Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 3 October 5 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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The result was nomination withdrawn (keep). --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Durham Station

edit

Fails WP:V. --Ineffable3000 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion since The Battle of Durham Station actually existed and is easily verifiable. However, the Battle of Durham (original name for the article) never occured. --Ineffable3000 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable, battle was unlikely to exist. If it really existed, cite sources. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is mentioned here and here but I'm not sure if these are verifiable. It says it occured on April 26, 1865 which is also the same date as Bennett Place which is near Durham Station. It could be an alternative name. T REXspeak 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Battle of Durham Station was a very minor engagement during the Carolinas Campaign that indeed took place near Bennett Place. In my opinion, the article should be deleted as the fight was insignificant (there are hundreds of larger skirmishes that do not have a separate Wikipedia article, and in fact, are more deserving). Yes, men did fight and die at Durham Station, but they also did at Wrightsville, Eaglesport, Westminster, and many, many other places that are too small to worry about for this venue. Kill the article. or rewrite it for accuracy. Scott Mingus 20:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what this talk is about North Carolina. The article itself is talking about Durham city, county-seat of County Durham, NE England. Neville's Cross is indeed part of Durham, the river Browney (also mentioned) feeds into the River Wear which surrounds three sides of Durham City itself. There was a battle that takes place at Neville's Cross, I've seen the sign enough times as I've been driven through Neville's Cross. I'll see if I can find some mention of it somewhere. QuagmireDog 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute, the title is 'Articles for Deletion, Battle of Durham Station', but the link at the top leads to 'Battle of Durham', what's gone wrong here? QuagmireDog 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nufy8 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dosco glossary

edit

WP is not: for things made up in school one day. Chock full of neogilisms. Contested prod by author. Leuko 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep due to nearly unanimous consensus for this result. John254 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funningsfjørður

edit

It's a village, with a population of 68 (apparently). How is that notable? Cain Mosni 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is a real place. T REXspeak 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all places are notable.--Húsönd 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The patch of grassland to the side of my house is a place, and I can point to government records that prove it. It isn't notable. Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe any town or settlement is inherently notable. —dustmite 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Bwithh 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MER-C 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Village is not notable. --Holdek (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bare assertion of non-notability is as empty a rationale as a bare assertion of notability is. Neither really make any contribution to the discussion that helps the closing administrator. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's impossible to prove a negative. Look at the example you give above about the patch of grassland next to your house. You give a "bare assertion of non-notability" about it. Maybe you should follow your own advice and remove that example, since according to you those kind of comments don't really help the discussion? --Holdek (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are being asked to replace your bare assertion that something is non-notable with a proper rationale that actually addresses the article subject, states what research you did on it, and how you determined that the subject was non-notable; not to prove a negative. And my statement above is an example of a non-notable real place, and not an argument for that place being non-notable, as your rationale is supposed to be. Uncle G 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being non-notable is not a positive feature, it is a lack of one. It is inherently an unprovable negative. It can, however, be disproved by simply asserting the positive - i.e notability (since it is a simple binary value). One of the most frequently raised issues of whether an article merits existence or not (after simple verifiability, which I never questioned in the momination) is notability. In abstract an entity's mere existence is not generally accepted as sufficient for it to warrant encyclopaedic inclusion. There has to be some facet of that entity's existence which makes it worthy of note above the everyday noise. Common consensus appears to be that notability (or rather lack of) is every bit as good a rationale for questioning the merit of an article. Equally, given the expressed oinion here, it would seem that common consensus is that the mere existence of a named settlement is notability enough to merit an article. That being the case, I expect an admin to close this quickly as a keep under WP:SNOW, although I personally disagree with the general course of opinion here, and would expect a place to require cultural, historical, political or economic significance. Cain Mosni 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uncle G- My "proper rationale" for saying that this article should be deleted is that it is not notable-- in other words, there is nothing in the article that suggests that it is notable, which is a requisite (in my opinion) for keeping articles. In that vein, I'm not quite sure you understand what "disproving a negative means." Cain Mosni explains the concept in the preceding comment.

            As for your example, your very use of it contradicts your point. --Holdek (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm reasonably sure the general consensus has been that a place which has a name is notable, regardless of population. In terms of the exact population here, just remember that we're dealing with a very small country in the first place, so it's not as if this is a 68-strong village in the middle of the USA or Russia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) In light of below comments, I still incline towards keeping the article but because of the fact that there is some history to the place and also the various citations which Uncle G provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Danmark (island) (AfD discussion) and Hoy (Lake Constance) (AfD discussion) are both places that have names. Simply having a name isn't enough. That just gets one an article title with no content. There has to be content to write about the place, to fill the article in with, which in turn means that there have to be sources to work from. These can include census reports, history books, geography articles, geology studies, and all kinds of other things. But they have to exist.

      The argument about population is a red herring, by the way. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's both a village and a fjord. (It's the second largest fjord on the island.) People have written about the salmon fishing there and run tours of the place. One can find people claiming to live there, and there are fire safety reports. Microsoft Encarta even has a map. There's apparently enough to support an encyclopaedia article, with some research. Keep. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all real named, inhabited places are notable. JIP | Talk 09:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Punkmorten 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, any page with an entry in 4 other interwiki links is deemed notable in my book, --Dangherous 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "all real named, inhabited places are notable." spot on...--Jirrupin 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, as to notability, I would say that all real, named, isolated human settlements are notable (I add "isolated" to JIP's criteria so as to exclude neighborhoods and such--by "isolated" I mean separate, not far away). If pressed (as I know I would be by Uncle G) to give a reason for my mere instinct, I think I'd say that real, named, isolated settlements are the basic political units in a society. Why that should be a reason for notability, I don't know. Just thinking out loud. Second, as to verifiability (which I believe is distinct from notability), the article is sourced, and as per Uncle G, there is reason to believe that there are even more sources out there. Pan Dan 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place. Also I agree with Pan Dan and disagree with Uncle G's unduly high standards for notability. Now if this place had a school, there'd be editors all over saying the school had notability while the town in which it stood may not. Ironic. Carlossuarez46 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having something to write" based upon census reports, history books, studies, and "all kinds of other things" is not an "unduly high standard". You're not understanding what the standard actually is. You're also apparently unaware of the level of documentation that exists for most towns, villages, and (indeed) fjords. Please don't adopt blanket criteria in place of actually looking for sources. Uncle G 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Comment) I agree with Uncle G that both (1) having sources with nontrivial content and (2) notability, are necessary for keeping any WP article. I disagree with Uncle G that #1 automatically implies #2. They are distinct. Re: the subject of the article under discussion here, Uncle G has established #1 in his keep comment above, but #2 is established, I believe, simply by being a real, named, isolated settlement. Pan Dan 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_shops. Resolute 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep villages are notable. See the 17 bazillion articles on minor American settlements for precedent. Lankiveil 04:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - it's a real, verifiable place, where .15% of the entire Faroese population lives. My village, home to .006% of the British population has an article. --Mnemeson 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful (albeit slightly), and it has the potential for growth (albeit small for now). George J. Bendo 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 copyvio, which is always either speedied or brought to WP:CP, not for AfD. Grandmasterka 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Hoops 2K7

edit

Text is taken directly from http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/sports/collegehoops2k7/news.html?sid=6150755 which is a preview of an unreleased game. Article was prod'd way back 14th May, (WP is not a recorder of proposed computer games), tag was removed without comment. Marasmusine 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team_THRUST

edit

This is a vanity page for a group of students. Yes, they have won awards, but the same could be said about groups in any high school in the country. Johnbrownsbody 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a single person, it is an organization....perhaps you would like to delete the Microsoft article too. With all do respect, get over yourselves and leave the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.8.117 (talk • contribs)

This is a FREE Country - If you don't like it, don't look at it. This is giving information not only on Team 1501, but on Monocoque Design. If you are going to delete it, go ahead and delete it right now. There is no reason to continue arguing over this article. We need to not act like children here. If you can't give people a freakin' chance to get something here. Don't say THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT on the Wikipedia home page. End of Topic - LightingDude1989!

"This" is no one single country. Contrary to what you might think, countries outside the USA not only exist, but have people who edit Wikipedia. Me, for one. JIP | Talk 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh While the generality of the article does not help it out any, I am a member of this team and I have to agree with lightingdude that I would like to see it stay. As I think it needs much editing, I see the point lightingdude is trying to make. We are a good team, however, I can also see the point the Wikipedia editors are trying to make. This is basically a vanity article about a FIRST team. After doing some research I haven't found any other articles about other FIRST teams, although a nice section of Wikipedia to do so would be a great contribution to FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). Lightingdude, I like the thought, but I am afraid Wikipedia cannot keep the article...At least we have a great team website. :-) -croutzahn 16:23, 4 October, 2006
  • Comment I think you misunderstand the meaning of "anyone can edit". It doesn't mean "anyone can place anything they want in any article" (and don't bring up the U.S. constitution; Wikipedia is not a governmental entity, so that document doesn't apply.); there are still policies and guidelines regarding content in place to keep the quality of Wikipedia high. Original research is one of them and requires independent third-party verification, such as newspapers and magazines. I've actually found some other articles about FIRST teams (Northern Force, Team 172, Maine FIRST Robotics Coalition), though because they also lack third-party verification they'll be subjected to the same deletion process. ColourBurst 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's even a discussion on this? Vanity, makes no claim of notability, other than winning a regional award, of which I'm sure there (at least) tens of thousands every year. eaolson 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you all want a vanity page for your group, buy a domain and host your own website. Resolute 04:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity page about a non-notable team. --Mnemeson 11:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am also a member of this team. We are unique in many ways, but another unique quality about us is the fact that we are one of the first, if not THE first, robotics teams that have been integrated as a part of 4H. Not much information has been posted about this yet, because it is a new page, but I know that it will in the future. We have tons of information we can give about this, please keep this page. 08:12, 5 October 2006
If you can find reliable, independent sources making this claim of notability for your team, then you could be in business. Otherwise, this doesn't address the concerns above. Sam Clark 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification This article was meant to be updated at a later date, getting it up online quickly. The person on the team who made the above comment is correct...please keep this page as we will have reliable information eventually. As for the comment Resoluge made, we do have our own webpage if you would have been paying attention to the article you would have seen http://www.huntingtonrobotics.org. Nice work KH...Thanks for the post. --signed LightingDude1989. 16:55, 5 October 2006.

Opinion As a member of this team and the student president, along with the webmaster, i can see the points for NOT deleting i, but i can also see the points for deleting it. If you need proof of the 4-H issue i can get that provided by the 4-H Office here in our county. As far as monocoque goes we are the first team to ever make a robot using true monocoque and not something simular. Not to mention our whole robot is monocoque. I was thinking if this article is such a big deal, could we just add information about us to Hungtington, IN page and the Monocoque page? Obviously many people want to see this on here and many don't and some are split between, they want to see it here but not as a single page by itself. --signed roboticsguy1988. 17:35, 5 October 2006.

Comment I also should add that as this teams webmaster i can update this as i do with the website, that is not a problem, i just need to know if this is going to be solved or we are going to keep going back and forth. --signed roboticsguy1988. 17:41, 5 October 2006.

  • Delete Non-notable high school club. (To answer the above, these discussions run no more than five days. At this point I suspect the outcome is pretty sure. The only arguments for keeping seem to be from your high school, and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines.) Fan-1967 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Actually, FAN-1967, you are WRONG about these only being from Huntington North High School. I am from Atlanta, but I still have a great respect for this team. I would appreciate it if you get your facts straight before you say things. --Signed lightingdude1989 17:53, 5 October 2006

Comment FAN-1967, first of all it takes a while for pages to be found, second of all, it seems its wikipedia members who are coming in here. Now don't get me wrong but it seems we should give the public a chance to decide for themselves. As i stated above i can go BOTH ways. I guess i would like to see this team somewhere on Wikipedia, wether (as i also stated above)it is on our towns page, or the monocoque page. ~roboticsguy1988 18:00, 5 October 2006

Comment 2 I personally think that all the teams in FIRST should have a sub page, you wouldn't believe the amount of research other teams do, and wikipedia is a great source for information, so why not make it a great source for FIRST Team Information also. ~roboticsguy1988 18:00, 5 October 2006

Comment 3 In response to Sam Clark up there, as the teams webmaster i can say that we get more hits than that, i cannot give an exact figure at this time. If anyone needs proof that this is an real organiztion i can give you all the phone numbers in the world to call, and you can even verify it at the FIRST website www.usfirst.org This is more than a FIRST team this is the Huntington County Robotics team, FIRST just happens to be our main concentration. As far as the search goes you can search multiple phrases and we are the first result. You don't think that you get other non related websites for other organizations too, then obviously you do not know google. ~roboticsguy1988 18:10, 5 October 2006

  • COMMENT Basically roboticsguy is saying "get over yourselves, let this article remain on Wikipedia. Give it a chance" Team THRUST is a real organization. Look it up on google. This isn't BS people who would pay for a domain and make such an elaborate website (www.huntingtonrobotics.org) if it weren't a real ORGANIZATION. --Anonymous User. 18:30, 5 October 2006.
    COMMENT 2  Here is a link to IndianaFIRST's page on Team 1501 http://www.indianafirst.org/teams/frc-teams/team-1501/

Another Article Lookie here 1501 is also mentioned on this NASA article. It is almost at the bottom of the page. Surely NASA is a good enough source for you!!! http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/highlights/highlights.htm

Duh Correct I am LightingDude...and anybody with the exception of two others here is going to be able to see the IP address. That was meant as a pun, which I should have been logged in but I wasn't so it didn't take affect. Oh well now you know. Anyways, back to this article. Team THRUST is a part of FIRST, which is a national organization. Perhaps this article should be in a WikiFIRST type of resource rather than in Wikipedia itself directly. This article is worthy of staying, but I agree now and see how it should be. FIRST is an excellent organization. You should really do some reading up on it if you haven't because it provides many high school students with excellent opportunities. Could we get this under a WikiFIRST area on Wikipedia??? ..LightingDude1989

DO NOT Delete my comments. --LightingDude1989.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No concensus-Keep AdamBiswanger1 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System Accident

edit

Hi, I am the author of this article

edit

My article, as of Thursday, October 4, 2006, includes seven external links (now nine) and five references. The summary of the ValuJet crash is rock solid, as is the summary of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

I have experience in business management. I am not an engineer. I ask you to consider how that might be advantageous. An engineer can tell you that the cause of the ValuJet crash was that the oxygen generators were poorly labeled. I can tell you how that can happen in an organization. Of course, if the engineer also has managerial experience, or is merely an astute observer, he or she could also tell you.

And most of all, I invite your help. Help make this article better. Include even more references. Specifically, I ask for someone, with technical experience in nuclear power, to help write the section on Three Mile Island.

I am aware that the writing style is different. But is different bad, or merely different? Must every sentence have three words in blue? I think not. And the irony is that many of these accidents have as a contributing cause a formalistic style of communication!

I would cite Carl Sagan as a writer who is accurate but who also allows his own voice to come through. I'm sure you can think of other writers like this. The point is not to imitate Carl Sagan, or anyone else. But try and produce as good an intellectual work as we can, that is, in Wikipedia's words, to Be Bold.

I have split the ValuJet section, into the ValuJet crash itself, and "Discussion of ValuJet." I have similarly split the section on Space Shuttle Columbia. I ask you to consider that that may be enough, and to consider that this is a work in progress. I ask for your vote to keep this article.

