Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 22 February 24 >

Purge server cache

February 23

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Erol güngör

Untranslated at

WP:PNT for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

No idea what language it's in now. --Walter Görlitz 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Turkish ColinFine 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Liberal düşünce topluluğu

From the

translation desk, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably Turkish, probably a minor political party.--M@rēino 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and did the move. Recommend early closure of this AfD. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Teamcast

Non-notable mod for dreamcast Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glennwood Projects

Not much context given; the article may refer to a legitimate topic, but I fear that there is not much to salvage in the current text. Schutz 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The place exists (here's an unofficial website devoted to it), but it's spelled Glenwood, not Glennwood. And I agree that the little text that this article contains is meaningless and unsalvageable. If someone else wants to write an article about these projects later on, let them start with a clean slate. --
    Aaron 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Aaron. —ERcheck @ 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7

Canfield swim team

Vanity SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete vanity. KI 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Does a club count as a group of people, or an organization. It asserts notability, but none of this seems remotely linked to doing well at (US?) national swimming championships - I don't think any of their people have been selected to represent their countyr.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that YSL stands for youth swimming league. Doesn't seem to be notable. Delete. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Arm Wrestling (arcade game)

I think this page should be deleted because there is only one sentence on the page and I don't think alot can be added to it. Gamerforever 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Give it time. Travislangley 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real game1, and the sentence is factual. It has the potential to be more than a stub, if someone who's actually played the game comes around and adds something. --djrobgordon 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arm Wrestling? There's really not much to say there. Non-notable. Jaxal1 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, really bad start... but, I think with the link it serves some purpose. gren グレン 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am going to save this article now. rydia 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --
    e Ong 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I moved to
    Arm Wrestling since it was unused... arm wrestling, of course, is that little game thing. gren グレン 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If you want. But make you you redirect
    Arm Wrestling (arcade game). gren グレン 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cartoon Orbit

By itself, the article is not worth its salt, as it seems like a minor part of Cartoon Network's site. This probably deserves a mention, but on Cartoon Network instead of its own page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has its place. Travislangley 06:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does. In its heyday there were over a million active users. Now it is still at a very high number. It has been the only part of the website to last over 7 years. It needs to be there. There will be more information added if people would just discover it. People need to give it a chance. They need to wait for the search engines to at least get it. SportsMasterESPN (Talk) 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Over 100,000 Google hits which seems sufficient to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wow, at first I thought that cited 100K figure was a result of mistakenly not using quotes in the search. It wasn't. This, apparently, is a notable subject. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wknight94. ---J.Smith 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wknight94, notable enough. --
    e Ong 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Cyde. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Lecomte

competed in 1 event, 8th place: is this a joke? Pol098 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unless including every Olympian ever is some kind of precedent I'm not aware of. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. An Olympian has got to be known for something or accomplished something of note. The above seems nothing more than an obscure athlete. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He came eighth- in the world. This is good enough, especially for the early pioneers of the sport. A lot of people have not reached #8 in the world. Why are competitors on reality shows and bandcruft and small businesses get off so lightly??? This is written by User:Jonel, with more than 5000 edits, who has greatly expanded the Olympic coverage on WP.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merely playing Major League baseball or NFL football is sufficient to have an article. The Olympics represent a similar level of notability for many lesser-known sports. See notability, people still alive.--djrobgordon 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 2004 would give a person a claim to being the 8th-best archer in the world. Coming in 8th in an archery event at the Olympics in 1900 meant that he was the 8th-best archer who happened to be at the Paris World's Fair that day. The 1900 Summer Olympics were not contested at the same level of competition as contemporary Olympics, as suggested by the fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name. Note that Archery at the 1900 Summer Olympics indicates that only three countries (France, Belgium, and Netherlands) competed in archery at that Olympics, and none of the Dutch archers' names are known. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In the old days the level and consistency of sport was not that great - does that mean that the forefathers of sport should be deleted?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. My first inclination was "delete," but djrobgordon and Blnguyen make good points. dbtfztalk 03:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Olympians. Participation in the Olympic Games is certainly sufficient for notability. As for the "fact that contemporary sportswriters failed to keep track of the subject's given name", please note that all Olympic Reports until 1964 similarly "failed". As for having every Olympian, please check Category:Competitors at the 1896 Summer Olympics. It includes every Olympian for whom we have a name from the 1896 Games. -- Jonel | Speak 05:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The official Olympic reports included athletes' first names well before 1964; see [3] for examples. Note that the 1960 Summer Olympics report devoted over 200 pages to a list of every athlete participating in the Games, including their full names, dates of birth, places of birth, heights, and weights, none of which are known in the case of Lecomte. Furthermore, even if an athlete's full name had not been printed in the official report, his or her full name would be known if they had accomplished something of merit -- it's not as though sports historians are wondering, "I wonder who this Ewry is, who won 3 gold medals at Paris 1900?" They know who he is. I guess I'm much in the minority here, but I do not think that merely competing in the 1900 Olympics is an accomplishment comparable to competing in the contemporary Olympics in the 21st century, since the idea of having to qualify for one's national team was a minor aspect or nonexistent in 1900. --Metropolitan90 04:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per good point by Blnguyen. --Hansnesse 05:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he's an Olympian. In this world of non-notable computer programmers, launderers who have written encyclopedia articles about themselves, and
    Rachel Clemons, an Olympian is a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. Wiwaxia 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, Olympians are notable enough. Provided this athelete has won awards in other games and competitions. --
    e Ong 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - being selected to represent your country at the
    type 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: per. Jonel. That's why I qualified my earlier delete vote - I didn't know if there was an include-all precedent like in other sports. Apparently there is... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After myself proposing this for deletion I have investigated further, and replaced what must be the spurious mention of Beaudoin in article by Lecomte, which leaves it making sense (I have also rewritten the text). The article originally made no sense, asserting nothing whatsoever about Lecomte. Pol098 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blnguyen Avi 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not certain at this moment if I would support the blanket statement that all Olympic athletes are notable. However, I certainly support the idea that being an Olympian should change the burden of proof. Instead of having to demonstrate his worthiness to include him in the WP, we should have to demonstrate his lack of worthiness to keep him out of the WP. He's an Olympian and there's no compelling reason not to include him. -- Don Sowell 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not knowing his first name might demonstrate unworthiness!  ;-) 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. One "abstain," one "question," no votes to keep.

Chick Bowen 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mikho Mosulishvili

Non-notable autobiography by User:Mikho Mosulishvili; see the page history. Essjay Talk • Contact 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy & Delete --Karnesky 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. I notified User:Mikho Mosulishvili that the article was up for deletion, and that userfying the content might be a good option. dbtfztalk 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. Vanity page -Crenner 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and off main pedia. VirtualSteve 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This biographical entry contains no argument for notability.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is being decorated by ones country not notable? He claims to have been awarded the Georgian Medal of Honour. Jcuk 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete, vanity. --
    e Ong 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Userfy, then Delete Non notable author Avi 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mikho replaced this page with an unwikied version of the article [4] & I reverted it. --Karnesky 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I think we might be a little hasty here. I've gotten a decent amount of google hits, some of which are from Russian web portals I've heard of, as well as places selling or reviewing his works. Now mind you, he does appear to be a shameless self-promoter, as I'm also seeing hits of him on entirely unrelated things. Mind you, however that any hits from modern Georgian culture do *not* google well at all due to language/script/unicode issues. He seems to me to be a low-to-mid-level author; his books are still in print and seem to be moderately available, his radio plays also seem notable. There's also the issue of his Georgian Medal of Honour. His website notes that it was translated from Georgian by a professional(!) translator, which would make it seem that his command of English is shaky, at best. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've never heard of him before in Georgia. Georgian search engines give only three hits including his personal web page. Kober 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anarchofied by me. (i.e. moved to
    Beta m (talk
    )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. 11 deletes including nom, not including anon, 3 keeps.

