed, it seemed like propaganda. I have seen many articles discussing movies, television shows, online games, and so on. The article should stay, but be cleaned up to be a neutral description of the movie in question. There should be a separate section of the article to discuss the controversial nature of the film. (also to help limit the possibility of vandalism to one section) Sarysa 11:38, 26 March 2006 (GMT-8)
  • Does It Matter?

Quote from Wikipedia's page on Fasiscm: "Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality."

Quote from Wikipedia's page on Propaganda: "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading."

I feel that this "personal" account is neither fasiscm or propaganda.

  • KEEP Why don't we just get all the encyclopedia's we own, and burn them...it would be the same thing if we deleted this post...regardless of its nature.
  • Delete Burning encyclopedias, which are full of useful, factual information researched extensively by a team of professionals, is NOT akin to removing an advertisement from a site dedicated to knowledge.

Wikipedia is an international site; the constitution of any single country does not apply here. There are numerous references to other similar tapes within this thread, and there's enough on the internet, and on Wikipedia itself, that getting rid of the detritus wouldn't be a bad thing. A tape with this much obvious bias cannot be called a documentary, as a documentary is an impartial account of events.

To put it simply, get rid of BS advertisements so that more credible versions of the same thing can continue to exist. --Makavely91 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shouldn't matter what the film is about or what side of any issue it is on. If the reason for delete is that you don't agree with a film, don't delete as that would be unfairly influencing wikipedia with your POV. On the other hand, this is a nn documentary with no verifiable sources and so really shouldn't exist.. Propoganda, freedom of speech, advertisement, book-burning, facism, etc all have NOTHING to do with this at all. It simply isn't verifiable enough or notable enough for a wikipedia entry. There are 911 conspiracy films on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with including 911 conspiracy films. But they have to be at least somewhat notable. Shadowoftime 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This site is NOT inflammatory or propaganda. It is a documentary. Entirely besides this, if so many people feel so strongly that some information deserves to be on the Wikipedia then let it be there. Those who dont want it, can always neglect it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_22&oldid=1142647241"