Thank you,

Cool Nerd

comments

edit

I cannot find any meaningful reference to this term aside from this article, I'm not really even sure what the article is supposed to be about. Finally, the article seems to constitute original research. shotwell 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The refs mostly never use the phrase 'system accident', and when they do it is merely an accident in a system, such as "A system accident occurs as a result of unplanned or unexpected interactions between system components."[4] There is no concrete example of this term even being a buzzword.Dudeman1st 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment OK I am convinced this term exists. BUT I don't think it merits an article. Doesn't a short defintion belong in the Wiktionary? Is this a major field of study? Is it something found in a regular Encyclopedia or textbook? Remember that not every word needs a Wikipedia article. I will vote to 'keep' a very trimmed down version with less original research and more direct prose.Dudeman1st 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mostly never," eh? Anyway, this is either a concept this guy basically made up or a decent article on a semi-obscure topic and I can't really tell which it is from the information available, so I will vote I have no idea. If kept, it needs to go to System accident. Recury 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep"System accident" is a term in use for many years in scholarly publications, dating back at least to Perrow (1984). It is simply false to assert it is or or a neologism. The article is important in relation to many notable disasters, where it is simplistic to blame "operator error." A Google search shows several scholarly uses of the term in the exact sense of the article in the first page of results:"Chernobyl - System Accident or Human Error?" (1996);"Anatomy of a System accident: The Crash of Avianca Flight 052 "(1994). NASA and IEEE use the term in many publications in the sense of the article title. Edison 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In those articles, the term is being used in a very intuitive and trivial sense. Is there enough material specifically about system accidents to provide more than a dictionary definition of the term? shotwell 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ComentAu contraire, the term "system accident" as defined by Perrow in the work cited is commonly used in scholarly analysis of system failures. Many of these are discussed in Perrow's book, referenced in the article.Edison 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe article discusses accidents per Perrow's term of art "system accident" which is an accident which involves "the unanticipated interaction of multiple failures" in a complex system. There is more to the concept than is seen by looking at several accidents individually. It is a concept used in failure analysis. If this article is deleted, I will add it to my personal Deleteopedia. Maybe there could be an article on Perrow's book, or his ideas could be added to the rather sparse article on Failure analysis. Any claim of OR might not be taking into consideration the 1984 book. As for post-1984 accidents, accusations of OR could be disproved by citing verifiable publications wherein the accidents are described as "system accidents."Edison 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, author has shown that the term is a discrete concept and more than just the combination of the words "system" and "accident" and that it is actually used in published works. Recury 17:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted as spam by Eagle 101. MER-C 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denison & porter

edit

No assertion that company meets WP:CORP notability requirements. Google unable to find any mention of this company other than its own website. Contested prod by article author who is associated with the company. diff Leuko 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ECW chants

edit

The result was The result was Delete and Transwiki AdamBiswanger1 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has been moved to WikiQuote ECW where it fits better -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 G4 - Gnostic Movement - see deletion discussion. Dakota 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic Movement

edit

Not a movement, but a "registered corporation" distributing gnostic information. Looks to me like an extremely non-notable church/cult/what-have-you. Previously AfD'ed and deleted (as Gnostic Movement in July, here), but I can't tell if this is the same content; this article appears to have been created in a shuffle of redirects immediately after the AfD. 21 google hits for "Gnostic Movement" Pritchard. Deletion should also apply to The Gnostic Movement Incorporated, a redirect. Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted as spam by Improv. MER-C 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images

edit

advert for NN-company DesertSky85451 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete AdamBiswanger1 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot doctor

edit

Article is a recently created rinking game, and as we all know Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Wildthing61476 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Doctor is NOT a new drinking game. It has been played around Washington since the beginning of Season 2 of Grays Anatomy about a year ago. Also, wikipedia has many drinking games listed. This article is just as valid, if not more valid(due to the depth of desciption), than the rest. Frorunner9 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist College of Ministry

edit

An unaccredited "college" that currently has "70-80" students. Fails notability. Arbusto 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City College and Bible School

edit

Another unaccredited "college" with less than a 100 enrolled. Fails notability. Arbusto 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no concensus-- Keep AdamBiswanger1 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen chemistry

edit

Possibly original research. I'm listing this because it was speedy deleted as OR, but OR is not a speedy deletion criterion. The article is sourced, but I don't know if the source is considered reliable. No vote. gadfium 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm the one who deleted this. I would vote to keep if it was cleaned up and made less of a how-to. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially a re-publication of the original list. I didn't look in detail but it's not clear to me that "with permission" means "under a GFDL-compatible license". It isn't really OR (acetone is commonly known as acetone? really?) but it's certainly unencyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible Transwiki (See below) Wikipedia is not a how-to. Don't see how this article (especially with its title) could be reformed into something that isn't a how-to and be encyclopedically notable (stripped down article would essentially be a reference to an external article) Bwithh 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all, I'll abide by your judgement. Thought it would be a fun article for the home chemist, as it would be updatable (unlike the original article). Bryan Turner 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding license: I asked the author if I could publish the list from the article to Wikipedia, he consented and mentioned he was a frequent contributor. I take this to mean he understands the license, I can ask him to register and consent directly if necessary. Regarding content: It is a direct conversion of the online article (copy/paste) with wiki-formatting, links, and a few minor edits. I am willing to clean up/remove the how-to (better title suggestion?) if you feel it is worth keeping. (and yes, Acetone is the common name) :-) Bryan Turner 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote However, I think this is an absolutely fascinating and informative article and hope it can be preserved somewhere, even if it doesn't stay in article space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've read through the policies gadfium suggested; "No Original Research" - I agree this article constitutes original research, but in a cross-cutting manner. Each of the chemical pages already lists common sources, this article cross-references them (I plan to use transclusion from each of the parent articles into this one, so no duplication will occur). "Reliable Sources" - I also agree the Citizen Scientist is not a peer-reviewed source. I believe the transclusion idea would eliminate this issue, as the source would no longer depend on the original article, but fully reference Wikipedia intelectual property. Opinions? Bryan Turner 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly stuff to write on the subject of performing chemistry using common household/kitchen chemicals, and on the subject of the science of cooking, as can be seen by what people have written on the two subjects. There are even whole books on the subjects (ISBN 0854043896, ISBN 0671675761, ISBN 0854043896, ISBN 0684800012, ISBN 0894909533, ISBN 1557995117, ISBN 0876146256). The latter subject is covered in food science and molecular gastronomy. The former subject is more difficult to address, as most of the sources are not actual discussions of the subject itself but are simply collections of experiments, akin to Wikijunior Big Book of Fun Science Experiments on Wikibooks.

    If Wikibooks had a book on home chemistry experiments, a list of common household sources for various chemicals, such as this, would be a suitable addition as an appendix. Uncle G 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rewrite. While the topic is fine for Wikipedia, the current page is too much of a how-to. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, the phrase "kitchen chemistry" is well established and did not originate here; it roughly means "chemical experiments or demonstrations performed with household chemicals." It meets the "I'd heard of it before seeing the article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
????? The what test? Bwithh 16:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard the phrase "kitchen chemistry" used to refer to this subject before seeing a Wikipedia article about it. That's the test. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This article could easily be rewritten as an encyclopedic article, with a less 'how-to' tone. Dialectric
  • KeepShades of Mr. Wizard! Brings back great memories to read about kitchen chemistry. But the rule that the chemicals are generally safe for high school students is questionable for some of the chemicals. And notes like "Be sure not to mix any X with Y" would be like telling a kid not to put beans up his nose. There should be some more safety notes about safe experimenting, and links to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Some solvents are carcinogins, for instance.Edison 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting enough content, may need some rewriting LHOON 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that "chemical A can be extracted from household product B" is typically verifiable by the ingredient label. Other considerations, such as the most effective separation method (should we decide to go that route), would require more rigorous sourcing, otherwise they would be original research in the classical sense. — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the article is not about a subject, it's a how-to. Would be suitable for WikiBooks, perhaps transwiki? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Improve

edit

If the decision ends up keep, please help me understand how to improve this article;

  • Title - is 'Kitchen Chemistry' the appropriate title for the article that contains the chemical list, or should they be split into the coloquial term's definition and a separate list of chemicals?
  • How-To - If the chemical sources are transcluded from the individual chemical pages, is this still too much of a 'how-to'? I guess.. where is the 'flavor' of the how-to coming from, and how can I remove it?
  • Index/Appendix - Should this be something like an index instead of an article?

Thanks! Bryan Turner 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SAFETY RULESIt is unwise to put chemicals in the hands of young experimenters without a section on lab safety. Some of these are indeed poisonous, explosive, carcinogenic, or capable of causing damage to the nervous system. Things like eye protection, don't add water to acid.Edison 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete CSD A1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Region I of the NAIA

edit

Contested speedy delete under A1 - short article providing little or no context. (I mean it doesn't even say what the NAIA is.) I'm also nominating Regions II - whenever it stops. Leuko 02:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.--SB | T 09:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donwan Harrell

edit

Likely fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found some stuff on Google as well, but I am still in doubt about it. :-/ --Húsönd 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 arrived at after a debate that was uglier than it needed to be.

The nomination was a very poor one. The use of the word cruft in a debate of this nature is always ill-advised, and to state that as the reason for deletion means that the vast majority of the debate descends into argument by assertion. One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term. Moving on...

It's standard practice to list all previous deletion debates, so everyone knows the history. Not required per se but always a good idea.

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece Attacks, which resulted in delete, closed 26 April 2006.
  • 3 June 2006 Retro7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created this article, with the edit summary, "I don't care what that killjoy says. There nothing wrong or useless giving infomation OP attacks. There more information coming, please help me by filling out the article."
  • The page at that time was "substantially identical" to the deleted article, and thus a candidate for speedy deletion... but it slipped the net.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece Games, a group nomination where all were kept, closed 31 July 2006.
  • A strong argument could be made that the existing article is also a candidate for speedy deletion, as while a lot more detail has been added (extra attacks, descriptions, etc.) nothing to indicate either why this is signifigant not any reliable sources have been added.

And the reliable sources are the problem with this article. Although it took until the fourth of October for it to come out, "Its [sic] completed unsourced." The website linked is not a reliable source. Due to the requirement that all articles be unbiased there must be the ability for articles to be verified. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

This is, to some degree, a rip-off 1 for the "defenders" of the article. Since this point was lost in the morass of circular discussion, they never focused their energy on finding sources to it. The debate from 5 October onwards about items of fiction serving as their own source is an interesting one, but is not sufficient to eclipse both the foundational principles of Wikipedia and long-established collective consensus.

Delete.

brenneman {L} 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Yes, this does say "rip-off." A fast one, the run around, etc. While it seems unlikely that reliable sources could be found, it was not shouted out that this was the criterion. It's always the criterion, so this is also a tip-off: The quickest way to end almost any deletion discussion is to provide reliable sources. Don't get sucked into arguing about what's important.

One Piece attacks

edit

Delete - I think the term for this is "listcruft", if a character is important enough to have their own article, then surely the attack can be listed there, if they are not ? Well who cares? Charlesknight 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say move them to the character's article. However, having an attack list would make the character own article page neater. But I am all for delete. Kljs 7:33, 17 September 2006 (EMT)

How would having an attack list in the character's page make it neater? It was like that for the longest time, then we decided when the pages where being cleaned, to make a break out page of all the One Piece attacks for characters that have more then five attacks in order for the pages to not be half actual data, and half attacks. (Justyn 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Neutral for the moment: Could you explain the arguement a bit more? Characters who have less than 5 attacks have their attacks listed on their own article/section. The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of ? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks? --Charlesknight 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not different ways a character punches someone in the face. In case you haven't watched much anime, the characters tend to have "named attacks" that are different from their normal ones, which is different from the way American comics tend to do things. If Superman had, say, an attack called "Fury of Krypton" where he did a bunch of attacks using his powers, I could see your point. But he doesn't. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he does have named and defined superpowers which basically amounts to the same thing. Johnny Storm has about 6 or 7 offensive attacks that have defined names in the comics (Supernova, fireballs etc) - a quick check (and it is quick as I'm off to the station) suggests that we don't give those their own articles. --Charlesknight 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Superman's powers are listed, are they not? Sigmasonic X 05:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the moment: I am neither for or against deletion, though I have disagreed with the need for this page since its creatation I have come to understand why it was created in the first place. Some of these attacks are listed for support on the main characters pages. Sometimes we reference a move on the pages, its nice to have something up explaining how that move works. When they were on the pages, they took up a lot of space and made it look sloppy which displeased many editors of the said pages who had to work around them. They were given their own pages to solved this problem, allowing room for expansion on details (which hasn't happened too much it seems). Angel Emfrbl 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sheesh, do we have to go through this again? Surely you've noticed how many attacks the characters, especially Luffy and Sanji, have? They would take up over half of their characters' pages if they were moved back there. And if you think this is cruft, I wonder what you'd think of Ninjutsu (Naruto), which has four pages worth of attacks, several of which have pictures, some of which are even gifs, and include several characters that only make brief appearences. Sigmasonic X 01:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of other bad articles is not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having all of the attacks in one place makes things much easyer on everyone, because it clears up OTHER pages. And this WAS already nominated for deletion, and it was kept, what makes this time different?

Comment This AfD is improperly fomatted, as it claims to be 11-17-06. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Hopefully an admin will fix it.[reply]

opps - the clock on my computer was accidently set two months forward and so that was automatically set as the date when it was generated, I'll see about fixing it. --Charlesknight 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't want character pages to be half attacks half actual information. -WikiXan 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An encyclopedia, not a fan-guide! or at least rename to One Piece/Attacks so that it is obviously a sub-page. For all i knew it could have been a chess article. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The information about the attacks of various characters listed on the page is important to the section on One Piece. It provides us with great descriptions of their attacks, & they'd take up too much space if added to the individual characters' profiles.

What about One Piece Abilities and Attacks? (Justyn 06:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Exactly what are you trying to say? Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft and Fancruft are not reasons for Deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Okay seriously am getting sick of this, we've stated our case more then once to you people. We've told you more the once that this is not the only attack guide for an anime series (check Naruto, Bleach and DBZ for example) and it IS vital to the articule, this is not fancruft. We've been professional about it despite a few immature people puttng down useless information and even tried to compromise by giving it its own page and rules to follow but once again you people keep coming back trying to delete it. What is it that we have to do to prove this is nessercary, hmmm? Please tell me cause all am hearing is very useless claims. Oh and in case you haven't noticed this whole article, each and every page, is written from fans of the series, shall we delete this too?-User:Retro7
    • This is fan material, in Games we have a consensus that strategy guide material gets moved to the game wiki. I think the same should hold true for anime episode and series guide material. This is simply not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is for people to reference unknown information, a good article would tell them what they need to know about the series and where to find more info. The One Piece article and associated pages however, have become a dumping spot for fan research/listmaking and fan club activities. We need to find a better wiki for this info, drive it there and kick it out the door without stopping. --Darkfred Talk to me 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can give examples of many cases where fans have expanded upon wikipedia articles in this such way. These pages tend to be the most informative pages on wikipedia despite being questionable as to whether they are true encyclopedic anymore. Fans care about the areas they are intereasted in, you can't change that... Its no different to the Star Trek, Doctor Who, Home and Away, Mortal Kombat pages and so forth. Sine they are fans, they pay more attention to the series and have a lot of info they wanted to put up, odd bits they've noticed... Things like that. All I can say is every Wikipedia One Piece page is a 'working in progress' so to speak and we're trying to improve them. Angel Emfrbl 16:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Game wiki? Explain. If you mean that wikibooks thing that didn't work before. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will now post the information that is still relevent that was brought up it FIRST time you guys tried to delete this:

"Everything you listed for deletion is a valid compendium of information for this series. Regardless of what you think about the amount of pages and detailed information, the fact of the matter is that the One Piece franchise has alot of details in its plot, characters, and general information overall. All of these pages are usefull for compiling information on the anime series, manga, video games, etc" ~Lordshmeckie

(Justyn 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]


You people - would you like to mind your tone and act with a little civility towards your fellow editors? --Charlesknight 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was acting civil, that was directed to those who are trying to delete this page. Though I apologize if I offend. - User: Retro7


Sorry, you guys. I'm sick with a realy bad head cold right now. (Justyn 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep: We've been over this before, and every time, the page was deemed acceptable to keep. There's no reason to delete this, unless you've just seen the page and are unaware that the page has been through this argument before. One Piece is filled with a wide variety of unique, named attacks. So much so that a compendium of them all is perfectly acceptable. 71.246.83.63 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment You're compairing this with dead prostitutes!!??? That's way beyond what's being discussed here, out of context, uncivil, and is a first class request for a fight!!!CalicoD.Sparrow 10:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: I know this page looks like it needs some work and I would much prefer some of the attacks to be in the character articles, but this page actually works. It looks like listcruft and fancruft but so are those Naruto Ninjutsu pages in a nutshell. Don't delete this page or at least tick off those who support it with comments such as "this is worse listcruft than that time someone made all those lists of dead porn stars". Those won't gain you any support.CalicoD.Sparrow 10:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of other bad articles is not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not fancruft. Attacks and special abilities are notable things in a notable anime, One Piece. If this goes, so should everything unrelated to the main characters. Belgium EO 03:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The anime is notable, but these are not notable things in it. And yes, it is quite possible that there are many other articles on other non-notable aspects of the anime, and yes, those should also be deleted. Feel free to nominate them. — Haeleth Talk 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Rīshan, a pokemon that does not even have a picture yet has it's own artical, I think this should too. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete This is listcruft. We aren't an indescriminate collection of information. Its completed unsourced. Not even Pokémon has a list of all the attacks the creatures can do. What bering on an encyclopedia does each possible activity of a character does this have? The previous was a grouped deletion request, and was filled with anonymous editors and sockpuppets. The grouping may have disturbed this as a valid arguement for deletion on listcruft. A fansite should have this page, NOT wikipedia. --Kevin_b_er 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Listcruft and Fancruft are not reasons for Deletion (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Why? (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Why? (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If Rīshan, a pokemon that does not even have a picture yet has it's own artical, I think this should too. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]