Chick Bowen 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James Bowery

Dubious claims, may be vanity or hoax sannse (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - not notable, and am doubtful about the claims. --149.169.52.67 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Wikipedia must Keep this article. Bowery is a very interesting man, a United States patent holder in rocket science-related areas, sponsors space prizes out of his own pocket, and spends most of his time researching and writing with notable acclaim and is very controversial, hence someone voted for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Better_Than_You_At_Everything (talk • contribs)

- Delete - He invented e-mail, PostScript, VR and chat, and he's the closest living relative to the Kennewick man? Should we also list every guy who believes he's Napoleon? Fan1967 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even with the self-promotional personality described in the webpage he only has around 800 google hits, and only about 200 for google groups. Seems to be a highly non-notable self-promoting megalomaniac. JoshuaZ Keep, bu02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Try searching under 'Jim Bowery' instead; over 4000 hits for author:'Jim Bowery'. Bowery is a net.kook of great vintage, but he attempts to hide his history. This article wasn't written by him, either, but by his detractors (except for the small revision by JABowery). Since I count myself among his detractors, I abstain. Rpresser 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't forget need to delete his redirect Baldrson also. JoshuaZ 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyde Weys 04:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and watch - had to think long and hard on this one - to my mind he is more notable than not but article does read like a vanity page. Nothing stopping those interested in adjusting the article style and linking to what appears to be a number of notable external links. If we can have a other loopy articles we can have this one but it needs to be de-vanity(ised)! VirtualSteve 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This needs to be NPOV'ed as the article mentions merely in passing the subject's contribution to the Internet and electronic comms whilst dwelling on the shadier aspects of the biography. I don't feel that this is truly representative of the subject as it currently stands.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote I can't find evidence that he invented PostScript, although he did write a document analyzing PostScript's evolution from FORTH; Google results for PostScript "jim bowery". If this gets kept, it will need to be rewritten for POV, as the current version seems to really downplay his White Nationalist views; see [5], also (straight from the horse's mouth) [6].
    ergot 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep There are some things that ring true. For example, he is listed here http://www.platopeople.com/people.html so there is some corroboration of evidence. He is actually the rightmost person on the third picture in the second row here: http://www.platopeople.com/index.html Much of the other claims are unverified; even the author, Bowery, is offering rewards for disproof of his claims. It is possible that some of the emails may be fake, but as much of his claims come from being highly involved with the PLATO system, and that has been coroborrated, it should be kept, with the caveat that it needs further verification, IMO Avi 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I knew that someone other than this guy was normally credited with the invention of email, but I couldn't recall his name earlier. 'Twas
    ergot 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No vote. Is this the
    kuro5hin.org? I have no real interest or non-public resources to verify any more of this, but I can vouch for the existence of someone named "Baldrson" who may hold views such as are described on that site. Whether this makes him notable enough, I have no opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No vote: (in)famous kuro5hin troll (sometimes interesting). He is one of authors of Javascript framework Tibet [7] (think something of Ajax but w/o the hype) so his technology claims could true. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of internet trolls, posters and bloggers, many very prolific and controversial, but readership confined to a few sites or message boards. Doesn't make them notable. Are his career achievements notable enough to deserve an article? No. Fan1967 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As with many of the other statements attributed to me, it is a bit of an exaggeration to claim I am "one of the authors of TIBET". As my resume clearly states: "2001 Originated the idea and technical approach for TIBET(tm) method inference and multiple inheritance algorithms." Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to delete per request of the person. The "author of Tibet" was sentence from my head, I didn't check for exact wording. Pavel Vozenilek 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think that there has been enough public notariety of my work to justify a Wikipedia article about me. While I view my accomplishments as significant enough and verifiable with reasonably accessible private sources, there are only 2 times I've made it into the mainstream press and only 1 article published by me in a major publication. Jim Bowery 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, why don't you put this on your user page, instead? -- Avi 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is at issue is an article about me, not my WP user page Jim Bowery 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that he started the article. What he wants to put on his user page is his business. :) Smerdis of Tlön 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

TheCampusForum

Advertisement for message boards which fail to meet the

notability guidelines - EurekaLott 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept.

Chick Bowen 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of famous bank robbers and robberies

No actual content, would work much better as a category. KI 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Valid encyclopedia content. Travislangley 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have come to this page often, and I think the content is not only interesting but worthy of sharing. 20:02, 22 February 2006 (PST).
  • keep - Among myriads of lists on Wikipedia, this one is as good as many others. Ashish G 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This should be expanded - maybe into a table? - but seems interesting to me. I'd kinda like to see a better adjective than just the undefined "famous". At least use the Wikibuzzword, "notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories and lists serve different functions. While this list doesn't include information other than names, it has that potential. FYI, Category:Bank robbers already exists. --djrobgordon 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could be easily expanded and is certainly a notable subject. PJM 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be expanded. Frühstücksdienst 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's got plenty of actual content. No reason for deleting the information has been stated.
  • Keep as per Wknight94. Just like he said, this could be put into a table, and the word "notable" is much better than "famous." Notable bank robbers and robberies, perhaps. ♠ SG →Talk 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid encyclopedic content. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Vote to delete all lists is successful. ---J.Smith 06:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really interesting topic but Ki is right, there's really no reason why this shouldn't just be a category --Nick Roberts 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem with deleting all lists and replacing them with categories is that you can't add red links to a category, which means you cannot create more extensive lists. A list itself is information, amplified by the articles it links to.- Montréalais 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --
    e Ong 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete definitely useful content, but better implemented as a category. I'm not a fan of list pages on WP and it is still possible to view members of a category as a list. StephenHildrey 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... shoulc be a category.--Isotope23 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm baffled by those who profess to see any "content." This is the perfect example of the list that ought bo e replaced by a category. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify per norm. Cdcon 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but put into a category. Duinemerwen 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article needs a bit of work, but needs to be kept as it is still valid content.
    Ridge Racer 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge into category Daemon8666 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that it can be useful to have it separated by countries in which it occurred, something I don't think a category can do. --Mathwizard1232 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasdelete. Though there were some votes to merge, all of them suggested that only parts of the article should be merged, and none of them were specific about what parts. So I interpreted the consensus as, "delete unless someone else figures out something to merge;" no one did.

Chick Bowen 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Controversy on Radiometric dating

POV fork; should be merged back into Radiometric dating or Radiocarbon dating. Peyna 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep i'd want to see if something good can come out of this, the radiocarbon dating article is getting long and a straightforward list and explanation of more famous controversies could be beneficial. Homestarmy 02:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of the articles I proposed for merger are by any means overly lengthy or crowded. Please see
      WP:POVFork. Peyna 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep per Homestarmy. JoshuaZ 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright as POV rubbish --DV8 2XL 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It definitely needs a lot of work, but it is a topic that is highly reasonable for an article. JoshuaZ 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge any relevant info to Radiometric dating. This does not warrant an article by itself. Monkeyman(talk) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the title sounds a bit problematic. Move to Controversy over Radiometric dating or Radiometric dating controversy. Bobby1011 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing worth merging to Radiometric dating - it's all tired creationist POV straw grabbing. Vsmith 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Radiometric dating, cleaning up and making NPOV along the way. Radiometric dating is not too long, and there is some salvagable info in this article.--Gjc8 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge examples, but clean up and NPOV. delete
    Schizombie 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete tired creationist nonsense. Please see talk.origins. Cyde Weys 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Radiometric dating, and edit for NPOV and relevance Delete. I don't have any problem with a note in radiometric dating acknowledging that some people challenge the concept of radiometric dating on the basis of their religious beliefs, which is certainly true, and which is what this is likely to distill down to. Actinide 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, delete - given there is no "controversy" as such, no such name should redirect to radiometric dating.Actinide 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - separate controversy articles certainly seem to be POV forks. (At least, when the controversy isn't the main reason a lot of people have heard about it.) Michael Ralston 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete as above. At present it is a mess and should be merged back with a clean up. If the part of the main article begins to get large, it could be considered for rewriting, but under the more POV names suggested above. If a clean up is not done on the merge, delete it. --Bduke 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't vote merge unless you plan on doing the merge yourself. There are over a hundred AfD discussions that end each day; how many of them are merge, and how much effort do you expect the closing admins to put into this? Regardless, there is no salvageable information in the article in question. It's all thoroughly refuted claptrap. If you want to see why it is false, check out here, here, here, et al. Actually the whole talkorigins site is a good reference. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT
    • Merge only the paragraph about the nature of the controversy.
    • If final consensus is to merge DO NOT merge with radiocarbon dating. It doesn't belong there. What's missing there is a section on chemical pretreatment of samples to be dated since that's a source of misunderstanding. A radiocarbon date is as good as the dated material. If it has been contaminated by old or young carbon, the date does not represent the historical or geological event ascribed to the sample. What it would be useful is to include, in all dating articles, clear statements about the difference between the dates of minerals in rocks vs the dates of geomorphological formations composed of the same rocks. Jclerman 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unecessary POVfork. Interested parties could merge per Peyna if they are interested in keeping this information.--Isotope23 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the "controversies" outlined are misleading. As per Actinide, the radiocarbon dating article should include information on disagreements based on religous beliefs. Cheers, Rickert 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not address its importance and its notability. The article is not necessarily POV (there are claims and counterclaims), but falls dangerously close to violating
    WP:NOR as it is unclear, from the citations given, how valid each of its points are. Cdcon 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There may be controversy about radiometric dating, but this article doesn't talk about it. Also appears to suffer from an acute case of
    WP:OWN: "Rebuttle [sic] deleted"? (ESkog)(Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. This page has no value - it merely refers to sources without presenting any information on this debate. (In addition, religious beliefs do not cause controversy about the accuracy of radiometric dating, although it is worth mentioning that Creationists use these alleged inaccuracies in their arguments.) -- Mithent 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is hopeless and should be at best a tiny note in radiometric dating. JoshuaZ 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BUT I certainly think that the Radiometric dating article should mention the criticisms from creationists - to say "tired creationist nonsense" is obviously not NPOV. It should be (briefly) mentioned, and interested parties can then add their rebuttals, citing references. Camillus (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I lose at about, what 18:1? delete this article already heh. Homestarmy 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and AfD stays open for five days. Peyna 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    POV fork. And lol. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Radiometric dating. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving disputes. Stifle 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to gag-reflex mergists: What do you intend upon merging? The POV original research or the non-notable and contrived examples which don't seem to demonstrate much except that things have occasionally been dated. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alex Frost