You're wrong, it is; read ONUnicorn's post. And List/fancruft is not a reason for deletion ~Justyn
  • Delete, listcruft. If the characters' individual pages are too cluttered to include lists of their important attacks, then clean up the characters' pages too, because if they're anything like most anime character pages then they're crammed full of cruft themselves. Read WP:FICT and kindly follow its guidelines; if you want a wiki devoted to every little detail of the One Piece universe, start your own One Piece wiki, because this isn't it. This is an encyclopedia, not a Onepieceopedia, and we provide overviews of culturally important phenomena, which means we describe One Piece but not every goddamn attack any character ever used. — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean it up to make it more encyclopedic. If Superman getsS a full page for all of his abilities, I don't see the problem of a whole series having one. Nemu 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Powers and abilities of Superman is a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article of a section in Superman. Breakout articles on individual facets of a subject aren't necessary if there is room for them in the overall article. The characters in One Piece minor characters don't even have enough to warrant a full article overall, let alone to warrant breakout articles on their attacks. And looking at Monkey D. Luffy and Roronoa Zoro there appears to be plenty of room yet without need for sub-articles. Why on Earth do you think that it is a reasonable arrangement of information to have all of these attacks together in a separate article on attacks rather than in the articles, or the sections of One Piece minor characters, on the characters whose attacks they are? (Several characters already have "attack list" sections, notice.) What justification for such an eccentric arrangement is there? Uncle G 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan/Listcruft is not a reason for deletion. (Justyn 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You're wrong, it is; read ONUnicorn's post. And List/fancruft is not a reason for deletion ~Justyn
  • Delete. If an attack is an important part of a character's identity, put it on that character's page. If not, don't mention it! Many of these attacks appear to be only used once in a single episode. Zetawoof(ζ) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, by it's nature it's an unverifiable piece of original research that can only be checked by going through the whole series and finding all these attacks. It's far too in depth for an encyclopedia and contains only trivial information. Textbook listcruft. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP is not a mirror for fansites. This information goes way beyond the remit of an encyclopedia, it isn't presented in a format designed for interested outsiders, it's giddily stacked up for fans to pore over and soak up. WP is for sharing with the rest of us, fan sites are for sharing with other fans. QuagmireDog 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting with a DON.

First: I must comment on something, you caught the One Piece section at a major crossroads, we are at the tail end of choosing, once and for all, what names should be dominent; the names used by Viz and 4kids, or the original names. We chose the original names for the most part, and now we are starting to actualy bring the articles up to speed. We are just now begining to rewrite stub articals, add references, and all the other things neccisary to bring these pages to Wikipedia's standards. We are working to get the character pages nice and tidy, this would be a massive setback.

And, there are very few frequent editors of the One Piece section, if any of you want to help you MORE then welcome to, we need the help, please, if you know a large amount about One Piece, please help bring these pages to par.

Second: There is no actual guidelines for fancruft, and being fancruft is not a reason for deletion in and of itself. This is not a "indiscriminate collection of information" and as Wikipedia defines that:

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:
Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."

This catagory fits into NONE of those, in other words: not an indiscriminate collection of information. Don't bring this up again, you would just be making an ass out of yourself.

And as I said: we are working on bringing all of the One Piece pages up to par, and I will bring up that this page should be our top priority. And another thing: The pages under Ninjutsu (Naruto) are not currently up for deletion. Why is that? The Naruto Ninjutsu are just as much "fancruft" and "indiscriminate collection of information" as the ones for One Piece, and there are SIX PAGES of them, and only ONE for One Piece. And this is very important as well: the Kamehameha Attack HAS IT'S OWN PAGE. If giving ONE ATTACK it's own page is not fancruft, then this is not fancruft either. Powers and abilities of Superman is the same thing as this; for one character.

Now, it looks to me like I just nuked your grounds for deleting this page.

Now that I have stated as to why this is NOT fancruft, anyone who still thinks that this should be deleted, post a goddamned good reason that is "indiscriminate collection of information", or "Fancruft" or "Listcruft", or I will notify some Admins that this was dicided to be kept due to no ground for deletion.

I think that all of you that just said "indiscriminate collection of information", "Fancruft" or "Listcruft" should alter your post to give more exact reasons, or I don't think that your votes should be counted, or should just be removed.

You will notice that I used swearwords in my post, this was not to insult the people on the side of deleting; this was to enphisize my point; I said that I would be commenting with a DON. (Justyn 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Question: what's a DON? --Charlesknight 08:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the articles about Ninjutsu (Naruto) are also borderline deletion candidates. But as for Superman, I think he is notable enough to have a separate article for his powers and abilities. JIP | Talk 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories aren't the only possible indiscriminate collections of information. Indiscriminate lists of things like every gun in every video game ever, or every song about love, or every female fictional character, have all shown strong support for deletion. My main objection to this is its fundamentally Original Research nature; it can't cite anything but the primary source as support for its content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JIP: And if Superman alone deserves this honor, why does the entirety of One Piece not deserve it? One Piece is the fourth best selling Manga in the history of Shōnin Jump, the second current best selling, and is Japan's most popular series currently.
First, I think Superman is known in more countries than One Piece. And second, more importantly, if you actually read Powers and abilities of Superman, you can see that each power and ability is described in detail, to explain why it is important. This article, though, is just a listing that mentions the name and the movement involved. It adds no value to the article about the series. JIP | Talk 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said already, we are bringing the articles up to par. And in the more then half a century that Superman has been around, they have found the time to put a lot of details into his powers. And as you pointed out, Superman is more well known, I would not doubt everyone knows who he is. And One Piece has only been out for nine years, versus half a century for Superman, who has had HOW many retcons? I have a strong feeling that there will not be consensus on deleting the page. (Justyn 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Night Gyr: What exactly do you define as enough things to cite for content? And another example of idiscriminate information: "List of fictional characters that pick their noses."

(Justyn 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not lists prominant cases, it is not the end all for all possible cases of indescriminant information. If we're going to compare this to the superman article: this does not describe what each one is at all and it doesn't list every last thing superman's done. This list pretty much has every single thing they've called what they've done. If you wish to try to spout popularity, Superman's an iconic character embodying a superhero, and is over 60 years old, who started the Golden Age of Comic Books. There's little comparison to be had with that article in the end. What place does this list have for the general reader? Why do they need to know it? To answer a question some might have, no, they don't need to know the translation of every single action the characters of it could possibly do. Kevin_b_er 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me add another big one that noone has mentioned, verifiability. What verifies that this information belongs here? The series? That's self-referential in nature. Why would bringing up pages related to this series neccessitate this page? Why does a translation effort need this page? Do you not have any sources for the list to verify that all your translations are completely correct? This page has almost no use to an encyclopedia. If you have no verifiability, perhaps you should read What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?, as that is what this is. In fact, the article/list is entirely a piece of in-universe perspective. Kevin_b_er 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to bring up something that was already mentioned; I just worded it wrong. What I ment was that if one character can have a page devoted to his abilities that have been tweeked, added, removed, increased, decreased, for sixty years; why must an entire series, who's pages are still being fixed up mind you, have facts split up over a large number of pages as opposed to having them all gathered for easy reference?
As I said you are catching these pages right in the middle of being brought up to spec. It's like saying an unfinished building is not up to code.
And anyone who can read Japanese can varify the translations. (Justyn 06:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
So what usefulness does it have in an encyclopedic aspect? "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." As I've said, this has no real usefulness unless you are a fan of the series. In fact, the average person doesn't care about every last translation into japanese, because most of the english speaking population doesn't know it. I'm also looking at the talk page, several of these 'attacks' have only been used once. What good is a one-oft list of actions? Kevin_b_er 06:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originaly written in an a in-univerce style, and honestly, the majority of the editors would rather get all the facts streight, then do the re-wording, and I know someone who can start working on re-wording the pages and I myself can help with re-wording. And this page serves the perpose of consolidation; why should this information take up space and make the character pages look bad, when the information can be in one place for easy reference, and as I have said, many times, the pages are not done. And if the Kamehameha attack is not fancruft, then why is this?.
And you say that most of the english speaking population does not know it, that is true, but, is not the perpose of an encyclopedia to educate? Why should the people have to look for a long while go to some obscure site to learn the original names used?
Also, the perpose behind putting in once used attacks, is because the list would not be complete without them. (Justyn 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Gomu gomu no delete. Hopelessly in-universe, doesn't make any sense at all unless you're deeply steeped in One Piece lore (and this is speaking as a One Piece fan, so no "nn 'cause you don't know about it, huh" cracks), many of these attacks are one-offs never mentioned a second time... this is an irredeemable mess, and would make for poor material for a fanpage, let alone a general-purpose encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it "Hopelessly in-universe"? Nothing that actualy be edited from scratch is hopeless. The fact is, people are viewing an unfinished page, and saying that it is not up to spec, even though it's not up to spec, because it's not finished. And, everyone is so gung-ho to delete the page, noone is thinking of ways to make it better. (Justyn 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    I suppose I could hope that someone would go through the list and add some sort of real-world context to this list. My optimism isn't up to the task, however, especially given that I can't imagine (besides, ugh, listing the episodes/volumes each attack appears in) and form that real-world context would take.
    This list article isn't unfinished; it's unencyclopedic, not in form but in function. It could be made better by deleting it and describing the visual style and narrative style, based on reliable sources, in the One Piece article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not finished in your oppinion, have you looked into what has been going on in the One Piece section? And why would the page be served better by deletion, when it can be fixed by re-wording? And can you tell me exactly what part of reliable sources are you refering to? Because if it's the supply sourses, we're in the process of that, we just need time, and you are more then welcome to help. (Justyn 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    What kind of rewording is going to make this not a list of trivia, largely comprised of one-off attacks that aren't even important in the work in which they appear?
    What kind of sources? If they're screenshots/movies, fansites, the manga volumes, or "official" guides, then I'm not particularly moved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, we will reword it so that it is not in-universe. We will add sources. And most likely get rid of the non-canon attack to clear out space.
    So sources... you're saying that One Piece itself is not a source for information on One Piece? Okay then, what do you define as a source?(Justyn 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    No, you shouldn't use direct observation as a source, no more than Deuce, my cat, is a source for cat. I suggest reading WP:RS, for ideas on sources. I can't think of any sources that would cover this subject, however - hence, delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [6] States that for Fiction and Pop culture, you can use the best source available. And I classify something that anyone can look at by going to Youtube, or "finding" the fansubbed episodes, as the best available source. (Justyn 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    WP:V (and common sense) says that when there ain't sources, there ain't an article. I could write cheese with facts that "anyone can find out by going to the store and looking at cheese," but thank Eris I haven't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoted from The Manual of Style
    list omitted for readability
    And I believe that the Manga chapters and Anime episode count as source material. (Justyn 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    This list describes a thing sourced entirely to the observation of the subject, and that's not appropriate, whether or not you find a loophole in WP:V, WP:RS, or obscure arbcom cases. If you can't (or refuse to) understand that direct observation of the subject is not appropriate as the only source for an article on that subject, nothing I can say give you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who is refusing to believe anything, I have read those policies and guidelines, which you obviously need to carefuly re-read.
WP:RS#Popular_culture_and_fiction links directly to this, and if the policy links to something as an exapmle, how is it obscure?
Also, most fictional sources can only be varified by reading them. Should we delete the entire One Piece section because almost all of it is based on observation? If you don't watch the series, you would'nt even know who the characters are, should we delete the character pages because the information was taken directly from the metaphorical horse's mouth?
And, WP:V does not discuss fictional sources, at all. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reputable_publications says that a fictional work can funtion as it's own primary source. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Sources for articles on fiction also says that a fictional source can funtion as it's own source. Where is the policy or guideling that states that you can't use the fictional work that we are dicussing as a source for itself?
Where does it state that you cannot use easily reapeatable personal observations of a fictional source? Link to it, or stop bringing it up. (Justyn 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Cedars just proved my above point, and obviously did not read the debate. People are too gung-ho to delete the page without trying to save it, and it's not even a finished page! (Justyn 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Do we have finished pages at wikipedia? --Charlesknight 10:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I ment it's still a work in progress. (Justyn 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I don't think whether it's a work in progress or not is to the point. This is never going to be an appropriate article, because it's a list of material which is only of interest to fans (=non-encyclopedic) and which can only be sourced from direct observation of its subject (=no verification). This is a shame, since a lot of work has apparently gone into it. But an encyclopedia should provide an external overview, not an obsessive list of detail for insiders. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What guidelines of policies are you going by? Link to them. (Justyn 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
WP:V, especially as expanded by WP:RS and (not a policy, but a useful commentary) WP:INDY; WP:NOT, especially 'WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. The last, incidentally, is not a complete list of kinds of information which count as 'indiscriminate': it's making the point that not all information belongs in WP, i.e. that there are boundaries set by the task of writing an encyclopedia rather than doing something else. I'm also going by my judgement as an editor, as you are and anyone else might. This isn't a court of law, it's a discussion. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already went over this, but if I need to again:
  • WP:V does not discuss fictional sources, at all.


Wikipedia:Independent sources is the oppinion of some Wikipedians; not all of us.

Indiscriminate's Wiktionary definition is: "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless". I believe that there is distiction of what goes in here, I.E. not indiscriminate. (Justyn 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, you already 'went over this', but you didn't address the concerns raised. Again: this is not a court of law. No-one needs to cite precedent or statute. What we need to do is give reasons for a judgement about whether this belongs in the encyclopedia or not. Of course WP:INDY is an opinion essay - I said so above - but that doesn't mean it can be discounted as a reason. 'WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information' very obviously does not entail that any article with an inclusion policy is automatically encyclopedic: 'indiscriminate collection' refers to WP as a whole, not to particular articles. As I've already said, there are boundaries set by the task of writing an encyclopedia. Those boundaries are fuzzy, and identifying which side of them a particular article lies isn't automatic or easy. Insisting on reading guidelines as if they were statute law, and insisting on the letter rather than the spirit, doesn't help with that task. Sam Clark 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the spirit behind them, and Like I said; exept for small tidbits here and there, there is little informations reguarding (?) Fictional infromation, I think that it's time to have all of the information dealing with fictional sources in one location, and expand that information.
And I did bring this up, I do not believe this to be an indiscriminate collection to information. I'll post more, but I'm out of time. (Justyn 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge all content away into better places and delete. This discussion scares me. --Masamage 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quoting from the intro paragraph to the list, "Characters are only listed here if they have five or more attacks [which] would take up too much space on their normal page. If a character with named attacks is not here, than the attacks may be found under their article." To me this says that this is a break-out article, designed to relieve pressure on the character and series articles by moving detailed information which is essential to an understanding of the topic out of the main article in order to avoid giving it undue weight. The nom said, "..if a character is important enough to have their own article, then surely the attack can be listed there.." and yet I see that most of the characters do have their own articles, and listing all of their attacks in those articles would be giving the attacks undue weight. Therefore this list is referenced by statements such as, "See Attack List for detailed descriptions of Luffy's attacks." Darkfred suggested "...at least rename to One Piece/Attacks so that it is obviously a sub-page," which I think is a good idea. I find a lot of statements to the effect that, this information "couldn't possibly be of interest to non-fans." Yet I disagree. When I am talking to someone, and they mention a tv show I don't know anything about, Wikipedia is usually one of the first places I go to find out what the heck they are talking about. There are situations where someone who's never heard of One Piece before would want or need to know what the Eight Flower Clutch is. I would think, however, that attacks that are "only used once in a single episode," should not be included on this list. However, the fact that a group of editors has recently gotten together to work on improving the quality of the One Piece articles is a good sign. If we give them time to work, before too long this list won't include the one-off attacks. Look at the changes that have been wrought in this article just since it was nominated for deletion (diff showing differences between version that was nominated, and current version as of my comment)! The only real problem I can see with this list is the fact that there are absolutely no sources listed at all, and I'm not sure there ever will be (except the show itself). Other than that, however, I see no grounds for deletion of this article. (P.S. Today is the first time I'd ever heard of One Piece) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :D! And the reason for keeping the once used attacks is simple; someone might want to look them up too. (Justyn 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It looks like this piece of fancruft is going to be deleted! Great, I was hoping for that! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is still infested by other attack lists. Once this ordeal is over, let's move onto the others. I'm not sure if I can delete articles (I just created this account), so can others do it for me? The articles I've found are Ninjutsu (Naruto), List of genjutsu in Naruto, List of taijutsu in Naruto, Fūin jutsu (NOTE: Sheesh, Naruto alone has eight pages just for attacks o_0), Demon arts. Hydromasta231 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is not a reason for deletion, and I have proven that this is not fancruft anyway, so I want an apolgy for calling the page that. There is also no CONCENSUS for the deletion, meaning that it cannot be deleted. And I will now strike all of the people who said "delete" because they thought that it was fancruft and never gave a good reason. When they post a goddamn good reason for deletion that I already did not nuke (with a DON!) they can un-strike the post. Oh yeah, I broke the page up to make it easyer to read.(Justyn 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I've unstruck the votes. DO NOT edit other users' votes! Zetawoof(ζ) 02:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree, or at least almost agree, with you on the counts of all of those articles you mentioned. This is somewhat like having a list of all possible effects Talisman cards can have, or having a list of all ways you can move or command a unit in Civilization. I have extensively studied both of those, but wouldn't dream of writing a Wikipedia article about them. JIP | Talk 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: It's repetitive because the delete-supporters kept saying the same thing, I had to post the same evidence over and over again.

Second: How often do you go to Wikia? The only Wikia reguarding One Piece is completely dub oriented, is years behind, is pretty dead, and the last time I checked, it was closed.

Third: There is nothing indiscriminate about this, and as ONUnicorn said:

"When I am talking to someone, and they mention a tv show I don't know anything about, Wikipedia is usually one of the first places I go to find out what the heck they are talking about."

When you don't find something on Wikipedia, is the first thought that goes through your head "I'll check Wikia"? Plus, you said yourself: "it's hard to believe that it's an indiscriminate collection of story elements"

Fourth: FANCRUFT IS NOT A REASON FOR DELETION! How many times does this need to be said in order for people to get it through their heads? (Justyn 06:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • If people repeat the same foolish (in your opinion) objection, write a single refutation of that objection, improve it, and link to or point to it clearly. No, I don't go to Wikia; and this is simply because my interests are pretty much catered for by WP and one other wiki (Camerapedia). The people who contribute to and read the latter don't delude themselves that their interests are shared by many in the world at large or even touch upon widely held interests, and I think most would be quite happy if their articles were described as camerafancruft. WP articles on more general aspects of some manga, game, kind of camera or whatever can easily be, and commonly are, supplemented with external links. These external links can point to other wikis. Lastly, the idea that fancruft is not a reason for deletion only has to be said a single time, persuasively, and without typographic SHOUTING in order to get into people's heads. It has already got into my head. I know full well that there is no fixed policy that fancruft isn't a reason for deletion (if it were, thousands of articles would go); I also know about guidelines, and I know that WP:NOT -- but I shan't repeat myself. -- Hoary 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, the reason that I SHOUTED, was that people kept saying "Delete it, it's fancruft" so many times, I snapped. And WP:NOT says: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." This aritical can be called in some way, a plot summary. More accurately, a combined summery of a series of small parts of the plot, but a plot summery none the less. (Justyn 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NLP Courses

edit

Wikipedia is not a repository of links, nor is it a directory. Perhaps transwiki to Wikiversity? MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numeric spiral

edit

Original research. Title is protologism.  --LambiamTalk 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You should have been bold, and just redirected this to Ulam spiral, and if you didn't feel bold, then a prod. I see no point in taking the energy to call for a full AfD vote for something like this. linas 04:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing described is not a Ulam spiral. It is a badly designed visual representation of dividing up the natural numbers in equivalence classes modulo 9 while marking the prime numbers. Putting them in the form of a spiral serves no particular purpose and does not help to bring to light any properties. I see no reason to assume that a reader looking for "numeric spiral" is in search of the Ulam spiral.  --LambiamTalk 04:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; but {{prod}} would have been enough. Septentrionalis 05:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Huh? - Richfife 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I think linas is right. A reader searching for "numeric spiral" is likely doing so because of web articles mentioning things like "number spiral" [7]. Michael Kinyon 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save String theory have to deal with 10 dimension. I think maybe the 6 lines of Numeric spiral represents the dimensions we cant see and prime numbers maybe have low density as we get out of the center. So we get confused with 3 normal dimensions.

--Noluz 13:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are looking for prime numbers this spiral will help you lines 3 6 9 dont have primes. It will take 33% numbers away (maybe important in computer softweare).

Propertys of number 9. I ask why if you multiply any number with 9 and latter add every digit your result will be 9. The explanation is simple all numbers are in line 9 in the spiral. --Noluz 14:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply Why use a spiral? Why not a 9 column wide grid? Why is this method of finding primes any better than any other? I can guarantee that its prime finding properties break down very quickly. The article (and your AfD contributions) just seem like a random assortment of unrelated terms and concepts jumbled together. - Richfife 16:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyRichfife do you have the prime example that break the rule--Noluz 17:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Let me rephrase this. Lines 3, 6, and 9 do not have prime numbers in them because... all numbers in those lines are divisible by 3. This is because 3 evenly divides the number of lines in the spiral (9). So all this spiral is saying is that prime numbers are not divisible by 3. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we already knew that. - Richfife 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research - and, as stated above, it doesn't appear to demonstrate any useful properties. Zetawoof(ζ) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThanks Zetawoof for original reserch.But think in atomic gluonic interaccion why 8 gluon insted of 9 y think that spiral represents that interaccion.In line 9 is free pass for gluons in other lines like I said in the conclusions of numeric spiral there are multiply factors.Thanks to all.--Noluz 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to here more opinions.--Noluz 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Why spanish wikipedia accept the article "Espiral numérica" maybe the article needs a good translation--Noluz 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Zetawoof didn't mean that as a compliment. Original research is reason for articles to be removed from Wikipedia, not kept. Wikipedia is not the place for this, even if it was valid. Oh, and please stop bringing random scientific stuff up. It confuses the issue for no reason and pushes the article closer to complete bollocks territory. - Richfife 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact problem is name article--Noluz 23:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You think that the lines 3 6 9 are with no primes because 3 divides

them but in spiral you know that by add numbers which is easyer than division.--Noluz 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply This isn't really the right place for this, but determining whether a number is divisible by 3 is very easy. Add up the digits and if the result is divisible by 3, the original number is also. Making a spiral is much more difficult and error prone. Creating a spiral to determine if 1375 is divisble by 3? Shudder... - Richfife 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply 1375=7=1 3 7 5=16=1 6=7 then 1375 is not divisible by 3

you dont have to construct the hole spiral.--Noluz 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. I don't understand the point of this discussion. The spiral described in the article is as conventional and ugly as it gets. It shows no new mathematical property, it is a highly unefficient way to search for prime numbers, it has a terrible presentation, it is original research, its creator shows ostentation in the article, and the supposed mystic properties of the drawing are against the neutral point of view requirement. The article should have been deleted without discussion. It resembles the job of a 5-year-old kid who wants to make an encyclopedic article about a drawing he made in kindergarten. Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of material. --Michael Retriever 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. theProject 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code white

edit

Contested PROD. Practically speediable for lack of context. One link to a page showing that one school somewhere uses the term "code purple" for this is hardly justification for the claim that "Code white ... is a common school warning for a school shooting, hostage, or terrorist situation." Delete. Angr 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itmaam-i-hujjat

edit

Outrageously POV religious screed based upon a book Mizan, published by Pakistan's Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences. The creator of this article also created the article for the book and has been spreading its ideas throughout Wikipedia; there is no confirmation of notability, and certainly no reason to believe it a reliable source. Proabivouac 06:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term is an Islamic term, so definitely it would have an Islamic POV. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, this article clearly says that this is asserted by Qur'an. So I do believe that if something is mentioned in Qur'an, it can be presented in the encyclopedia under the umbrella of Islam. And definitely, it would have its own POV. There is also one academic source, written by John Esposito, in the article, which gives the same notion. It is stated very clearly that it is Qur'an that asserts it. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unreasonable WP:RS complain from Proabivouac! Proabivouac, Wikipedia differs from many other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam. You seem to be familiar with the academic sources. They are not NPOV but wikipedia is supposed to be (for example, they say 'prophet Muhammad', 'Jesus christ'). Academic sources are written for a particular class of reader but wikipedia is written for general readers. In a nutshell, it is the notability of people that determines whether they have a place in wikipedia rather than the respect western academics have for them. WP:RS is designed in harmony with WP:NPOV. --Aminz 06:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is entirely dominated by one book, the entry for which was created by User:Truthspreader himself.Proabivouac 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this entry was created by me. You are wrong that it is fully based on one source. John Esposito says very clearly in his book that Muhammad's action were not different at all from his Hebrew counterparts. And this whole concept is nicely presented in this article. The facts are not only supported by Qur'an, but also supported by Bible. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source is notable. The word of "Itmam-i-Hujjat" like the word "Insha'allah (God wills)" is an arabic word mixed with persian language. I am not however aware as to how the religous meaning of the term has been developed. I personally didn't find this concept to be in contradiction with what I knew before, but on the other hand consistent with that. This is an article on the term itself. If it wanted to be used in other articles, the only issue with that *may* be the undue weight given to it, NOT its POV or notability. --Aminz 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 close. The place to discuss redirects is WP:RFD. MER-C 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Science

edit

This seems to be a needless and confusing redirect page, however I am not sure if it is not needed, so I have listed it here. Holdek (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Tedmori

edit

This looks like a simple case of a vanity article. As far as possible notability due to any awards, I can't find evidence that he's actually won any. He's claiming to have won the "Lebanon Photo Exhibition". I've found no evidence that such an exhibition exists. (I've tried searching in Arabic and French as well.) He also claims to have won an award at the Lebanon Web Awards in 2002. I've been unable to find any evidence that there were awards handed out in 2002, much less to him. In fact, according to this website, the Lebanon Web Awards didn't start until 2003. Searching for his name on Google, I've been hard pressed to find anything that wasn't directly created or posted by him. (Note that he uses many pseudonyms to register domains, but they all trace back to him in one way or another.) He seems to be a very talented self-promoter, but I don't think meets the notability test here. ;) f(x)=ax2 bx c 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game hacking

edit

This is a how-to guide. Guess what Wikipedia isn't. Danny Lilithborne 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Marshall

edit

Autoboigraphy / election manifesto. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only contributor, Halton, has made no other contributions. I like the edit summary "Vote Brent Marshall for Regional Chair in Halton". Self-promotion. ENeville 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Candidates in municipal elections are not notable simply for their candidacy. Fails WP:BIO, if anything, should be placed in a Halton regional election, 2006 page. -- Chabuk 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -- Brent didn't mention that he invented rubber and discovered Tonga. He is also known for having three nipples. R. Bonnette
  • Don't Delete -- Brent's got a cute butt...I noticed. J. Robson
  • Don't Delete Brent paid my legal bills and only asked for small favours in return. T Alyman.
  • Delete as per ENeville above (and thanks, I laughed at both the edit summary you noted, and three "Don't Delete"s after you.) JubalHarshaw 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andie DeRoux

edit

I don't think this person is particularly notable as an artist. She (i'm assuming that's the preferred pronoun) has had several exhibitions of her work, but nothing big, and no awards or anything. Not only that, but there appears to be no other information available on her. No biography on her site, there's nothing that could be said about her aside from a few brief statements on where she lives, what her medium is, and maybe where she's had her (non-notable) exhibitions held. Lastly, the user name of the page's creator suggests vanity. :p ~ lav-chan @ 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This artist has shown extensively in the Northwest and is starting to exhibit throughout the United States. The listing does not suggest vanity, only facts about the artist.

Public Art Collections

Seattle Chinese Medical Center

The Market Foundation

CRS Financial

Selected Exhibitions

2006

Running Through the Forest, Solo Exhibition Friesen Gallery,Seattle, WA

2005

The Plane Truth, Friesen Gallery, Seattle, WA

2004

The Non-Objective Object, Friesen Gallery, Seattle, WA

Poncho Art Auction, Seattle, WA

Sense of Place, Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, Boulder, CO

2003

Group Show, 619 Western, Seattle, WA

Wing Luke Art Museum Dinner & Auction, Seattle, WA

Little Things Count, Center on Contemporary Art, Seattle, WA

Local Color, Seattle, WA

NocNoc, Seattle, WA

My Kingdom, Ace Studios, Seattle, WA

2002

Sacred Spaces/Artificial Inclusion, Ace Studios, Seattle, WA

Rainier Square, Seattle, WA

2001

Melting Man, Seattle Aquarium, Seattle WA

2000

Onyx Software, Bellevue WA

1999

Structure, Form, Vibration, LUX cafe, Seattle WA

Pacific NW Annual, Bellevue Art Museum, Bellevue WA

1998

The Space Between, Seer Media Studios, Seattle WA

1997

artsEdge, Seattle Center, Seattle WA

Center on Contemporary Art, Seattle WA

1996

NW Annual, Center on Contemporary Art, Seattle, WA

619 Gallery, Seattle, WA

  • Delete. The lack of information would lead one to question the notability of this individual. The article is mostly a list of shows and it is not clear if these are important shows. I know here, many local artists get shows at local venues and they are not notable. Vegaswikian 05:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verifiable biographic information appears to exist, so there is no potential for a verifiable biographical Wikipedia article. Thryduulf 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScWiki

edit

Sourceforge project still in beta. Some ghits for scWiki, but there are unrelated concepts in there as well. Google for scwiki -forum -cruz (to exclude the Santa Cruz Wiki) gets about 70 unique hits [8] Guy 09:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Ingelbert Lievaart. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallen Mei

edit

Non-notable photographer. Contested prod. MER-C 09:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Keitei (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons DVD sets

edit

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide sites.--Alex11121 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an informational site about the simpsons dvd's and should not be deleted because it gives infor on released products.-MMSH987

  • Save per nom.
  • Keep. I cannot see any reason to delete published DVDs when we routinely keep CDs from non-vanity record labels. The information here is entirely valid information on Simpsons marketing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very notable products. As of mid-2003, both the first two seasons were among the top 5 DVD box sets of alltime in terms of sales, having sold well more than a million copies (source). By the end of 2004, the sets had generated $200 million in sales (source), making them the equivalent of a blockbuster movie. In fact, to put that in movie terms, that's roughly the equal (in terms of domestic box office) of Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Back to the Future (source). We would never delete an article on a blockbuster movie or a platinum-selling CD, so why on earth would we delete one of the bestselling DVD series in history? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. Notability appears to outweigh other concerns for this article -Markeer 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a DVD set which I am assuming must have had decent sales. How does it not qualify? What attribute would exclude it? As per the responses above, this set would be equivalent to a movie blockbister or a famous book. Alex11121 has made a very bad nomination here. This is a sign of being a "deletion hawk". Nlsanand 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a very worthy article , for a very notable franchise. I see no reason why it should be deleted.Kingpomba 12:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Simpsons DVDs or else keep. Laïka 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Deleting it would be a suicidial move for The Simpsons articles on Wikipedia; it would be like removing a bridge that crosses a highway when traffic is driving over the bridge! Removing crucial articles (like the article in question) creates confusion for the readers of the encyclopedia, as the article contains information that helps the topic be understood; without the article, it is dificult to completely understand that topic. This article's deletion should not (and hopefully will not) occur.--M W Johnson 08:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is an excellent resource and extremely handy. Also - it is far too detailed to include in the main Simpsons article. I've come to use this site numerous times and don't know what I would do without it! :: ehmjay 00:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melon bomb

edit

Non-notable cocktail. WP:NOT a recipe book. Prod removed by page creator with the comment that WP:NOT doesn't cover recipes, which is of course false (WP:NOR#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information item 4). All of the page has WP:NOR and WP:V problems, and even if the recipe were sourced (it is not), they would remain. Quale 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bastard

edit

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, WP:V no sources given. Prod removed without comment. Quale 09:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Jesus

edit

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, WP:V no sources. Prod removed with incorrect comment that WP:VWP:NOT doesn't cover recipes, c.f. Melon bomb listed above. Quale 09:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kraines

edit

The subject has played in film and TV with roles such as "attendant", "workman", and other apparently minor roles. He has also been associated producer for one movie. Proposed deletion for failing WP:BIO Ohconfucius 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--SB | T 09:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Kilter Records

edit

I originally prodded this article on the grounds that it had released 1 promo only, and that the only band with a Wikipedia article was recently deleted. It was later deprodded by vanity author Outofkilter, and he added another release for the label: An EP, incidentally by The Henderson, the band whose article was deleted. Punkmorten 10:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was planning on doing an Afd for this myself. Non notable. --Dweller 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the 'vanity' entry. I also apologise for not knowing how to edit this talk page, or my addition to it. Anyway, you're welcome to delete the entry if you want - we have been featured on radio, magazines etc, but only in New Zealand so I'm sure that that isn't enough to permit an entry.