nn. been in one indie movie (Elephant (film)) Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    WP:BLP. Monkeyman(talk) 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: According to IMDB1 he's been in three full length films and two festival-screened shorts. In two of the features, including "Elephant," he received first billing. That's good enough for me. --djrobgordon 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. --Hetar 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, significant IMDB credits. Monicasdude 06:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid IMDB credits. Travislangley 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the IMDb.com credits are valid but few; is the subject a truly notable actor? Could quotes from critics be contributed to demonstrate Mr Frost's notability through his performances?  (aeropagitica)  07:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep Information in article is backed by a verifiable source, meets the verifiability test. (IMBD) --Cymsdale 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB page indicates reasonable filmography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakalle and Cymsdale. --
    e Ong 12:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep.

Chick Bowen 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

SpinnWebe

Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Dysfunctional Family Circus was not just "hosted on SpinnWebe" like SpinnWebe is somesort of free webspace (like geocities). It was designed, hosted, updated, edited, etc etc as a part of SpinnWebe (which now hosts AAA A1 captions in the same vein)JohnRussell 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as notable per my comments on the matter before. Spinn has not asked to to do anything in this matter, he doesn't even know me. I am just a fan who has been going to the site for 10 years and it's pop press coverage on the DFC internet meme should be enough to keep it. Also, I don't see a big 'influx' of wikipedia people that have never voted before makeing their thoughts known on this issue, I see mostly people of the wikipedia community who were late in hearing about a vote.JohnRussell 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The
    WP:WEB that this site meets? Monkeyman(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Alexa rank (664,215!), possibly speedy if this is a recreation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that it meets
    WP:WEB with criteria 1 (Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address) and 3 (The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators). Bobby1011 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Trivial coverage, etc" is an exclusion to Criteria 1 which would indicate you prefer a Delete vote. Your comment is a bit confusing. Monkeyman(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How right you are. I misread the criteria. Bobby1011 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable per Bobby1011. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation, unless one of the supporters wants to dispute that it is a re-creation.--Gjc8 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people doing just that below - does that change your vote? DenisMoskowitz 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Gjc8. Bobby1011 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby. Monkeyman(talk) 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not a meatpuppet, and I think we should toss that accusation around less casually. There have been a number of recent AfD nominations of sites that were once extremely notable, but less so lately—this is one,
    rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Footnote: For the record, see an "orphaned" debate
rodii 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Footnote 2: SchuminWeb used a script to rally a get-out-the-vote drive for this second AfD from the following Wikipedians:
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rodii (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zompist (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:DenisMoskowitz (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:03, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TreyVanRiper (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnRussell (AWB assisted message)
  • 19:02, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spinn (AWB assisted message)
  • 18:58, February 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Notmydesk (top)
--Ruby 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop implying there's something untoward going on here. He alerted interested people who posted on the speedy delete page. I see nothing sinister in that. --Spinn 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing implied, other than evidence of my assertion of meat-puppetry and a full disclosure for the admin who eventually closes this AfD, assuming it's not speedied overnight. --Ruby 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should add my name to the list as well, since this page was brought to my attention through a discussion concerning the deletion. Of course, since SchuminWeb does not know me, nor zompist or notmydesk, personally, the accusation of script-use is pretty serious especially when it can be easily disproven. Having an active community, especially consisting of people who have their own extensive entries in Wikipedia, should not count as evidence of untoward behavior, but actually gives credence to the argument that the site does in fact hold relevance. I find it even more ironic that two people involved in this discussion are people who at one point or another had personal run-ins with spinn, yet one of them wrote the article and the other voted for the original deletion. Personally, I see this article not necessarily simply falling under web content, but rather a description of the history of an influential and active home site of an active, influential web personality. While spinn may be no Lawrence Lessig in his Alexa ratings or Technorati listing, his influence on many other personalities like Lore Sjoberg, Zompist, and notmydesk should not be discounted. Maybe it should just be rewritten to be about him instead of referencing his through his home website. --Leth
I'd consider "meat-puppetry" as untoward, if I understand the term. I'm interpreting it as your being under the impression I'm just telling my friends to post in the article's defense. It's especially ironic, since Schumin is specifically not a friend, given the amount of abuse I've heaped on him in the past. --Spinn 05:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original Afd was rushed through on 5 delete votes (including Elkman who, though having a perfect right to vote, did not disclose his personal interest), and was based on a misstatement (that Spinn wrote the Wikipedia article). This is not a shining moment in Wikipedia consensus. Instead of defending this rush job, calling names, and relying on inappropriate criteria, I'd love to see the Delete people acting like encyclopedia editors and making an actual case.Zompist 05:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes, the site is a shadow of its former glory. But Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. It had glory, with ample (and provided) evidence to support it, and thus clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. --Spinn 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Spinn above, and if you don't think he's a fair witness, pretend I said it. The site was highly notable in my rememberance of the web nearly 10 years ago (my god it's been that long). If notability is measured substantially against current Alexa rankings and other subjective and moving criteria, then every site will eventually be NN and deletable (save a lot of disk space.). If we get rid of
    Spinnwebe, let's pitch TOTSE, maybe Suck.com, how about Seanbaby and Old Man Murray, they haven't updated their sites in ages... remember, if a website doesn't consist of 100,000 bored teens and undertasked office workers posing Photoshops, snarky blog entries and belabored in-jokes ad-infinitum it's non-notable. KWH 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - I'd like to see one of the Delete editors come up with an actual argument as to why
WP:WEB criteria 1 is not met. KWH 07:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • You're not helping your case by mistating things that are easily checked. I didn't create (or in any way affect) the article about my site. And of course it’s no coincidence that people will look at other Afds you are doing. I have nothing to do with Mirsky’s. The comment about your age is a reminder that many of us were around on the web in that period, when you could have no personal experience of what was notable or not. Do you have some other reason that your opinion about the noteworthiness of 1995 websites is worth listening to? As for Spinnwebe's notability, see my points above. Zompist 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, if you're going to argue about whether or not to take down a page, shouldn't you argue based on the merits of the page itself, and less on the people placing votes, or resurrecting a page? You're guilty of argument ad hominem, an obvious logical fallacy. Secondly, I take offense that you claimed I joined Wikipedia only to vote to keep Spinnwebe. You might have noticed my talk page where someone thanked me for my participation in a discussion regarding Citadel BBSes. I only recently created my user page because, frankly, I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia, and frankly, I didn't really want to create my own home page originally, because I don't really think I'm all that important. - TreyVanRiper 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JD, perhaps the reason people "rallied" against your suggested deletion of Mirsky's page is that you were off-base in suggesting it be deleted, based as it was on a simple counting of yahoo hits and not taking into account anything regarding the history and notability of the site itself -- much as you're doing with spinn's page. And, frankly, if you're going to take me to task for me "snidely" saying "kids these days..." you might want to take a number of others here to task for snidely calling myself and others "meat-puppets."--Notmydesk 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those viewing this page check out this page on the Spinnwebe Forum "Reinstatement campaign anyone?". [10] I knew this was what was going on, now we have the proof. As a matter of fact, in that thread Spinn says "Well, here's the Google cache version of the page, anyway. It's a shame, I could recreate all this fairly easily, but I think it's bad form if I do it myself.". So it is infact confirmed that they just c&ped back the same old page that was deleted (many sites make copies of old wikipedia pages). It wasn't 'improved' and thus the speedy deletion template was warranted.--Jersey Devil 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I won't keep commenting here, but I do want to note a few things: (a) I can't speak for anyone else I resent the implication that I'm here because Schumin "recruited" me. I have zero interest or involvement in SpinnWebe; I read AfD and comment where I have something to contribute—I didn't see Schumin's note until after I commented here. But informing people who have spoken up in a debate that it's continuing in another forum
    rodii 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as nn website, if the writer keeps on recreating, protect it. --
    e Ong 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Hey, TreyVanRiper (the user who left the unsigned 'keep' vote).....why is it you just created your user page yesterday? [11]? P.S I am aware your contributions go back to mid January 2006. Also rodii, I haven't accused you of anything. I have accused the relatively new posters who came out united to vote in the speedy deletion page.--Jersey Devil 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cry of frustration. Let's look at the "relatively new posters" on that Speedy Deletion page and the dates of their first edits:
Keep votes
Spinn: 19 Jul 2005
TreyVanRiper: 13 Jan 2006
notmydesk: 30 Aug 2005, but that's it until the recent kerfuffle
SchuminWeb: 7 Apr 2005
JohnRussell: 22 Sep 2005
K-Man: only edit
DenisMoskowitz: 3 May 2004
Zompist: 8 Aug 2005
rodii: 25 Dec 2004
Delete or recuse votes
Elkman: 25 Jul 2005
JerseyDevil: 6 May 2005
So it looks to me as if only K-Man, TreyVanRiper and arguably notmydesk really fall into the category Jersey Devil is talking about. But more important, most of those people are actually making arguments about encyclopedicity, whereas you are only talking about meatpuppets and process. A number of your points from the original AfD have been refuted (Spinn being the original author, the author being a "redlink", etc.) and arguments supporting notability have been advanced, and all we keep hearing from you is accusations of bad faith. WTF does it matter when someone created their user page?
I don't really care about this deletion that much--I said above I'd be happy with a merge or even a delete without prejudice. I just think we should get away from the OMG MEATPUPPETS stuff.
rodii 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment.
  • You voted delete on the original article on the basis I wrote it, yet I did not.
  • You're suggesting Zompist should be looked at suspiciously because he wrote his own article, yet he did not.
  • Multiple articles in independent reputable sources make it notable. If you have a band that's a one-hit wonder, do you make an entry for the song, or for the band?
  • A conversation among friends does not indicate a conspiracy against you. Nyder's comment on my forum is immaterial (she hasn't even been involved in any of this on Wikipedia to my knowledge).
  • I edited Mirsky's entry in Sept 2005 so it was on my watchlist; seeing your name come up on my watchlist in another article is also not proof of a conspiracy against you.
  • You are taking all of this too personally. I feel anything I say is going to be viewed through a lens of suspicion, not because it's my site, but because you think I'm orchestrating something. If my friends make valid points, why do their opinions become less worthy because they're my friends? --Spinn 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Speedy Delete. Hey, I wrote the original article (actually, expanded it from a stub). It was a decent article on a marginal-but-probably-acceptable web site. I voted to keep it on the original AfD, which was not heavily populated -- 4-1 against, IIRC, including the nominator. I think its too bad it was deleted. BUT. It was deleted properly in-process, and I think we need to respect that. Whether AfD might need reform (e.g., at least n total responses are required, where n=8 or whatever) is an interesting question but not germane to to this case. We need to stand by the principle of stare decicis or we'll never get anything done. In fact, per the nominator, I don't think this should even be here. It is NOT acceptable for Wikipedia to be bullied into revoking a properly placed speedy by out-of-process deletion of properly formed and placed speedy tags, period. The only correct recourse is