Thanks.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiganburger

edit

Non-notable dish? Prod was contested on User talk:MER-C#Wiganburger. MER-C 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep, for now, to give it a chance to grow. I have no prejudice against this article being renominated for deletion in the future if the concerns of the delete !voters are not met. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Davies (actor)

edit

Has seemingly only been in one show, I'm with Stupid (TV series). Does this make him notable? I don't remember. Other users can squabble over whether or not he deserves an article. I mean....look at some wiki-policies that I'm too lazy to read. --Dangherous 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus, please discuss merge options on article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf Fortress

edit

Delete appears to be a non-notable game. The only assertions of notability are uncited references to forums and blogs that praise the game. No actual mentions of mainstream press coverage is given. Making a "splash at the Penny Arcade forums" is hardly a measure of notability, nor is Bill Harris notable - he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article, so his dubbing it the "Game of the Year" isn't meaningful in this case. The rest of the article is a game guide which Wikipedia is not. Take away the game guide and there is nothing left here. Gwernol 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there's quite a bit of buzz on this, in my case at the Something Awful Forums. The fact that the content of the current article is not the best doesn't mean that this is not a topic worthy of an article. Lankiveil 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE please note that links to blogs and forums aren't usally considered reliable sources. Whispering(talk/c) 16:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a mention in Roguelike#Roguelike_family_tree As a moderate fan of roguelikes, I do believe that this is a significant (maybe very) milestone in rogue-like evolution (and perhaps in independent games development), and is likely to regarded as a cult classic in years to come. I realize that "significant milestone in roguelike evolution" is less impressive than say even, "significant milestone in interactive fiction in the in the 21st century". But I think that both roguelikes and 21st century IF are signficant minor genres of computer gaming where major figures and titles are hardly ever going to get widespread recognition, so a little leeway should be given. However, the game is still in alpha, so we should not be premature about allowing it its own article. Even if merged, better sources will ultimately be required too i.e. better than forum "buzz". Bwithh 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, here's a mainstream non-blog reference source from Eurogamer to be added to a potential merge or whatever Bwithh 19:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the game is still in alpha, it's riding the edge of notability already. Still, I hate to delete things outright if I can do something else. Therefore I concur: merge as a mention in Roguelike and redirect. Alba 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much of a fan of the game as I am, I have to agree that being an alpha with little enough mainstream notability makes it mainly uneligible for its own article. But I also agree that it should be mentioned somewhere--as suggested, perhaps mention/link the game in Roguelike or merge the article into Roguelike completely, whichever makes more sense in general. Ledneh 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging this article into the Rougelike article make no sense, because Dwarf Fortress isn't a Rougelike. The primary mode of play, Dwarf Fortress mode, consists of an economic simulation which has no relation to Rougelikes beyond the fact that the tileset used uses images from ASCII characters. While there's also an adventure mode, there's nothing notable about it currently due to the fact it's in bare-bones development and was just introduced recently. Dwarf Fortress is in no way a superficially two-dimensional dungeon crawling computer game, it's a actual two-dimensional dugeon building/economic simulation, and as such doesn't merit a metion in Rougelike. --65.185.222.223 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) AC2012[reply]
  • Keep, the presence of a small but active community ([9], [10]) makes this notable enough for me. Plus, the reviews actually in the article itself, which show it's getting external attention. MichelleG 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Posts on obscure blogs, fan websites, and discussions on internet forums are not typically considered reliable sources for establishing encyclopedic notability on wikipedia Bwithh 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I disagree, the fact that people are actually making fansites (not just posting on their personal blogs) about this game, shows that there is an active community, and that it's notable enough for inclusion. Lankiveil 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep (disclosure: I'm the main author (so far) of this version of the article.) I think the reason the amount of "buzz" DF has received is significant here is: when was the last time a "roguelike" actually got any buzz among people who don't play roguelikes? The typical pattern is that every new game in the genre creates a core group of about 25 people who post about it obsessively on rec.games.roguelike.misc, and then that's it, forever. I'd like to see this article be given time to grow, but I promise not go wander around on policy pages shouting about CENSORSHIP and FASCISM if it ends up being deleted. :-) Nandesuka 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I thoroughly disagree with Gwernol's assessment of the article as a "game guide." A minimum of information is given to describe what the game is. This is necessary because the game isn't actually a roguelike, it just looks like one. A game guide, on the other hand, describes how to play or how to win. The difference, at least to me, is clear. No one could use the Wikipedia article to do well at Dwarf Fortress. The goal was to describe it well enough that they would understand what it is. Nandesuka 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if I have a vote as an unregistered infrequent editor, and otherwise I'll just give my opinion. Dwarf Fortress is a notable example of freeware rougelike development, and while it's technically an alpha, I've seen games that are far less complete that call themselves a beta. While Dward Fortress hasn't garnered a whole lot of news coverage yet, as many have already pointed out it's getting a whole lot of person-to-person "buzz". At the same time, I'm faced with the reality that technically, this article doesn't meet a hard standard for "notability," aside from the Eurogamer article. I just think that we shouldn't apply notability here, even if we can't find media coverage of Dwarf Fortress, when we can consider the community around it. As for the article consisting mainly of a "game guide," virtually every article on video games in Wikipedia descibes how the game is played. How could one write an article on a game without describing its content? --65.185.222.223 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC), Anonymous Coward #2012[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Symphonic Band

edit

School band does not assert notability, fails to meet WP:BAND criteria. Very few relavant Google hits. Also, article is written in a promotional tone and is possibily a vanity. Delete Terence Ong (T | C) 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge to Virginia, but not delete. The only way to delete an article after a merger while still preserving GFDL is to merge the histories, which isn't easy. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Virginia

edit

Tagged for speedy as worthless, which is harsh but arguably fair, however it's not a valid speedy criterion. This can be covered in Virginia well enough. Guy 10:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Samba

edit

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Two-sentence company profile with no claim to notability; Product advert for the rest of the page." There is only 232 Google hits. Delete per WP:CORP. Haakon 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choot

edit

Dicdef. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Poulianos

edit

Relisting, has gone unnoticed for 5 days with no comments Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography case where "non-notable" directly translates into "unverifiable", and from there leads to WP:BLP problems. This article on a controversial/fringe scholar was first created as a totally uncritical glorifying text more or less plagiarised from this person's own vanity website. Then, other editors cut back on the vanity elements and added some critical material: apparently, a conference organised by this scholar was once boycotted by most of his colleages; he is engaged in continuous legal controversy over the licensing of his excavations; he has hardly been publishing anything except in his own self-published, non-peer-reviewed journal, etc. Problem is, the source for these critical elements is again just hints drawn from his own web material, and as such probably not reliable enough to stand up to WP:BLP criteria. No verification of either the positive or the negative material has been found from reliable external sources. As the choice seems to be that between unverified glorification and unverified criticism, I opt for delete as the cleanest solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. less than 1000 Ghits.--Jusjih 12:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Books search shows a number of references to him in published books, including a Lonely Planet guide and a number of other publishers. Seems notable enough, as a controversial figure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hm, good find. But the Lonely Planet quote just shows that Poulianos is visible enough through his local museum and his dominance over the excavation (somewhat of a tourist attraction) that popular tourist guide authors may become aware of him. But that still doesn't answer our fundamental problem: We sort of know he's controversial, but we have no reliable sources from the actual scholarly community actually describing what the controversy is. Of the other books Google brings up, one is evidently not from the same discipline (anthropology), another is simply a bibliography of work in the field listing him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Might be worth keeping a little longer, to see if more info turns up. This is a pretty good example of an edge case where Wikipeida might be helpful for documenting that there is a hard to document controversy. Controversial/fringe scholars are usually difficult to find mentioned in secondary sources for much the same reason that literary scammers are - reputable journals avoid mentioning "unusual" behavior for liablity/credibility reasons. Persons working in the field might be usefully consulted regarding this individual, but information provided would fail under the No Original Research clause. Until this fellow manages to get himself into a neutral source (like a legal transcript) it is going to be very difficult to source properly. That said, the existence of the article may be usful in and of itself. 68.250.41.142 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Greek Anthropology is about as far away from my own fields of expertise as one can get, but based on what I can see, a verifiable article seems possible. Google News Archive shows a discovery of his being documented by the international press 30 years ago, and a Google Scholar search brings 21 results. Remember that Wikipedia articles do not necessarily need to be based on scholarly sources (although these are preffered), just reliable sources. I'm sure a great deal of newspaper and magazine coverage exists which isn't on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can easily see why one would want for this to be deleted, but also I am remidned that Greek Anthropology is not likely to summon up many Google hits or many sources outside of a specialized library. This does not mean he is not notable, though. As Fut. Perf noted, it would be difficult to verify much of this information, but I'm not sure if that is reason enough for deletion. It seems to be more of our own insufficiency rather than his. The professor test comes to mind here. This guy is an academian, and if he stood in a lecture hall and spoke for 1 hour per week, he would otherwise prove to be more notable than the average professor. AdamBiswanger1 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't know much about the fellow, but a few quick searches on the Greek Google uncovered some juicy, not-adhering-to-NPOV pages.1 2 3 I'd therefore like to see the article stay (and be improved - it's a poor bit of writing at present), simply because anyone searching for a neutral portrait of him at present is going to struggle. --DeLarge 14:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The pages you found are exactly what the original glorifying version of the article was based on - and it's still the only information we have about the guy. All the critical elements in the article were derived from reading 'between the lines' of just these same pages, which means they are just as unreliable as the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems enough, though. We keep the basic factual info in 1 -- birthdate, birthplace, educational background, etc etc -- and then briefly detail the controversies in his work from the other two links, without making any critical comment; "in 19xx Dr Poulianos proposed that blah blah. As a result of this controversial theory, blah blah happened." We don't need to pen a FA here, but if we're happy that he meets the notability requirements, I don't think we should exorcise the whole article. --DeLarge 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have said the same, if it wasn't for the much stricter standards for verifiability forced by WP:BLP. That was the whole point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're disputing his birthdate and birthplace, for example, or the fact that he established the Anthropological Association of Greece? The AEE was founded by the man himself. As per WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source, "Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if it is not contentious/it is not unduly self-serving/there is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject". I think we're covered here in that regard. --DeLarge 08:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, sorry for being obstinate :-) but... Of course the basic bio details aren't the issue. The issue is we lack reliable information about exactly the only thing that makes him notable, i.e. his controversial findings. Everything we have about that is in fact either "unduly self-serving", or in danger of being defamatory if not extremely well sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you google search "aris poulianos" several good links show up. One says "The major excavations were made by the anthropologist Dr. Aris N. Poulianos, who spent many years in the caves." While another says, "Grecocentric anthropologist Aris Poulianos makes stronger claims than Angel about Greek "continuity", insisting on "the incessant biological continuity of ..." This link seemed good, www.ancientgr.com/Unknown_Hellenic_History/Eng/interview.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.13 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, that second page is part of exactly the same walled garden of extreme fringe, national-mysticism pseudo-scholarly websites and journals (grecoreport.com, "Davlos" etc.) that are the *only* witnesses to his work. It's a site that sports "findings" such as the prehistoric penetration of ancient Greeks into America, the identity of the Mayan language with Ancient Greek and whatnot. The first page is an amateur tourist description. All links from it are again into the walled garden. The only sign of light is that it lists some academic bibliography, some of which may represent the critical evaluation of Poulianos' claims. If somebody could go and check those publications, we would be okay, otherwise we still have: not a single reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JC Jordan

edit

Non-notable radio "personality". Many Google hits [11], but most of them don't seem to refer to this particular individual. Lankiveil 13:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as spam. JPD (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scuzzy

edit

Is just an advert for some kind of clothing company, with a load of nonsense at the bottom. NeonDaylight 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic democracy

edit

Prod removed and replaced with a {NPOV} tag, but I think the problems here run a lot deeper. Basically a POV, OR essay about why some countries are not really democracies (example: Mexico is only a "cosmetic democracy" because one party dominated for 70 years before Vicente Fox was elected.) At best, this would be an article about a Neologism, but I don't see it as salvageable. All you can say is that some people think Country X is a Cosmetic Democracy. Fan-1967 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments to have this article kept. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trenches

edit

No reliable third party sources for this game mod, meaning it quite definitely fails WP:V#Burden_of_evidence and WP:RS. Wickethewok 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete game mods and hacks are usually not notable, and the article certainly gives no indication that this one is any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Wickethewok is being extraordinarily obtuse - he knows fine well that this mod is one of only a handful of mods advertised through steampowered.com, the homepage of Valve Corporation, who are one of the biggest names in games development (Half-Life?), and therefore easily passes the verifiability test. Whether that's enough to make this mod notable is another matter --Aim Here 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to mention that the listings on Steampowered contain little more than a couple sentence summary and links to the mod's website. While clearly it shows existence, almost all information in the article remains unverifiable without original research. I certainly question its notability as well. Wickethewok 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This mod is not notable, and will not be notable. I've been playing it for a year and it's almost dead as it is. It's nearly a year late for it next (and final) release. It looks likely they wont even make that. There are two servers which no-one plays on. There are more reasons, but these are most relevent to wiki. This was too harsh, and unfair, but I still stand by the original vote. The Kinslayer 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm glad you struck that out; there are fallacies both in the statement here and in edits you have made to the article in the past that are completely untrue: There was never a release date posted, and it has been said on numerous occasions (as well on the main page) that this was the case. Nor are you in the position to decide the status of game, as someone outside the creative and development process, your opinion is merely speculation. Your move for deletion no-doubt came off as spiteful and completely misjudged based on your comment, but as to Wikipedia policy I agree with the deletion. Perhaps in the future you will not let your personal emotions get in the way of your decision, as correct or false as it may be? --Termynuss 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also fail the criteria wickethewok stated. On top of all this, it also reads more like a game guide/advertisement than an encyclopedia article. The Kinslayer 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - As Developer sitting directly at the source of this mod i can assure you there will be a release. Plus we have never mentioned any release date tending to Winter 2005, which makes your comment implausible. As for the lack of Servers, the Team decided to decrease the PR-work until TT1.1 is released, i'm pretty sure there will be more server once the new version is out. Right now I'm in contact with two server owners who assured me to provide TT1.1 Servers. That no-one plays this mod is pure speculation or do you check the servers 24/7 for players? Community members often report crowded servers on week-ends.