deletion review (although technically that is only for correction of out-of-process deletions, and this deletion was done properly). I call on the closing admin to take note of my comments and my standing as author of the original article. Herostratus 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (N.B. and FWIW, the original article was not written by anyone associated with the site, it was written by me solely on my own initiative, and I have no formal association and with the site and know no one who does, although I used to post on the forums in years past.) Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below. Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. I am not a meat puppet - please take a look at my contributions if you doubt that. The page was re-created after an AfD but has improved since its recreation to the point that it is now a much better article: see the diff between the recreated article and the current one. The section on media coverage of the DFC controversy clearly fulfills point 1 of
    WP:WEB. I can understand the desire to punish those who recreate after an AfD, but in this case the system is working - the originally AfD'd page was not a good article, but the current one is and should be kept. (That is also why speedy deletion was not appropriate here - it was not simple recreation but actual article improvement.) DenisMoskowitz 14:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
See The New Yorker story referenced above, which is an article about SpinnWebe, not the DFC.Zompist 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time to verify. I don't read the New Yorker so it's not like I have back issues lying around, but if indeed there is a full page article on SpinnWebe itself in a back issue that is worthy of consideration.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Underground was a print magazine published by Ziff-Davis from 1995 to 1997. Doesn't this already address your concern? --Spinn 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, per
WP:WEB criteria 1, I would consider this to be a trivial mention (about one subsection of the website: the Nipple Server). I also need to see mulitiple source mentions per criteria 1 (or 1 feature length article in a well known publication would satisfy me as well, even though I don't think this is explicitly stated in the criteria). I need to see the New Yorker article. I'll try to get out to the Library by my house in the next day or so... should have it on file there.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Eh, I think you're using too broad a definition of "trivial coverage".
WP:WEB
appears to mean that as: a press release printed in a newspaper is trivial, a magazine printing a list of sites that start with S is trivial. The article is materially about the site, whether it's a section of it or not. I can demonstrate an article on the SpinnWebe Nipple Server in reference X, an article on the SpinnWebe DFC in reference Y. Non-trivial mentions in reputable print publications. Done.

--Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are taking too liberal a reading of "trivial coverage". I consider paragraph blurbs, even if materially about a subject, to be trivial.
WP:WEB is a guideline, so it is going to be open to interpretation. Disagreements about guideline interpretations aside though, I think this is largely a moot point since by my count this is currently destined for a No Consensus (default keep).--Isotope23 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • LOL, why don't you tell us what you really think K-Man.--Isotope23 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been asked to comment on this by both sides of the dispute as the admin who closed the original AfD debate. All I will tell you folks is:
    • Assume good faith
      .
    • Use common sense
      .
    • Don't be a dick
      .
    • Please calm down and look at this rationally. Whether this article is kept or deleted matters very little in the long run. Please exercise good judgement, and avoid votestacking (this applies to both sides). Please do not use the
      two wrongs make a right fallacy to justify any of your actions. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Amen to that. I think my statement "there's nothing untoward going on here" could've been summarized to
Assume good faith if I'd known the term. The very statement that started this AfD assumed bad faith. --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (since I'm not arguing deletion based on traffic rankings etc); your argument is apples and oranges. Avril Lavigne warrents an article regardless of Alexa rankings (et al) because she is notable independant of her website (and would be considered under
WP:BIO. An article on www.avrillavigne.com would probably not survive an AfD though (it would be deleted most likely and content merged to Avril Lavigne. If SpinnWebe were an entity outside of a website, you could apply criteria to that entity that were completely independent of web rankings and other criteria that are traditionally applied to websites. Your point about applying current Alexa rankings in the context of a discussion about the historical value of a site has some validity though, but in that case I would recommend better demonstrating the historical context and value of SpinnWebe in the article.--Isotope23 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Suppose "Weird Al" Yankovic, known worldwide for his numerous song parodies, had instead made exactly one high-profile parody song in his lifetime. Would he get a mention in that song's article? Of course. Would he get his own article? Probably not. Cdcon 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think my previous comment on one-note wonders addresses this. (And the other referenced non-DFC articles make it moot.) --Spinn 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cdcon got it exactly right. As I stated, the Wired article mentions Spinnwebe solely in the context of the DFC. The role of Spinnwebe on DFC is already mentioned in the DFC article. On it's own merits, Spinnwebe alone does not warrant an article. This no longer has anything to do with the process of deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the Internet Underground citation? That mentions spinnwebe and the Nipple Server, not the DFC. And the New Yorker article -- though it hasn't yet surfaced here, it has been independently verified and does, in fact, exist -- mentions spinnwebe specifically. Are those just being discounted now?--Notmydesk 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Recreation of deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinnwebe, attempts to delete it by speedy means are being thwarted by meatpuppets, perhaps listing on AfD will stop them. --Ruby 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" This seems to me like an editor/admin bias as there is no "organized group" trying to keep it alive, just a lot of people interested in the site and want to see it's article stay because of notability (and giveing good reasons why it should). JohnRussell 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article
    Spinnwebe was duly deleted by consensus, therefore the re-creation SpinnWebe should be deleted, and if next month there is a Spinn-webe or a Spinwebe they should be deleted too. --Ruby 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Spinn, why don't you just admit you are the Antichrist!? I heard you assassinated Bobby Kennedy!
    rodii 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • My reason was non-notability for deleting
    Spinnwebe and it is for re-creating deleted material in the case of SpinnWebe. --Ruby 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Spinn, how does
    Scribs, your webcomic warrant an article? It was launched less than a year ago and has nothing to do with DFC.--Jersey Devil 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment While I attempt to keep my annoyance in check, tell me why this is germane in any way to the SpinnWebe AfD. --Spinn 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • what the... What does
      Scribs
      have to do with anything? I don't see any mention of it here. Is it made of wood? Does it float? Burn him! --innocent bystander
    • Comment Jersey Devil is apparently continuing to confuse this issue with yet more innuendo. Although his inclusion of the link to that page here helped me to find it, so I could vote on it. I have to say, as someone relatively new to all this, I'm finding this particular AfD process anger-evoking, and it will likely influence my condinued participation on Wikipedia. I wish Mr. Devil would focus his efforts on the merits of a page, and less on procedure. This is a fine example of someone who stares at the finger pointing to the moon. -- TreyVanRiper 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I too am finding the continuing innuendo about cabals and conspiracies tiresome, and now going from
      Scribs is looking an awful lot like score-settling. JD, seriously, take a step back, it's only a website. · rodii · 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep I think it does meet
    WP:WEB, and IMHO, being the home of DFC alone gives it a passing grade. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Yes, the site was known primarily for the Disfunctional Family Circus, and yes, the DFC is no longer around - however, it has other well-known features, especially the webcomic Scribs. I agree that the Scribs article and the Spinnwebe section of the DFC article should be merged with the main Spinnwebe article.Stev0 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KWH below gave enough cites, plus the one in New Yorker -- to meet criteria #1. Articles about web sites in the 1990s? History. Anyways, it's not like we're wasting any paper here. Keep. Sholom 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23. I have (and have read) the New Yorker article in question, via The Complete New Yorker DVD set, and while it does focus on the site as a whole and not just DFC, it is a very short capsule review, and so far as I can tell, the only significant mention of the site in major media that is not about DFC. Let's face it: SpinnWebe was, and is, notable pretty much only for DFC, and DFC has its own, very comprehensive, article. MCB 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So we have thoroughly established that the only thing that Wikipedia should tell future generations about this site is that it hosted the extremely notable DFC, is that right? Any other detail of its 11 year history must be expunged as pure advertisement, yes? KWH 04:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't a discussion, it's a
    Spinnwebe has actually improved somewhat, to a point where it shows some notability. (Not a lot in today's current Web environment, but the DFC flap makes it notable in a historic context.) I'm not entering a keep vote here -- just urging a little bit of sanity. Otherwise, some administrator will just close this AfD with a result of "no consensus." --Elkman 06:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This has been listed on
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [reply
    ]
  • comment umm, SpinnWebe is not really a webcomic, it is a website. JohnRussell 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, but the webcomics wikiproject also keeps track of web sites that host webcomics. It's a borderline case, but it's likely
      Scribs will get merged into this article, which is why I added it to our tracking. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Oh, and while I'm here - very strong keep from someone who's not a meatpuppet. DS 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I can't help but notice that the meatpuppets who want this deleted are the same ones who want The Brunching Shuttlecocks article deleted, too. Assuming, of course, they are indeed separate people. Stev0 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Someone mentioned it up above, but if a band has a one hit wonder, do you write an article for the song or the band or both? Personally I don't care that much, but it should be one article and the other should be redirect. Reading through these comments, it seems that DFC is the most and possibly only notable thing about the site. Maybe have a section on the DFC page on other works by the same author? -
    Hahnchen 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment you mean like these:
  1. Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (1996
    )
  2. Soft Cell - "Tainted Love" (1982)
  3. Dexys Midnight Runners - "Come On Eileen" (1982)
  4. Right Said Fred - "I'm Too Sexy" (1991)
  5. Toni Basil - "Mickey" (1982)
  6. Who Let the Dogs Out?" (2000
    )
  7. Vanilla Ice - "Ice Ice Baby" (1990)
  8. a-ha - "Take On Me" (1985)
  9. Gerardo - "Rico Suave" (1991)
  10. Nena - "99 Luftballons" (1984)

JohnRussell 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD G4, failing that, Delete. You people have logorrhea. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I'll propose this as a possible way forward here:

  1. Everyone calm down :)
  2. We acknowledge that process was, if not outright violated, at least a little bit bent by the recreation of the article
  3. We acknowledge that there is at least an argument to be made for the notability of this site
  4. The article be deleted without prejudice, and that interested parties be allowed to create a spanky new article (or merge the information into the DFS article if they choose)
  5. If the article is recreated, it should be judged on its own merits and not on the history of the current article or the personalities involved

Does that seem feasible? That way the process is respected, but separated from concerns about the encyclopedicity of the information. I realize it's a pain in the ass for those who don't think it should have been nominated in the first place, but it's an attempt to find some common ground.

rodii 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I would resist this, only because essentially the same information would be added and the same discussion would ensue. What you're essentially saying is that "let's consider if the article should be written better." --Spinn 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spinn's concern but I don't think it's reason to resist. Rodii has accurately noticed that the complaint of the deletionists is primarily "abuse of process" (AfD double-jeopardy, Meatpuppets, etc.); very few have made arguments against its notability. This needs a substantially clean slate. I don't usually hang out at AfD but when I saw this article and deletion debate mentioned on some user page it brought me to the realization that Wikipedia fails to impart much of the richness of the early history of the Web, which I think is a form of
SomethingAwful, etc. SpinnWebe is right there in my own memory with Justin Hall's links.net. (And I'm also amazed to find that so little is written in that article on the "founding father of personal blogging".) As such, Spinn - I think if you check your notes and ask some of your oldest fans to reminisce a bit I think we can find some additional facts and citations which can accurately portray the historicity and notability of this site in a new article. KWH 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Eh. This discussion isn't specifically about whether the article is well-written, but whether it should continue to exist. In my opinion,
WP:WEB
clearly says yes.
Actually, I take that back. This discussion is specifically about whether there's a Rough consensus to delete, and I think it's clear that there isn't. --Spinn 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Interesting case. Several people, from Jimbo on down, have noted at times that AfD has problems, and this case is a good a example. It is, however, understandable. There is a lot of
Wikipedia:vanispamcruftisment produced every day, and people are busy. I second the suggestion the simply delete without prejudice and list on deletion review. Yes that's a pain in the butt and seems like beauracratic niggling. But the thing is, precedent. There are lots of entries of the my web site/my 8-person company/my and my buddies garage band/our 6-member games forum/my boyfriend etc. variety deleted every single day. The last thing anyone wants is for anyone to get the idea that they have some basis for recreating these without going thru deletion review because, hey, SpinnWebe. There is a marginal but valid case for taking this to deletion review. In fact, why wait -- why don't you take the original article to deletion review now? Herostratus 14:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Because deletion review is for procedural errors in deletion, and I don't see any. It was originally deleted according to Wikipedia procedure, and again, it was reinstated according to Wikipedia procedure.
I see no risk of creating precedent, either. If My And My Buddies Garage Band was deleted, and then later reinstated with references to its Rolling Stone review, then I see no problem with that. --Spinn 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, affiliated with Zompist.com's bulletin board. Wiwaxia 09:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see my comments above. Leth
  • Keep. Changing my vote to Keep.
    1. OK OK OK. This was deleted in-process but I think that it would be valid to list on deletion review, on the grounds that none of the delete votes refuted or even made reference to the Keep arguments, and the Delete arguments consisted mainly of "non-notable, delete". Remember, AfD is not a vote, it is supposed to be a discussion, and the Keep side "won" the discussion, therefore a case could be made that the closing admin erred in not relisting or keeping the AfD open. Even if one holds that only the votes made after the Keep side had completed its arguments could be expected to address those arguments, that brings the "vote" down to 3-1 against at best (including the nominator), and it could be argued that that is not a quorum.
    2. If this were to be listed on deletion review, I think the "keep" arguments would win the day, as (IMO) they have done here. So why go through all that -- let's just consider this thread to be a deletion review, and let the closing admin treat it as such.
    3. OK, yes, the article was deleted in-process (marginally), and yes the speedy-delete tags shouldn't have been removed, and yes this discussion should be taking place at deletion review, and yes this would be a bad precedent. But let's not be total process geeks here, the bottom line is that the article was deleted too quickly more-or-less by mistake and should be kept. As to setting precedent, people are not gonna remember this thread a week from now let alone point to it as a precedent. I think that just this once it would make sense to make an exception. (Perhaps as penance for all this spinn could be sentenced to community service writing the article List of people who have swallowed a live squid or whatever...) Herostratus 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has lots of verification, which makes me wonder why we are even thinking about deleting it. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My proposal was an attempt to find some kind of middle ground between the deleters and keepers. In the event it seems the keepers have carried the debate, and I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. ·  rodii  ·  02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been a week, what is the next action to be taken? JohnRussell 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(add new comments above here)