The Trenches is not just a "mod" or "hack" it's a Total Conversion. It has nothing in common with the original Black Mesa Half-Life 1 except the GoldSRC Engine on which both games The Trenches & Half-Life 1 are based on. Nearly every Half-Life related content (textures, sounds, maps, models, sprites) is deleted. The Trenches is mostly based on it's own Models, Textures, Sounds, Sprites just like every other Total Conversion Mod----Hawk-- 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::Comment As one of the Developers, you would naturally oppose the deletion of this article. The same goes for JJ45. Your reply sounds like it would be more suited to a message board to answer questions as to whether the mod is folding, as it contains absolutely nothing to justify having it's own article on Wikipedia, and merely reads like a summary of the game on ModDB or similar sites. The Kinslayer 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)The Kinslayer 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This mod had a sizable following when it was released, and though it's not as popular now as it once was, people still play. Development work is still ongoing for the next release. Koblentz 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Mod or not, The Trenches is a very notable game that certainly deserves to have a Wikipedia article. It is also very likely for people to look for Wikipedia entries for TT. Deleting the article would be as ridiculous as deleting the Half-Life article. JJ45 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wickethewok - this should be kept as a mention in the List of Half-Life mods article and nothing more. --Film11 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the BoE according to the WP:V#Burden_of_evidence the HL Mods Natural Selection, The Specialists or Firearms should be nominated due to the lack of posted "noteable" sources, too. Explaination? Furthermore i really would like to know what you understand under a "reliable/noteable" source for a Pc Game? other than the PC GAMER Review i've already posted.----Hawk-- 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It's quite simple. I haven't looked at those articles, simple as that. This came up for deletion, so I checked it out, and guess what, it meets the requirements for deletion in my opinion. And I already said the PC Gamer article was a fine reliable source, but if it's not been added to the article, how is anyone supposed to know about it? You can't expect everyone to google The Trenches and PC Gamer just on the off chance there WAS a review. As wiki says, providing evidence of a source is up to the person wishing to include the source, not the person wishing to delete the article because there are no sources. The Kinslayer 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article!

i´m a big fan of tt, and there are many more who think like me too! so as you cansee tt isnt dead or something like that! its still alife with a big community, so pls keep the article! greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)

  • actuallly the same is necessary for you..it seems like you have alot of anger against tt and what the article to be deleted, and also i just wanted to show, that tt still has a large community,greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually (man people like using that word), if you look at the top, I didn't nominate this article for deletion, but since it has been nominated, I'm supporting the want to delete it. That's what AfD is for. The Kinslayer 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok i read your oppionion and i accept it (even if i can´t understand it), but the person who decides wether this wiki-entry is going to be deleted or not, may recognize that this mod (it´s a total-conversion with almost 100% new content, a big community and it´s even suppoerted by Valve!) is big and it wouldn´t make sense to delete it, greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)
If you read this debate, you can see the reasons for the nomination are nothing to do with how big the community is. I mentioned the community, but it's not one of the reasons it was nominated. The Kinslayer 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article was edited to address the stated problems with it, I'm sure wicket would drop the AfD. He's not unreasonable. I can't see why people have trouble understanding that the article as it is now does indeed warrant deletion. Yes I know about PC Gamer, but it's not doing much good if it's not been noted in the article. The Kinslayer 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As a developer of the mod itself, I actually support the deletion of the article. As it stands, the article is certainly not NPOV, contains a large amount of speculative info, provides weak source material, and makes use of weasel words. There are certainly notable features of The Trenches, but none of them are properly presented here; the article reads like a simple summary of the gameplay and specifically the segment of "Future of The Trenches" comes off as NPOV (as well as the PC Gamer UK citation). I'd advise our fans to not argue with the issue based on the simple fact you like the mod. Whether or not you like the mod is of no consequence here; the issue at hand is if the article itself is notable-- I don't believe it is. I don't necessarily agree with some of the reasons for deletion (NP:V), but there are other more important holes here. Trust me, as a dev I'd like to see our mod on this page, but the article leaves a lot to be desired. Until something better can be written in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, I support the move for deletion. Termynuss

Weak delete - From Wikipedia:Notability (software): The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.; However , mod or not, it is one of few World War I based computer games (Category:World War I computer and video games which makes it of interest. I encourage users who wish to see this kept to find any notable mentions as detailed above. Marasmusine 10:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Badofsky

edit

Non-notable biography. The subject's only claim to fame is that he caught a big fish four years ago. Metros232 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaydo Cup

edit

Delete. I orginally prod'ded this article as being a high school soccer match that does not establish notability. The tag was removed because it's a school-related article. I'm pro-school-notability for the institutions themselves, but I don't think a sports match is automatically notable by association. Especially since the match does not results in any Google hits: [Check Google hits]. I'm willing to be shouted down for it, though. ... discospinster talk 14:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per the deletion precedents, School teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable (emphasis is mine). While this is not a club, per sé, it is an activity, if individual clubs are not notable, individual matches that garner no internet attention certainly are not (I could find no press attention, either, via google news with a search term of "Gaydo Cup", in quotations or without quotations). Srose (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be mentioned in articles about the schools, but it doesn't need it's own page. JPD (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the article: "... the most prestigious award that can be won at Berlin High School Homecoming." Verifiability / press attention don't seem to be there either, but if they were, it wouldn't matter. School sports tend to get a lot of press attention... an almost disturbing amount, in fact (my local weekly paper has a whole section on them every issue) and still aren't encyclopedic or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright per Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all above. If we had an article on the school and we had press coverage of the Cup I'd consider merging to that article or at least a mention there but we don't have such an article and as aboved, there is not a single google hit even. JoshuaZ 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete as hoax vandalism. It's reasonably apparent from the content, but I double-checked the government of Mauritius' web site anyway. Would that the anonymous editor who noticed this back in April had actually drawn it to the community's attention at the time. We do, in fact, take verifiability seriously. Uncle G 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Dev Gunput

edit

There's a report that this may be a false bio. See article talk page and also article history.... plange 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as embarassing hoax. Once again, we see what happens when we base an entire article on unsourced information. How many times must we learn this lesson before we start taking verifiability seriously? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fast as possible. Embarrasing, yes... Socialist Social Democrats and Order of the Dodo? This is a disgrace. Ban the article creator. Punkmorten 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and merge Stress (original band) into it. The current article was cut and pasted from the 'original band' article so I'm merging the histories too. At one point, the articles weren't about the same band, but there's really not enough content in the history to start an article about the other band (it would get deleted under csd a7). - Bobet 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the discussion was transcluded at both the october 2 and october 4 pages. If you have a problem with me closing it early, leave me a comment, thanks. - Bobet 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress (band)

edit

This is an article about a band which released, according to the article, one LP, one single and one 12"; a CD of their back catalogue has since been produced. It does not appear that their releases were on a major label, as failure to be signed by a major label was cited as the reason for the band folding. The article was very spammy, I cleaned it a bit. I do not see any credible assertion of notability, but it may be that Someone Out There knows of some additional data which will establish the importance of the group.

This nomination was originally closed out of process after no input by User:Parsssseltongue, citing bad faith nomination" (no evidence appears to have been advanced to support this assertion) and has been relisted following a debate at deletion review. Guy 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Reddys

edit

This is another POV caste list ("famous"). Unlike the other lists, no one on this list has a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Coredesat (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HostelBookers.com

edit

Reads like an advertisement to me. No google news hits other than their website's. -- lucasbfr talk 16:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the site's Alexa rank is in the 17,000s, which isn't amazing, but is still pretty good. In addition, this AfD nom was created eight minutes after the article's creation, and without a contested prod. I think it would have been a better idea to prod the article first. -- Kicking222 17:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Someone marked this with {db-spam}, which I removed. CSD A7 (as a non-notable corporation) might apply, but I'm not convinced this is a field full of non-notable agencies. Mangojuicetalk 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under new CSD as corporate spam created by single purpose account. Bwithh 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I AfD'ed because it seemed to me that was the sweetest way to deal with this article. I came across it on the New Pages. I always welcome comments on ways to improve my behavior ;). -- lucasbfr talk 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eight minutes? I could tell this was advertispam eight SECONDS after I saw it. Stev0 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Misunderstanding. `'mikka (t) 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbushka

edit

Previously speedied (by me) based on A7 tag; undeleted (by me) when somebody objected. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-04 16:56Z

  • The new CSD A7 applies. So they sell electronics in Moscow - big whoops! Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was kind of interesting, but in the absense of references and with the legitimate concern about spam, I have to say delete. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Absolutely notable "Gorbushka" black market (ДК имени Горбунова) for a long time was a notable place to buy pirated CDs in Moscow. Now the name was adopted by some Moscow businesses. The current article is written by an underinformed but well-meaning contributor. I will start fixing the article right away. `'mikka (t) 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Punch

edit

This article is nothing but a magnet for vandals (of all stripes). The article was gutted by Jimbo Wales himself, and removed of all non-sourced items. I believe that it is near impossible to actually source sexual slang like "Donkey Punch" except through cultural references, which Jimbo calls original research.

This is the fourth nomination for this article, and this time I agree that it should be Deleted. Linnwood 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been significantly rewritten since a lot of the below recommendations were made. I request that the closing admin note the timestamps on the "votes" below, and the times that sourcing edits were made to fully understand this AfD discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm going to have to side with keeping this one IF it can be cleaned up and monitored well. The article Dirty Sanchez is about another sexual slang, which should honestly be used as an example, as it is a clean, sourced and well maintained page. Wildthing61476 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Delete After further review, the ruling on the AfD is overturned, honestly I'm now not sure if this can be cleaned up to a point where it can be a viable article. Wildthing61476 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the same standard that is being used for Donkey Punch, Dirty Sanchez should be removed as well. — Linnwood 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since Jimbo pwn3d this article and pruned it to what is formally verifiable from reliable sources, it turns out that it pretty much isn't verifiable from reliable sources, which is what a lot of people have said at previous AfDs. I'm sure this will find a place on Uncyclopaedia or some other project. Guy 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per JzG's above comments and Jimbo's smackdown on the article's talk page. Wickethewok 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And lo, it is written that the valiant knight Jimbo did slayeth the crappy article. And there was much rejoicing. (Yay.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 67,100 Ghits for ""Donkey Punch" sexual" ([12]) and we can't source this? Howard Stern has referenced it ([13]), as have episodes of South Park (without defining it) and CSI. And it's apparently been written about in the San Francisco Bay Guardian ([14]). Come on, this is clearly verifiable. --Hyperbole 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, but all of those things you cited, or similar ones, were in the aricle. Jimbo calls them original research. — Linnwood 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jimbo cautions against name-dropping the TV shows without something (a transcript, etc.) to prove they mentioned the practice; I suspect that can be done. He also suggests that we should find newspaper or magazine articles to verify the practice, and we can verify that Andrea Nemerson of the SFBG has written about the practice several times: [15]. I also found a reference at the Vue Weekly, an independent Edmonton paper: [16]. At any rate, it doesn't seem that deletion is the correct remedy for this article being, as Jimbo says, "terrible." We can verify this with sources that are not UrbanDictionary. --Hyperbole 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Neither SF Bay Guardian nor Vue Weekly were one of the false sources that Jimbo struck out, as they were never in the article before. They seem to be new sources found by Hyperbole. hateless 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again we have the error of pointing to a Google search as if it constitutes research, rather than reading what the Google search turns up. Actually reading the first SFBG article listed what we find that this journalist has actually written is "Honey, get over it. There's no such thing as a 'donkey punch'.". In other articles, xe writes that this is "an imaginary icky sex act". Similarly, upon actually reading the Vue Weekly article one discovers a set of reader-contributed slang terms, which doesn't even include "donkey punch". It merely mentions a donkey punch, without any explanation of what it is. There's no evidence that the list of reader contributions has been fact checked, and as a potential source the article is on the same level as Urban Dictionary — i.e. it's not a source at all. Uncle G 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I improved the article and took the position that what Nemerson said about it was notable, not what was reported in the letter. Since there's a similar statement by Dan Savage, they work nicely together. --Dhartung | Talk 13:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The central tenet of the AfD nom, that any notability for the term is inherently unverifiable, in my opinion has yet to be proven. Jimbo's comments were for the article as written (then), not the topic in general. That Hyperbole seems to have found a perfectly fine reference for the term (from Nemerson) solidifies my opinion. hateless 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly suggest actually reading the sources that you declare to be "perfectly fine". They aren't. In fact, they clearly state outright that this sex act does not exist. Uncle G 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've missed the point, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Whether or not this act is ever practiced is largely irrelevent. Notability is derived from the use of the term as a cultural reference. The fact that so many sources mention the term (especially since they mention it without feeling the need to provide an actual definition) is in itself ample evidence that it is well known in popular culture. Badgerpatrol 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Evidence that something is well known in popular culture is some source saying that. Counting mentions of a term and deducing (a) that the sexual act that is the subject of this article is therefore well known, and (b) that that sexual act is what those people are even referring to in the first place (rather than, say, the act of punching a donkey, or perhaps a cocktail) is original research. Please stop trying to build this article from vapour and "cultural references" (which is apparently synonymous with "people naming various things Donkey Punch and characters in works of television fiction talking about donkey punches"). That bad approach to article construction is what has got us here in the first place. Dhartung is setting a good example to follow. Uncle G 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "the act of punching a donkey"? Sheesh. I am well aware of what a primary source is and what a secondary source is, and I have stated repeatedly the need for better sourcing of this and almost all other Wikipedia articles. My comment was aimed at your contention that because the act may not exist it somehow should not be in here, ignoring the fact that the notability of the term is derived from its propagation as a meme, not from its existence per se. Vampires do not exist- we still have an article. Badgerpatrol 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uncle G is right. To cite an example, consider The Burning of the School, a song that's part of playground culture in the US and UK. That article is referenced, not because there are lots of "references" to the song it TV shows and whatnot, but because someone actually did some research and wrote books documenting the folklore of children. Those books are cited in the article, and they're what makes the topic verifiable, and not original research. When someone publishes a book in which they chronicle joke sex moves as a cultural phenomenon, and they talk about the Donkey Punch in that book, which they'd better if their book is any good, then we'll have something to work with. Surely you can see the difference between that and a Southpark episode in which Cartman makes a Donkey Punch joke. The book may cite the Southpark episode as an example; it's our job to find and cite the book. Primary source --> secondary source --> encyclopedia! -GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's perfectly fine as a documented hoax, which we do cover in WP per WP:HOAX. hateless 17:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep relevant slang. ReverendG 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Hateless, and my own fuller explanation on the article's talk page. Badgerpatrol 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Jimbo destroyed the article. Right now it is worthless crap that should be speedily deleted. Anomo 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kinda torn on this one, as the article, as stands, is worthless, and lacking any sourced additions has no hope of being worth anything. I have heard the term many times, but in several hundred edits, no reliable sources were found? Strikes me as having no hope of ever being more than a dicdef, thus I lean to delete. Resolute 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A slang term for some specific business transactions by one company - who needs this? WP:WINAD. Sandstein 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why exactly, I don't know, but I attempted to improve the article according to Jimbo's stated standards. I don't know how it can be prevented from future disimprovement, though. I think there's slightly more here than a dicdef, mainly because of Enron and, to her eternally mirrored chagrin no doubt, Sen. Cantwell. --Dhartung | Talk 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant cultural slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhermann (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless non-trivial coverage in reliable sources can be found, with no prejudice against recreation if such sources are found at some future time. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - changing my recommendation, because non-trivial coverage in reliable sources was found. Good job, Dhartung, and good job Hawai'i AIDS Education and Training Center. Wow. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be in list of sex moves or some such - not enough for an article - same with Enron stuff - put it on one of th enron pages. --Trödel 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaffirm delete, even the new references to books ISBN 0312310846 & ISBN 1400050332 contain disclaimers that either the book is full of irony, or that it is a completly made up. --Trödel 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that a second vote item of discussion, or a comment? If the latter, it might be prudent to remove the bold and strike the word above so as to avoid confusion, but it's up to you. Badgerpatrol 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't worry, the first one wasn't a vote either. The closing admin knows better than to close the discussion by counting "votes", because AfD isn't a vote. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, but removed the bold to be clear. I am reaffirming my opinion after viewing the new text with its alleged "references" which include a book that claims that it made up the sex move to fill space, and the other saying the entire book is not to be taken seriously and is full of irony; thus, it still isn't well refernced, nor do I think it can be. --Trödel 03:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I was more impressed with the AIDS center in Hawaii. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a vote - but simply one in which a simple majority (or indeed a supermajority) need not carry the motion. Anyone who presents a possible resolution or expresses their will is "voting". There is in any case a difference between "a vote" (as a collective noun) and "a vote" singular. In the case above, I was obviously referring to the latter. Badgerpatrol 04:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      And I was simply repeating the usual mantra that effectively says "let's not refer to these as "votes", as much as we can avoid it, because we don't want to reinforce the impression that these discussions should be thought of as votes." In the sense that a "vote" is nothing more than a formal expression of will, these recommendations we're making are "votes", but it's really better not to call them that, IMO. The word way too easily brings a whole raft of expectations with it that we'd like to avoid. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the average editor is likely to be clever enough to distinguish between a vote (which this is) and a majority vote (which this is not). It is perfectly reasonable (and parsimonious) to refer to an individual expression of opinion here (k, d, merge, whatever) as a vote. Badgerpatrol 18:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      "Shout people down"? I thought I was very polite and calm about it? What does one have to do to suggest a different way of speaking around here and not be thought a belligerent asshole? I'm not trying to have an argument with you, nor to belittle "the average editor". I sincerely believe there are good reasons for choosing words carefully - I've seen way too many people treat these discussions as majority votes to think that nobody makes that mistake, or that we needn't be vigilant about guarding against that misperception. But honestly, "shout people down"? I apologize for offending your sensibilities, and beg your forgiveness for any inadvertent offense I caused. I shall continue to refer to my recommendations in AfDs as "recommendations", and I promise I won't bother you about it again. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Air Literary Magazine

edit

The publication may not be notable. Vectro 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far back as the third issue, Thin Air Literary Magazine has published notable, award-winning authors like Rick Bass. Names like that may fly under the radar, as literature will when you while your days away reading someone whose writing is, according to S.T. Joshi, "mostly bloated, illogical and maudlin." -- Userjrl73