Verifiable Citations

The "Nipple Server" sounds like something that should be banned by the Communications Decency Act, but this curious exercise in Web creativity is much weirder than anything our congressbeings could imagine. Every weekday morning, page author Greg Galcik has been aiming a Casio digital camera at his left breast, firing and uploading the image to his site. Viewers are then requested to rate the day's specimen from 0 to 10 on "Color," "Perkiness," "Panache" and the vague category "Overall nipplish quality." (Fortunately -- or unfortunately -- there's nothing that special to see. No wacky piercings or anything.) Galcik explained earlier this year that the site's no big deal to his parents or his wife, as "they know what kind of weirdo I am."
  • A capsule review of Spinn's version of DFC, compiled from some wire service, was published in the following newspapers between September 24 and 27 1999:
    • The Kansas City Star
    • Spokesman-Review, The
    • Star-Ledger, The (Newark, NJ)
    • Telegraph Herald
    • Houston Chronicle
    • Journal Star
    • Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    • Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    • St. Petersburg Times
    • State, The (Columbia, SC)
    • Sun-Sentinel
    • The Cincinnati Post
    • Ventura County Star (CA)
    • Vero Beach Press Journal (FL)
"Family Circus" creator Bil Keane is worried about a less-than- wholesome parody of his kid-friendly comic on the Web. Keane said last week he was mildly amused by the "Dysfunctional Family Circus" when it began five years ago, but then his readers started to complain. The Web site - SpinnWebe, maintained by Greg Galcik - uses Keane's cartoons while allowing site visitors to make up the captions. The results are often sarcastic or dark humor and, predictably, sometimes obscene and pornographic, Keane said. King Features, which syndicates Keane's comic, and Keane's attorney sent Galcik a letter last week threatening legal action unless he removed references to Keane's work.
Another review of Spinn's DFC.
Another review of Spinn's DFC, together with reviews of Dilbert and some other early online comics.
  • "CYBERSCENE - Aaron' comic strip has its own Web site - Comic `Adventures' wow Web-sters", Boston Herald, May 17 1996.
Another review of Spinn's DFC.

KWH 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(don't comment here, add new comments above the beginning of this subsection.)

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

The result of the debate was redirect, no consensus to delete.

Chick Bowen 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Park Street

It's a short street in Boston, Massachusetts. That's pretty much it. Delete as street-cruft. Calton | Talk 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per "it does not pass anything of note". lol, that's too good. Monkeyman(talk) 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason any Bostonian has ever heard of this street is they've changed trains in the station located beneath it. Fan1967 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --djrobgordon 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep wassup with that? we have Bank Street --CyclePat 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is every city in every city supposed to get a listing? No way! Travislangley 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The subway stop is one of the most famous in the world.". So why not give it its own article, rather than the street upon which it is situated? Why is it so famous? This article seems a little incoherent.  (aeropagitica)  07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Common is bounded by Tremont St., Park St.,..." The corner of Park and Tremont has not only the red line but also the tourist shed with all the brochures and a couple friendly tourist welcomers. This corner is the start of the Freedom Trail. So yes, the article bad and Delete is what should be done to it. Metarhyme 08:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article stands, nothing convinces me it is more important than any random street. I could be convinced otherwise if the article gave me a reason to be interested in it. --Cymsdale 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Bikeable suggests. --Cymsdale 10:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - was user test. -- RHaworth 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Posting

unencyclopedic

R/W 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexandra Hart-Gilliams


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephen Parkinson

Delete. It's a vanity page... not needed in the Wikipedia Walksonwalls 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable bio. Bobby1011 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Monkeyman(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable. VirtualSteve 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't this article discuss two different people of the same name? How can someone be an academic in Yorkshire and run a computer shop in Cornwall simultaneously? Why would an academic need to do this? In either case, the biography(-ies) appear to be non-notable.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio and vanity. --
    e Ong 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, two non-notable biographies. JIP | Talk 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ewa Sonnet

I don't know. Just doesn't seem as notable as the article would like me to believe. James084 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Monkeyman(talk) 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1,200,000 google hits. Must be notable in some context Bobby1011 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bobby and her seven incoming links from articles not created by the same person. NickelShoe 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please note that porn producers and promoters spam search engines, thus skewing any results in the favor (and, by extension, rendering the Google test impotent). If you would note this search using the term "Ewa Sonnet" (with quotes), you shall see that Google only goes up to 500 (out of 770,000+!) search results, deeming the rest to be duplicates! And most of the "valid" results were nonsense without any true substance. you will see that a good chunk of the links are web cruft without substance. However, as I said, most porn producers create dummy websites to puff up the importance of their "product". For instance, sites may have meta tags with "Ewa Sonnet" in them, without having anything to do with that subject. While I thank Adrian for the correction, my vote shall stay the same. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC) -- Stricken by Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud at 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as per Joe Beaudoin. Bobby1011 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: The rest are not duplicates. Google also only goes up to 500 or so for Microsoft. It's just the way it works, and has no real bearing on the remainder of the results, for your purposes. Please, please, pretty please, stop citing this at AfD : ) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sigh Ok, then. Now that I believe that I am informed about what I am saying, keep it. Thanks Adrian. Bobby1011 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , I suppose. Per Adrian. Cyde Weys 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more notable than those hot teenage cheerleaders who are always emailing me. Monicasdude 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --
    e Ong 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the Google test is skewed for porn, then it's skewed for anything else that gets link-farmed. That's a pretty slippery slope that you want to shove us down. - CorbinSimpson 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 23skidoo --Godtvisken 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 23skidoo --GenericTSS 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New material added which increases the richness of the subject considerably. briankaz 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Noteable within the porn industry, especially within her specific genre. There are other well known porn stars on Wiki, this one is no different. She also has a music career which equally deserves a Wiki entry. The359 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I can't think of any real reasons to keep it, other than further broadening the knowledge base, I do know that "I don't know...just seems...like me to believe" are pretty limp wristed premises for any arguement. I'd hate to see any worthwhile contribution thrown to the wayside by such a weak argument. Dodint 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep She is far from a normal internet pornstar. She is at worst a nude model, and has not performed or pretended any sexual acts for stills or video. Her budding singing career somewhat parallels the progression seen by other models who have seeked to become more, and she has already been featured in major mainstream Polish media. Dismissing her now for no good reason is a bit absurd.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.246.87 (talk • contribs)

  • Strongly Keep She is far from a normal anything. She is one of a kind. Don't be distracted by the boobs! We have yet to see even close to the full range of her talents. briankaz 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she has a music video. It is hard for USians/UKians to judge some criteria at
    WP:MUSIC but per this page she has been interviewed on "best known and most popular Kuba Wojewodzki Show. It's gonna be seen by over 4 million people o next sunday at 10:25 pm of Polish time at the biggest Warsaw private TV station" which would seem to come close to "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio [TV?] network." KWH 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Very Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable per
    WP:MUSIC. Page needs serious work, however. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Athens Hardcore

Deprodded. I vote Delete for being a non-notable, self-explanitory neologism.