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

The result was Keep. Even among the non-!vote comments, I can see no real consensus on what to do with this article, though the consensus appears to be leaning towards keeping this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Washington, D. C.

edit

Very nice list of areas comprising the Washington DC MSA. However, there is only one person in the list, and it duplicates Category:People from Washington, D.C.. Therefore this article needs either a lot of TLC, or it needs to get tossed. Considering we have a category already, we can probably toss this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That stated if you want to find nonsensical or unnecessary lists for deletion look through Wikipedia:List of lists/uncategorized and Category:Incomplete lists. Those two usually have enough absurd lists to keep any list-deleters dreams come true.--T. Anthony 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In response to Calossuarez46, the convention at the time the list was created was to not separate the residents of the "suburbs" out from the major city in such lists. I received a rather pointed comment to that effect (probably justifiably) in regards to one such existing list. I would have no objections to either the creation of a separate page detailing the composition of each MSA, or to explicitly retitling many of these pages for the MSA's rather than the cities. As indicated before, I had more recently been adding the name of each individual to the list of people from the city, town, or other specific location of their residence, intending to collect them all in lists such as this MSA list later, if at all. This page and others like it could alternately eventually become simply a list of people from the central community with links to the various lists of people from the individual suburbs. In some cases, such activity has already been started. Also, there is a real question as to which such listing someone who lives in or was born in, say, Alexandria, Virginia, because their job or that of their parents was in Washington, D.C., should be placed in. I would tend to think that for such people as that lists of this kind are probably the best reasonable alternative. Badbilltucker 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRCAT

edit

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB; seems like an ad for this commercial site. De-prodded by an IP that has spammed links to the site, in addition to spam by similar IPs. Wmahan. 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not going to vote, the facts in the nomination make me wince about the spam, but, just wanted to note that a google search produces 23,700 hits, and from what I've read they have a good reputation as an audio archive. Guyanakoolaid 10:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as this article provides an excellent description of this phenomenon and is properly referenced. Essentially all of the critiques of this article in this discussion refer to a previous version of the article, which was entirely replaced. John254 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELIZA effect

edit

Original and very bad research. Apparently at least some features of language are arbitrary and conventional. Like the association of " " and addition. And apparently this startling news is related to Eliza. It may be that the term "Eliza effect" is in common usage (Google suggests so), but so far the concept seems banal. (If someone else knows what it is that this "effect" is, please make appropriate changes and avoid the deletion.) Phiwum 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first time what effect was noticed? That words and symbols have conventional meanings and that humans use these conventions in interpreting communication? How could anyone fail to recognize this fact? Sorry, I just don't get it. But if the term is in common usage, then by all means clean it up and express clearly what this effect is supposed to be. (I am especially unclear on how naming conventions in programming languages are related to this so-called effect.) Phiwum 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a reliable source that mentions this, and therefore I have no way of cleaning this. The article as it stands does a poor job of communicating exactly what this effect is and what its implications are. If a good source crops up in the future, I would say it'd actually be better for the article to start anew than attempt to use this as a starting point. GassyGuy 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Page has been completely rewritten due to criticisms on this AfD. Please read new page before commenting. Alba 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The page is greatly improved, but it is still hard to see which bits are original and which are sourced. The argument in the logical fallacy section, for instance: is that an argument found in one of the listed sources or is it OR? Also, I still cannot see how using a " " to denote something "addition-like" in a programming language is an instance of the ELIZA effect. It does not seem to have anything much to do with computer behavior so much. When I write "x=1 1", I don't see how I could mistakenly infer that the computer is behaving like a human. Phiwum 13:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll work more later on detailed sourcing, but I didn't realize that FA-quality sourcing was required to pass AfD, nor that description constituted OR. You asked for a better description of the effect and more explicit sourcing -- I have provided these. As for the addition explanation, it may be too confusing to keep... "x=1 1" is not an instance of the ELIZA effect. "x=a b", while not caring if a and b are strings or numbers, is an example of the ELIZA effect. (Languages like Perl and Python let you get away with that, while C doesn't.) Alba 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Petros471 13:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fraser

edit

Does not seem notable Dave 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Scoppetta

edit

Non notable person in my opinion, others may disagree hence afd Dave 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --Keitei (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trixbox

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 was delete. Petros471 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Plazoid

edit

This entire article only links back to a blog, and I'm not sure some guy's blog is article worthy. I hesitate to call this a vanity page, but there's not proof this 'zine even exists except for the blog. Even if the 'zine does exist, does every photocopied leaflet put out in the world deserve an article? The talk page leads me to think that this article is largely the work of one annonymus user, perhaps the blogger himself. BoosterBronze 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not-notable. This article and The Arcata Eye have been the centerpoint of an ongoing squabble, so this AfD may be a bumpy ride. - Richfife 20:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - a google turns up no sources of interest. --Charlesknight 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But I may be a bit biased (at least according to the anonymous editors who are obvious Plazoid supporters). Some history: I actually created the Plazoid page, because a set of anonymous editors (who I believe are the creators or close associates of the Plazoid blog and zine) kept manipulating Arcata Eye related material in order to push the Plazoid. I figured they would be happier with their own entry. In any case, this "edit war" hasn't been active since early spring, since the anonymous editors who are pushing the Plazoid seem to have disappeared, at least for the moment. So that may not be an issue any longer. Also, the blog itself has severely tanked recently and I think the few people in Arcata who actually read it have turned elsewhere. --Metatree 21:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qual

edit

Non-notable protologism, and possibly nonsense as well. Originally tagged for speedy delete but removed by article creator hateless 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure if this is speediable, but article creators are not allowed to remove speedy tags from their own articles. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was thinking of tagging think earlier today for the same reasons, but I would like to have the author explain just what the heck this article is about. Wildthing61476 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can think of at least 5 other names for this concept that have been bandied about. I think the most common is "stuff". Not-notable. - Richfife 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the author..... I was told that I should be able to post a definition of a word that is not used in traditional dictionaries. The theory, which is what it is, is based on theortical physics and its implications relate to social philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.61.47 (talk • contribs) .
    • Reply Several problems. Regardless of what you were told, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, all articles are required to be verifiable, notable and cite reliable sources. This article satisfies none of the above. It also strikes me as original research, which is also forbidden. It is not enough for you personally to believe in the importance of the article or concept, a significant number of other people must also believe in it and write about it in reliable publications. - Richfife 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have my colleagues support the theory and we will make sure to expand upon the article with verifiable sources. Just give me some time so I can get it all together on the page. It isn't going to hurt to allow this to stay until that is done; I will keep you notified. You can contact me at "[email protected]". Thank you for listening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WrAth2110 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: WrAth2110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • DeleteOR, dictionary definition of neologism.Edison 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's very confusing and gives no clear explanation as to why it's so "improtant." --Masamage 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with anything, the gain of followers is something that is beneficial to the theory. I am not "recruiting" and the supporters that I will ask to post have studied the theory at my table in science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.61.47 (talk • contribs) .
Who developed this theory, then? --Masamage 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Your table at science? You must be joking. This "theory" of yours has absolutely no evidance to support itself nor do any of your claims. --Redking99 — Possible single purpose account: Redking99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete Are you serious? This is utter nonsense! Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of science can tell that you don't know what you're talking about. I could get more followers if I went around preaching that the world is flat. xcaratacusx 16:00, 8 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: xcaratacusx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brevard County School District

edit

Wikipedia is not a directory. Húsönd 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus, please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Hoover Middle School (San Francisco)

edit

No assertion of notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep Has a prominent alumnus. JoshuaZ 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Delete Per discussions here on on WP:SCHOOL a single minor notable alumn should not confer notability. JoshuaZ 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and rewrite. — CharlotteWebb 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chalets

edit

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. If kept, there are serious POV issues that need to be addressed. One comment on Talk page suggests that content may have been copied from their website. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, the one non-delete argument didn't appear to outweigh the arguments to delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Trossaert

edit

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP (article is a mixture of a biography and a gallery description). Anyway you search it on Google, you get about 45 distinct Google hits, most simple listings and announcements. A non notable company/shop (selling art is noble, but it is still selling). ProD removed and article improved, but not sufficiently. Fram 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on the claim to notability of the gallery? For the moment, most claims beyond existence seem unverifiable (the "important" exhibition of Thevenet, e.g., gives not one review via a Google serach, only simple listing: the same goes for Portielje). I feel that the claims ("important entry point", "important exhibitions") are not supported by any sources. Fram 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Linux Club

edit

Article survived a VfD in 2004 (see here). I don't see what separates this from hundreds of other computer user groups and similar clubs and societies and consensus changes. Had it not been for the VfD, I would have added a {{prod}} tag here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mogmo

edit

Contested Prod. Promotional article on new search engine website launched last month. No indication whatsoever of it meeting WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete per author's request (author blanked article) -- Fan-1967 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ochemplate

edit

Prod removed without comment. Start-up company by three students. Total five google hits (three unique). About as far from WP:CORP as you can get. -- Fan-1967 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamo daleko

edit

Unencyclopedic, just lyrics and one line of explanation, but significance not mentioned. Nekohakase 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that the article needs work isn't a criteria for deletion. The phrase gets nearly [1.5 million Ghits]. A lot are in (probably) Serbian, but still, so far as "serbian folk songs from WWI" go, I'd hazard that this one might be the most notable. Let's do the work on the article, but I don't think deleting is necessary. I'll defer to anyone who knows more about it. The article appears to be a bit POV pushing -- some controversy about the song referenced by the link at the bottom. But that's work to do, not deletion. Dina 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KEEP THIS ARTICLE CAN BE USED FOR RESEARCH ON SERBIA AND POPULAR SONGS, IT IS INFORMATION THAT IS TRUTHFUL AND CAN BE USED AS A SOURCE. THE ARTICLE DOES NEED WORK BUT SHOULD BE KEPT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.99.18 (talk • contribs) .
  • Transwiki to wikisource if the copyright is OK, otherwise delete.--Peta 04:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is a stub it is not a reason enough to delete. This is an important song and would be like deleting Waltzing Matilda article for Australia Avala 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tani E. Barlow

edit

non-notable. Nekohakase 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--SB | T 10:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JOL

edit

Neologism, and while I find Adam Carolla funny, not everything he comes up with needs to be an article in Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 20:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is it fails WP:WEB - Yomanganitalk 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeatPick (2nd Nomination)

edit

spammy/advert for website, alexa rating of 768,744, possibly WP is not crystal ball Giant onehead 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 00:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. Resolute 04:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dont understand why you do not like this beatpick thing. there are many other small record label on wikipedia and most of them are much less worth to be noted. this beatpick guys are doing something OK and truly innovating. many articles can be found on the net. DJMag, creative commons, openbusiness, dogmanet a number of people have blogged them. they have over 100 artists. it's a new way of doing business in the music industry and should be on wikipedia. i've never written before for wikipedia and I am one of their artists... so..not an impartial opinion but still there are a few facts about beatpick that cannot be said to be untrue. I think you should research better the subject before branding the article as "pure advertising". btw I noticed that last 2 "delete" comes from people that have given very little contribution to wikipedia. take care of yourself. Mark Johanson.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Both Naconkantari 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Vu, biostudentgirl

edit

No sources; fails WP:WEB and WP:BIO. Contested prod. Despite my continued efforts in creating redirects, a copy of the article exists at biostudentgirl. -- Merope Talk 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral at the moment, but I have to ask, what DOES make someone notable on YouTube? From the numbers alone, I would see how she is notable, but is this the only judging factor? Basically if she is non-notbale, what separates her from lonelygirl15? Wildthing61476 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks for the input all, I don't see how she right now meets WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "notable" literally means "worthy to write about", so if you're going by notability, the judging factor is whether secondary sources exist for the phenomenon, so as to satisfy our verifiability and no original research policies. The sources cited in the article don't look too promising right now, but maybe there's better ones out there. JYolkowski // talk 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As what separates her from lonelygirl15, the latter is unique or notable because of its origins and circumstances. If these articles are kept (I hope not), then they need a drastic copy edit, especially for grammar. Agent 86 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is different as there a no citations from notable sources. It doesn't even mention what makes this person notable enough to deserve an article. In my opinion it should be speedy deleted under CSD A7. Tarret 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article makes an assertion of notability in claiming the number of views she's received. An assertion of notability, even if it doesn't meet our standards, is all it takes to skirt CSD A7. -- Merope Talk 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "biostudentgirl" gets just 106 unique Google hits (and even I get more than twice that), so this isn't a case of "But I'm famous on the internet, really!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral correction "biostudentgirl" gets 17,800 result Google hits AlexHiggins
    • Please look again, the number of unique hits is only 106. Google automatically filters out the duplicates and keyword-stuffing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • '19,200 hits'. Clicking the last page of your search results does not show you 'unique' pages. That number can be increased numerous ways. Omitting current search results, image search, video search, search with in results, advanced search, safe filter, language etc. Also it is important to note that Google uses an algorithm to sort between 'unique' and duplicate sites/sections. It has difficult in websites that can contain multiple independant websites such as ebay, geocities, and/or telus websites. Multiple articles with in a single source. Forums and discussions. Live Chat logs. etc. Mkdw 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up. This topic falls under a much more broad question. Internet notability, the corresponding and adequate support of reference. Wikipedia has failed to properly analyize, and subquently standardize, the importance in which 'original research', primary sources, and international attention on the internet can be used as legitimate contributing factors. The U.S. and Canada among other European countries such as Britian and the European Union, practice internet legitimacy under the sections of legal documentation and information. For example, in North America in particular, internet content has been the immediate source and evidence used in criminal law and corporate law. (Management Information Systems, Kenneth C. Laudon). The use of internet content now has an informational value to the point of recognition by international law. It cannot be denied as an illegitimate source to a single case.

Considering all sources found on the internet are legal 'factual' documentation, biostudentgirl has over 19,200 hits on Google, as per linked pages, cached pages, individual pages, and/or referenced pages pertaining to that single name. YouTube, the website with the largest contribution to her success, is a $2 billion dollar independant third party corporation (New York Post). This website has accumulated and attracted over 1 million 'views' of her videos. Her association to the website as one of its "Most Discussed" and "Most Viewed" users put her in the top 200 of a website that receives over 100 million views per day. Though her article may as a stand-alone article may not solely fufill notability, her affiliation would. Please note Wikipedia articles of Company CEO's, T.V. celebrities, Movie celebrities, etc. Individually they are all actors or businessmen with no individual notability (different thatn entrepreneurs) but only notable through corporate affliation.

Any persons listed in a recognized ediorial such as in the New York Times or BBC would immediately satisfy Wikipedia's reference guide. Wikipedia lacks clarity under its policies regarding original research and notability of source. Websites such as Google, Myspace, and YouTube are describing a new form of source credibility. The term "credibility by numbers" (Capital Investment and Valuation, Richard A. Brealey, Stewart C. Myers) describes the power of population on a single 'thing'. The power of voting and seeing versus educational standards. For example in commercial advertising the rule of numbers greatly out influences the valuation of recognition despite product significance. At this stage it is undeniable that biostudentgirl has now an international collection of fanbased websites, hosting sites, and discussion groups as related. More importantly she has the numbers to support that the sources are being made legitimate by numbers alone. This all makes the Wikipedia article the first original research article on biostudentgirl but not the first notable source to her international media attention.

Arguably, internet sources have their own notability; cbc.ca, cnn.com, .gov, .edu, and so on. However, Google ranks its search results by human generated links (Management Accounting in the Digital Economy, Alnoor (EDT) Bhimani). This creates a disillusion to supporting notable sources that compliment an article to meet policy. The search result are diluted by tens of thousands of fan-created websites and thus making the investigation to notable legacy sources almost impossible. Not to mention that by using those links they create a new legitimacy on an individual topic than any single source could. Legacy sources cause a new problem in their own.

The internet and varying communities with in it are esoteric collections of like-minded people as described in The Corporation documentary series. The internet has exceeded the possible resources of our non-internet and notable sources to report on any significant internet phenomena. Furthermore we cannot build our standards on the basis that certain sources have not written about a certain subject and thus makes it un-notable as almost all articles about the internet by legacy sources are side stories.

Unless you challenge these points about using the internet to support notability, you must first challenge Wikipedia policy before you have means to delete this article. Legally this article could be saved, but Wikipedia has a tendancy to be more about a popularity contest over policy decision through past examples. Mkdw 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; no media attention, so it fails WP:BIO. In response to Mkdw (above), if we had an article on every popular youtube/newsgrounds/blogger etc how many articles do you think we'd have? WP:BIO is there for a reason, it also applies to "internet celebrities" because it is inevitable that fans of these internet users will create an article on them. So delete until they get at least some media attention.--Andeh 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider her YouTube rankings alone (#5 - Most Viewed Channels (This Week), #17 - Most Viewed Channels (This Month), #39 - Most Subscribed Channels (All Time)) would satisfy her WP:BIO criteria for "A large fan base". She holds other such rankings on several other sites and has a total of over 3 million hits collectively. It is also important to note that only two weeks ago she held Most Viewed This Week. I recognize this to be a biased comment, but it's very apparent she is ever increasing her popularity. The deletion of this article would fail Wikipedia's well known speed of current articles and all because of short sightedness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdw (talk • contribs)
    • This alone does not make the subject any more notable, as it appears that these awards you speak of aren't very significant. By visiting the youtube profile and clicking these awards I can find many other channels that have these awards, most of which don't have Wikipedia articles on them. The reasons for this are all above in my and other users comments.--Andeh 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but how many of these other "channels" have been behind the scenes on the set of various motion pictures (box office hits such as Crank). I would consider her views alone (over 3 million hits collectively), more than any other channel on the site--AlexHiggins 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "The use of internet content now has an informational value to the point of recognition by international law. It cannot be denied as an illegitimate source to a single case."

A MySpace page? A Yahoo profile? Some Internet sources do have notability, but not all.

There are just over a 100 unique hits for biostudentgirl when, in Google's words, "entries very similar" are excluded.

The majority of links are from YouTube itself and sites that mirror YouTube. Many are from sites that the videos have been cross-posted to by the subject of this article. A substantial proportion are signed comments biostudentgirl has made on other people's YouTube videos. A smaller proportion of hits come from her "official" site and some come from sites that simply rip YouTube's content.

There are no third party links discussing "biostudentgirl" as a separate phenomenon. There's no review material, no critiques, no independent discussion that's not attached to YouTube or cross-posted videos. There are no fan sites or discussion groups. In other words, even though there's (arguably) quantity, there's no quality.

The question here is not whether Internet notoriety makes one notable. The question is whether popularity on one web site automatically makes one notable. I'd suggest that it does not.

The argument that YouTube is "hot" right now is moot. Geocities was a big deal ten years ago - but no one would have argued then that a person with a popular Geocities page deserved listing. The same criteria must be used in this case. No one would argue now that any personal web page, whether it attracted 10,000 hits or 100,000 would make the subject notable. Coincidentally, those are the kinds of numbers (per video) we're looking at.

While ostensibly "popular" in YouTube terms, this subject matches none of the other criteria that have made other YouTube "celebrities" notable; sustained popularity, controversy, crossover to the mainstream media or external reporting.

Finally, this entry appears to be largely autobiographical. Autobiography that paints the subject in a flattering light and censors criticism. Really, it's little more than a vanity page.Soap On A Rope 19:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckPoint 303

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC; the article admits they're "up and coming" and currently only underground. No external press coverage. Crystallina 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I suppose I could have relisted this one more time, but looking at the comments since I first relisted it, I can see that there are some very strong arguments to delete. I feel that if I were to relist this, it would simply garner more delete !votes and meanwhile we would have wasted more time of AfD !voters' time. It's somewhat telling that we didn't get more people interested in !voting here, If you feel I made this closure in error, please let me know and I'll relist it for the second time, but only if you truly believe that AfD regulars honestly feel this article needs to be kept. I don't want to waste the AfD regular's time to once again look through this AfD that they have likely looked at for at least two times before. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Shakugan no Shana

edit

Wikipedia is not dictionary, and copyvio from [25].--Zospped 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Zospped (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder to Roninbk's comment above: Sockpuppetry of whom? Pre-sockpuppetry of somebody (such as myself) who will then agree? Possibly (well, I'll claim I'm somebody separate, but I would claim that, wouldn't I?), but I think you need rather more convincing evidence. There could be some other explanation. Anyway, I see no reason why the nomination shouldn't be considered on its merits. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Hoary, (if that IS your real name...,) first off I classified it as a neutral comment, not intending as a vote one way or the other. Secondly, I'll admit that it might not be a sock, but it is some form of single purpose account. The alledged SPA went two steps beyond the normal procedure listed at WP:AFD. Normally people outside the wikiproject don't add those tags. And third, even 2 weeks since the nomination, the account doesn't have any other edits. Classic SPA. --Roninbk t c e # 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because if WP is WP:NOT a repository for plot summaries, it certainly isn't one for plot ingredients. Plus it's a bizarre sort of article: I gather that there's no English version of this thing, so those people who are interested in those Japanese terms that aren't obviously gairaigo must often (not always, cf "Haridan") guess at an English translation, and then look that up. If these translations are original, this is not "Original Research" but it seems a bit pointless; if they aren't, the translator should be credited but is not. There's only one "External links" (sic): to a blank page. This kind of thing is prime material for a separate Wikia wiki, surely. -- Hoary 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth and Hoary. Sandstein 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Redirect to Asahi. Redirects are cheap. Since this is Articles for deletion, if the folks want further action on Category:Asahi Corporation, I suggest that they either try to form a consensus if they want to rename the article, or nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion if they want it deleted. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Corp.

edit
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asahi Corp.

First "speedy keep" closure was overturned at DRV as out of line, so I'm relisting this again. The company mentioned might be The Asahi Shimbun Company, which holds one half third of TV Asahi, but it's not clear from the context, so the article might require some research. Procedural listing, withholding my opinion for now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article and category as inaccurate and confusing original research. If Asahi Shimbun holds 34% (not one half, old chap) of the voting rights of TV Asahi, then by definition, TV Asahi cannot be part of the same corporation as Asahi Shimbun - it is a minority stake. I also cannot find an "Asahi Corporation" on google which combines these companies. TV Asahi is known as the "TV Asahi Corporation" and Asahi Shimbun (newspapers) is "The Asahi Shimbun Company". It's a little bit like writing an article about Acme Group for all the Acme-named companies out there as if they were all sister companies. There does seem to be an Asahi Corporation out there related to the fabric industry[26] but this not seem to be related to the media companies. But I don't think the fabric company is encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 23:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bow to Bwithh's superior research skills. Looks like 1/3 of the share holdings are not listed on the TV Asahi site.
  • Comment: Japanese corporate structures are a nightmare. I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, until a few years straight-up holding companies were actually illegal (post-war reforms to break up the zaibatsu), and Japanese corporate groups relied upon interlocking boards and swapped stock (as in, Bank A owns 30% of Company B, and Company B owns 30% of Bank A). Don't hold me to this, as it's been years since I paid much attention to Japanese business and I never followed it very closely to begin with. This would take some serious research to set straight, so try posting something at the Japan noticeboard. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Appears to be a parent corporation like many Japanese conglomerates. I don't see why it would fail to qualify for inclusion. It is also quite a large company. Category is a bit much, I guess that can be deleted. If we delete the article, then we would have to keep the category to interlink the subs' respective articles. Nlsanand 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is about whether this article is an accurate or misleading portrayal of the company, specifically whether this company actually IS a conglomerate. The discussion is not what it "appears" to be, which is never a good basis for afd discussions Bwithh 04:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, DAB portions to Asahi Shimbun; and Rename the category. What a mess. The newspaper company owns the TV station, and several other companies, although Asahi Corp. or 朝日株式会社 doesn't seem to be used anywhere -- the parent name seems to be Asahi Shimbun. A list of sub-entities to the newspaper can be found here (sorry, Japanese only). Several other companies in Japan are known by Asahi, but have no (obvious/reported) connection to the newspaper company. So, a DAB page should be left here, with most of the info in the bottom half of the current article. (Asahi Glass, Asahi soft drinks, etc). The category is valid, but needs renamed per the reasoning above. Neier 04:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why would the category be valid if it includes unrelated companies? Bwithh 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The three entries in that category besides Asahi Corp. are all under the Asahi Shimbun umbrella. I think it is likely that there could be new articles for several of their TV stations, and a few more of their newspapers and magazines. That's why I think the category could stay. Neier 04:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus. To be honest, this is really more a closure with "no action required", as the concern is that this article requires a lot of cleanup and that any useful content needs to be merged into Scythia. As of this time, I note that there are {{cleanup}} and {{mergeto}} tags in this article, so I think it's safe to close it as no consensus at this time. If no further action is taken to address the concerns raised in this AfD, the best course of action would be to simply redirect this article (without merging) to Scythia as redirects are cheap and I'm sure some content from this article has already been merged there anyway. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Already merged to Scythia. The talk page notes that the article is already merged, so I'm going to finish the merger up and redirect the article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scythian European Kingdoms

edit

Delete This page should be deleted for several reasons:

  • It is poorly written.
  • It is made by a user who has been caught fabricating sources and evidence in the past.
  • It is made by a user who runs and or is affiliated with a pan Turkish website, which is clearly a website full of POV, origional research, and goes on to claim such things as "the Etruscans were Turkic" (See here: [27]).
  • The useful content on this page should be moved to the Scythia/Scythians page.
  • This whole article is not properly sourced. Khosrow II 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there evidence that the material in this article is inaccurate or fabricated (beyond your assertion that one of the editors has done so in the past)? I certainly agree this article needs greater citation but as it does at least have two references at the bottom, this article seems a Cleanup issue, not an AfD. However, I may be missing some information. -Markeer 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user that has created this article has been quite active at trying to push his POV on Scythia related articles. He has continuously been proven wrong yet still insists on pushing his POV. I believe two of the articles he has created have already been deleted. Also, I already said that usable information from this page should be transferred to the Scythia page.Khosrow II 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khosrow, in answer to my question if you have any evidence beyond your assertion of past behavior, you have responded with an assertion of past behavior. I'm not an admin, but looking at an item on User:Barefact's [talk page] I see that both you and he entered a process of mediation with administrator User:Alex Bakharev three days ago (Oct 1) regarding "dispute over Ossetian Language, Scythia, and other disputes" (User: Barefact's words and assertion, not mine) which leads me to consider that this AfD is part of an ongoing user dispute between the two of you. I also see that admin User:Alex Bakharev was [notified] regarding the creation of this article on that same day.
There appears to be more going on here than a blank AfD nomination, this needs to be taken to admins, not the wikipedia voting public (in my opinion). I will leave a comment on User:Alex Bakharev's talk page pointing him to this AfD. -Markeer 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is only on going because Barefact insists on putting his false information in. Also, I dont on which discussion page it was on, but User Ali Doostzadeh proved to everyone that Barefact falsified a quote to suit his opinion. What Barefact did not know was that Ali had the book that Barefact got and distorted the quote from.Khosrow II 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it ironic in an AfD arguing about "proper sourcing" that you are a) unwilling to look up said discussion page to prove your point, or far more importantly: b) provide evidence that there is inaccuracy in the current article under AfD. If this user has improperly sourced in the past that is certainly cause for concern, but has nothing to do with the value or contents of THIS article. So far your only clear argument is that the article needs sources, which is certainly true, but suggests a Cleanup vote from AfD. Everything else appears to be a Straw man argument (including the argument about poor writing -- this article tends to severe run on sentences, but expresses itself decently), and that fact again suggests a Cleanup, not a Delete.
I've left a [note on the admin's talk page. In my opinion this AfD needs admin review. -Markeer 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is simple epmiricism, not a personal attack, to say that Barefact's contributions have been a useless waste of time. However, this is about deletion of the "Scythian European Kingdoms" article. The title should be deleted, see below; some (little enough) of the content can be merged into the Scythia article (also see below). dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is some where in a long talk page, and I personally dont have the time to dig it up.Khosrow II 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any useful content from the article can be brought into the discussion page of the Scythian article and then after grammatical and spelling corrections, inserted in that article. There are many sentences from the article that does not seem to contain any sources. --alidoostzadeh 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move, cleanup: this should be taken as the opportunity of the long proposed {{split}} of Scythia and Scythians. Much of the content of this article would pertain to the "Scythia" article. After the move, get rid of the "Scythian European Kingdoms" title because it is useless (wrong capitalisation, "European" is not a good concept in this case since the kingdoms in question were located in "Western Eurasia", squat on the 'boundary' of Europe and Asia. In fact, in classical terminology, 'Europe', 'Asia [minor]' and 'Scythia' are three terms on equal footing). dab (ᛏ) 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm glad to see someone working to improve the article, I've reverted your edits on Scythian European Kingdoms for the moment dab, apologies. Please see the guidelines in the AfD box there regarding not blanking an article until the AfD discussion is closed. I have not changed your edits to your move point as it may of course be useful if the outcome is to move or merge. I agree "European" is a tricky subject point (particularly since one of the subject kingdoms seems to only be located in the Crimea/Black Sea region). -Markeer 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be overly-argumentative dab, but AfD is not to destroy an article because it has some problems or a bad name. It's an open call to wikipedia editors to consider the possibility that an entire article should be removed in toto, based on the criteria in the Wikipedia guidelines. Not being particularly familiar with this subject, I only entered this conversation as the nominating criteria above are NOT generally reasons for deletion, only for improvement and editing, which is generally discussed on the article discussion page. Based on his comment on my talk page, an admin will investigate if this article contains original research, which IS a valid reason for deletion. -Markeer 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • you seem to be confused. OR is no reason for deletion. An unsalvageable title is. Fwiiw, I have "investigated" this article and opted to move parts to Scythia. At this point, the deletion debate is about the title and edit history. Since I have copy-pasted some bits over to Scythia, we should not delete this one, strictly speaking, we should keep it for its edit history. I therefore suggest we move it to Scythian kingdoms and make that a redirect to Scythia, and then delete the new redirect at Scythian European Kingdoms. does that make sense? dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to upfront. --Keitei (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up-front

edit

delete lack of information, no future prospect of information Minnesota1 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge, as no reason for deletion was given. JYolkowski // talk 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mourne View

edit

Not enough verifiable information to merit a separate article. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Although the term was mentioned in CSI and according to Zoe was explicitly called a "cuddle puddle" is an argument towards notability, but does not make the term verifiable or more than a neologism. Furthermore, at best as far as I can tell we would have nothing more than a dicdef. This deletion sets no precedent for an article on the same topic that is more than a dicdef and is well-sourced (presumably with the New York Magazine article). As it is now, the term seems to be too much of a neologism to meet WP:V. JoshuaZ 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle puddle

edit

Neologistic, unsourced, 800 G-hits but unable to find a reputible source that verifies the claimed meaning. Many hits refer to a New York magazine article about teen promiscuity that has nothing to do with the drug culture. Deprodded, tagged as possible original research. Over one month old yet the concerns of several editors have not been addressed. Accurizer 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Flash

edit

De-prodded, seems like just another non-notable Flash game. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable female fictional characters

edit

Fundamentally subjective list without any sort of verifiability or sourcing; it's either going to be an indiscriminate list of every female character in literature or a giant hunk of original research Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted (csd g11) by Tom harrison. MER-C 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keypublisher

edit

This page was recreated after being deleted through the {{prod}} procedure. The article itself reads like an advert and does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:SOFTWARE. It also contains unverified claims (if they are verifiable, it's probably in Norwegian as almost all the google hits are to norwegian language websites). Agent 86 22:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--SB | T 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shogun Wars

edit

Non-notable game still in beta. The beta has only been live for a couple of weeks, at most. On the Talk page, one of the article's proponents says the game has "over 100 players." De-prodded by author. eaolson 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 User:Fang Aili under CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 04:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Elite

edit

Not even sure what this is about. I think it is deletable as {{nn-group}} but {{db-context}} also applies. -- RHaworth 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_4&oldid=1081097663"