  • Delete Obvious nelogism. --djrobgordon 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. It isn't even an neologism to my way of thinking. Bobby1011 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless. Travislangley 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to discuss a musical movement, fans thereof or anything else of note.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism, no meaningful content. And it isn't even in Athens. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yeah because Socrates did not do too well when he was with Bill and Ted. Yeah, non-notable. Croat Canuck 04:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brunching Shuttlecocks

Defunct humor website that does not claim any recognition or awards, and it is now impossible to verify traffic --Ruby 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use the Internet Archive, the Brunching site itself still has full archives. DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable humour site, with notable offshoots. Possibly merge offshoots into this page, though. Percy Snoodle 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable site. DenisMoskowitz 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. I agree it's a piece of notable net history, but the article as it stands is in essence a
    Aaron 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What would you suggest be added? I added a note about the publication of the Book of Ratings. I could put in some claims about "everybody knew about this site back in the day" but that's not very verifiable. (Though the fact that 3 years after closing it's still the top Google hit for both "brunching" and "shuttlecocks" is some indication of how heavily it has been linked to.) DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, undoubtably notable. I still remember half the lyrics to the Bjork song. — ciphergoth 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not impossible to verify traffic. See [14], which compares traffic of Brunching Shuttlecocks with Modern Humorist, a humor site of similar popularity that has a Wikipedia article. Nohat 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Highly notable site. Random House made part of it into a book[15]. I'd call that recognition.--Notmydesk 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it spawned a message board that is still very active. — User:Serendipity 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Leading humor site in its day and still available as archive even if not being updated. If this article did not exist, articles on the current careers of Lore Fitzgerald Sjöberg and Dave Nielsen would have to reproduce the same material. Sergeirichard 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it might be gone now but in its day was definitely notable. Deserves an encyclopedia entry. -Big Smooth 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yup, as so many others here say, this site clearly was famous and influential. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IIRC, I originally found out about the website after reading about it in Newsweek. Ardric47 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ciphergoth. Ooh Bjork, Bjork.... ♫ squell 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The site is still readable (and enjoyable, in my pov); it spawned other sites like bookofratings.com. To delete it because it isn't being added to is like deleting the article on Shakespeare because he isn't writing any new plays. Stev0 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: one of the absolute top comedy sites of its time. And since the current anti-website crusaders like to pummel sites with Alexa, note that it's still in the top 100,000 today, three years after it stopped updating. Zompist 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notmydesk. Or were you created from butter and cork? · rodii · 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was very noteworthy at the time, and the entire archives are still available, though the search engine seems to be broken. Maverick 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep though I'm biased, Lore being a friend of a friend. Georgewilliamherbert 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'm biased as well. I gave Lore a ride to an ATM once. --Elkman 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly notable when it was active, IIRC. Herostratus 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hbackman 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Computer jargon

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst

Stev0 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Acronyms are not really slang or idioms — Michigan user 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of baseball jargon

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

That one user, with the German name which roughly translates as "Breakfast service", has marked several of the
Wahkeenah 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

appendix. --Karnesky 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I responded on another AfD, we can make interwiki links. Any wikipedia article which referenced this would still point to the article on Wiktionary. It would be just as useful there, and may be a better fit with the intent and policies of that wiki than this one. --Karnesky 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, honestly, the information is useful, encyclopeadic, and better done as a collection that as individual articles. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Shreshth91 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of baseball jargon

Nomination on the grounds that this is a slang or usage guide, in violation of

WP:NOT. While an article about baseball jargon as a whole is acceptable, this is a list of jargon terms, not an article about the jargon as a whole. Note that the exceptions in WP:NOT 1.2.3 only apply to clarifying meaning when jargon is used in an article about something else (not the case here) or "special cases" about "an essential piece of slang" (not the case here) don't protect it. Informative and interesting, certainly (at least to some people), but that is not enough to excuse the fact that this is a list of definitions, not an article. The Literate Engineer 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mathematical jargon

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy keep. No offense to nom. This subject goes way beyond simple slang and is a well established article. PJM 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is neither a definition, nor is it about slang or idiom. It is a useful index of mathmetical jargon. Non-topic competent editors should know better than to make proposals for deletion, or to vote thereon. I would ask you to retract your votes on the basis that you are not topic-competent. pat8722 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Mathematical jargon is more than simply an idiosyncratic verbalization of otherwise expressible concepts; it is the means by which mathematicians express those concepts at all. See
    WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, in particular the exception enunciated in point 3. I also second pat8722 regarding the lack of evidence that either Frühstücksdienst or Hetar has any mathematical expertise. In fact, both of them seem to specialize in participating in or initiating AfD proposals more than anything else. Ryan Reich 04:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep --
    e Ong 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong, speedy keep per remarks above. Very useful, verifiable, and encyclopedic. dbtfztalk 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I am tempted to speedy keep this, the rules as I interpret it do not allow it. However, it seems from comments here that this article is very useful to the mathemeticians amongst us.Capitalistroadster 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the listings don't merit their own articles, so a category won't do, in my opinion. Plus we already have Category:Mathematical terminology. dbtfztalk 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per Ryan Reich's reasons above. Gandalf61 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could do with some expansion (something on origins would be good, for example, but we need to avoid original research of course) but has potential. Waggers 09:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at all these "not a dictionary" AfDs looks like Wikipedia is occasionally a slang/idiom guide. Not making a value judgement here; just noting that maybe the
    official policy is somewhat lacking in its spirit or wording. Weregerbil 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Completely unsourced and thus not
    verifiable. The statement that these particular phrases are not technical terms but are designed to "distinguish the insider from the neophyte," currently rests entirely on the authority of the article's editors. Because it is unsourced, it is difficult for the reader to verify which entries are accurate. For example, I say that "back-of-the-envelope" is an example of an inaccurate entry; it is used by physicists and engineers, not mathematicians. But since no source is given, you have no way to judge whether I, or the article, is the more trustworthy. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I think the intent of "not a slang or idiom guide" is that we not become Urban Dictionary. This doesn't push us any closer. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and relevant. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. Dmharvey 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful, relevant and encyclopeadic. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That being said, Dpbsmithb has a point. The intro makes claims which match my graduate school experience. I believe that the same can be said of almost any English-speaking mathematician; but I don't know it. I don't see how anyone can know it without having talked to a sizable and random sample. Let us either find a sociologist of mathematics who has done the necessary research, or edit to what we rigorously know. Septentrionalis 03:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Poker jargon

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, though there does seem to be a general feeling that something should be done, such as a merge or a partial transwiki or something. -Splashtalk 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball slang

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

should it be merged with
List of baseball jargon --CyclePat 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. I believe the distinction here is that
Baseball slang deals with those said terms that have crept into common usage as idiomatic expressions, no longer necessarily having anything to do with baseball. SigPig 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reached this decision by noting that all of the KEEP votes, with the exception of the first, were made by users with accounts that were either less than 2 weeks old or appear to have only been used recently in edits related to this discussion. Anybody that's a member of a group would logically try to prevent this article from being deleted, but after looking through the article myself, while it's a VERY well-written article that you should all be proud of (it's better than 99% of the schlock that gets fed through AFD), it's unfortunately not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elite_Roleplaying

non-notable gaming community TheOneCalledA1

  • Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Bobby1011 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd hate to delete a page that looks like it took such effort, but wikipedia is not a personal web space for individuals or groups. --Cymsdale 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm removing my delete recommendation; I'm on the fence on this one. --Cymsdale 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --
    e Ong 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete ick next we will get Star Trek clans..... Williamb 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but offer them a userfy. Someone spent alot of time on that.--Isotope23 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Understandable arguments, but being one of the main people who created this, I have to agree to keep it, no offense intended. Elite Roleplaying itself is a large RPG group with 3 divisions and a defined governmental system. It may seem minor, but it has been involved in the
    Star Wars Jedi Knight Jedi Academy community, but not for so long) and has gained quite a history with a great amount of members (probably around 200+). Now, look at an article like Bravo Fleet. Bravo Fleet is a Star Trek SIM group, just as ERP is except with the inclusion of in-game RPG and a Star Wars division. We have and have had a large member database just as Bravo Fleet, and there is even more valid information that can be included in the ERP article than the Bravo Fleet article. The Elite Roleplaying article isn't small but very detailed with some very interesting information on a group that has been active for about 5 years. While creating this article, I also avoided the use of personal POV, I respect neutrality in articles. I also greatly contemplated whether this article would be nominated for deletion, as it is being done right now. I made this in a way to avoid being an advertisement, but to be informative and interesting, I even had assistance by a great number of people in retrieving proper information to make sure all was complete. If Bravo Fleet can be kept, I think Elite Roleplaying should be kept. If this article is deleted, then the Bravo Fleet article should be discussed as well. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 21:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment, sounds like a good argument to start an AfD of Bravo Fleet...--Isotope23 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A poll was already done for the deletion of the Bravo Fleet article, a non-consensus was declared. Many of the arguments that contributed to it are most likely what is involved in the decisions for the deletion of this article. As another note of 'interest' per se, this article was not meant for advertisement. We (the group) felt that we had an adequete amount of valid information that could be added to Wikipedia. Elite Roleplaying isn't just 'another Star Trek clan', we distinguished ourselves in our communitys (we aren't even a clan actually) and were able to grow due to a successful and dedicated memberbase. Even as we speak, further expansion plans are being created. Elite Roleplaying isn't just a 'Star Trek clan'. - Enzo Aquarius 13:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems fairly obvious that this organisation is large enough and with a rich history in the development of roleplaying (especially given links with Destiny's Wind "ERP's Sister Star Trek Project.")to dispute the initial reason given for deletion. A non-notable gaming community? The sister project of Destiny's Wind? I'm afraid that the initial reason given is in no way justified. There is nothing to support such an arguement. - Helios 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh god, dont get the entire wikipedia community on an problem that is nobodys buisness. I am TheOneCalledA1. I am not "Digi". Please dont bring this argument here too. On the next note, so, does this mean that an article on the longest lasting Star Trek Community/Clan deserve an article too? It would have just as much right to as Elite Roleplaying does.TheOneCalledA1 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it should be deleted? The article refrains from PoV's, it adheres to a strict non-advertising and purely informative stance. It is in no way being used as a 'personal webspace'. Elite Roleplaying is an organisation that has been around a long time and has a large and rich history with regards to Elite Force Roleplaying and the sister project of Destiny's Wind. Why should it be deleted? All you have done is compared it to a fairly irrelevant example. Please can you give something more direct? Does it break any particular rule? Does it act in a manner that it deserved to be deleted? The non-notable tag really can't be justified in this particular situation. Elite Roleplaying is not a 'Star Trek clan'.-Helios 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Can't justify reason for deletion The group has too much of a history in EF RPing, it's links with Destiny's Wind and that it's a well known group with a large member base in the EF RPing community. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Achives nothing through it's deletion.--Helios 12:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ERP Was the forerunner to a very popular trend of gaming within the Elite Force community, and many of its ideals and practices have spread to others, ERP Is not using wikipedia to advertise itself, The article is a very well drawn up and informative peice of information concerning a large part of the history within the elite force community. ERP is not a clan, it is a group of people who started out with one goal, and acheived it. The wiki article is not an advert, and is not harmful In any way that I can understand. What saddens me most is I beleive the issue was drawn to your attention by someone who is not concerned for the integrity of wikipedia, but by someone who outlawed themself from the ERP community by causing major disruptions, and I personally beleive that this is more of an act of revenge than concern for the misuse of wikipedia webspace. The article is Completely factual, and very well constructed, There are many outside of the ERP community who could speak for its integrity, and recognise what it has acheived over the years. --Merrick
Comment - We strive to have an enjoyable experience with our peers and colleagues in a roleplaying environment, it's not about greatness but about working with great people. We work together well in our community, and this article also reflects that, we got together to make an article on a topic we felt was valid for Wikipedia, we did not use personal bias, we did not make an advertisement article and we made it very informative. There are also a number of edits by those that aren't even Elite Roleplaying with no complaints from them. Thank you for your time. - Enzo Aquarius 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-I withdraw my last comment. The ERP people have put a lot of time into this page, and it's a shame to squander that.

--Cronin

  • Keep - Ok, I'll list and rebut the sections I believe it is felt that the article fails on. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." I don't believe this is breached, as the article maintains NPOV throughout. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. Again, as far as I can see, the article is indeed written in the aforementioned objective, unbiased style, and therefore does not breach this, either. ERP is also verifiable by most of the RPG community of Elite Force and Jedi Academy. As such, I believe it should be kept. -- Berle
  • Keep This doesn't violate any rules, and was formatted neutrally... No need for deletion Legovan (Millen)
  • Keep I agree, I haven't seen any rules that this article violates. -- GMoney 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please take note, that several of the people who voted are actualy Elie Roleplaying members. TheOneCalledA1 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - A good number of these people helped me make the article or contribute too, as I said, it was a community effort and is thus the works of many. - Enzo Aquarius 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - I'm not a member. - Cronin
  • Further Comment I didnt say that all are. I said several. Theres atleast two ERP members who voted to keep, who havent made any other edits except their userpages and this.

TheOneCalledA1 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear (band)

I put a speedy delete tag on it but it was removed. Non-notable band. Blank page on allmusic.com. Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Ifnord 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vanity. Bobby1011 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jordan Dioquino

I placed this on

WP:BIO—delete. JeremyA 03:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

A quiet mind

vanity
/spam - the article and the user who created it share the same name.


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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Police Department

Wikipedia is not the Phone book. This Police Station is not notable. Bobby1011 03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Article is primarily an organization chart and phone book. Oscar 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the police departments of major cities are usually politically controversial, and the histories of such departments often have value. Expansion is warranted. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Keep but expand The city of Gary/East Chicago is such a prominent one in regards to the high crime rate that this police department is one of the busiest in the nation. I'd say this article needs to be cleaned up and the focus taken off who commands which sector and put into more interesting encyclopedic information. Batman2005 06:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is a stub at the moment. There is barely any discussion of the subject, the majority of the content being a list of senior officers. I would abstain from voting until the author or another editor has contributed some notable events in the history of the department.  (aeropagitica)  07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I agree with Aeropagitica in terms of needs more content to ensure notability is refined. VirtualSteve 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless I'm gonna be allowed to get away with seperate articles on every Police Station in Britain! Jcuk 10:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This does not appear to be about a police station but a city-wide department in a fairly large city. Important public service, at least as notable as any school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up removing all the lists of current position holders. Capitalistroadster 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until recently, Gary had the highest crime rate of any city in the US. It probably still does, as regards some specific types of crime. (Look it up in your World Almanac; I can't find mine right now.) The police department there would thus seem notable.
    ergot 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Jcuk. Stifle 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Byrne

does not contribute to wikipedia

  • Delete as nn. Bobby1011 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, their band is also fails WP:MUSIC. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Hbackman 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete band named "Instant Death," this article deserves "Instant Death" Batman2005 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive argumentation. Clearly a band from a subculture which enjoys different moral standards than yours must be deleted. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With resepct squell but how do you have any idea what my moral standards are? Stop with the pretentious attitude. I voted delete cause this person is no more notable than you are. Batman2005 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil, guys. Hbackman 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation says you voted delete because the band is called Instant death, i.e., because it's some obscure rock band you don't care about. I'm not sure if there's enough info for a seperate article, but this guy was definately more notable than I am. squell 16:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a play on words, let me know when you have a few minutes and i'll try to explain it to you. Batman2005 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also seems to contain impossible to verify details. TheRingess 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[17]? Apparently they toured with Urchin (band) too. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable drummer,
    WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Instant Death toured with Ween. If Ween are notable doesnt that mean Instant Death are by virtue of touring with them? And if Instant Death ARE notable, can we say individual members of the group are not? No vote, dont know enough about the subject. Jcuk 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enouggh notability rubbedoff from Dave Dreiwitz 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Srasku 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Instant Death. Wikipedia is not paper, and the general argument for deleting this seems to be "never heard of the guy", which is rather weak. squell 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per squell. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Music Talk

Originally placed on

Proposed Deletions but detagged by an anon, this article is about a non-notable podcast that has been going for less than 2 months and can only claim 500 subscribers--delete JeremyA 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was SEMISPEEDY DELETE - if the author is blanking it and this debate is going the way it is, we might as well call it a day. -Splashtalk 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Age Total War

Delete. The advertisement tag had been added to this article, and since then edits have done nothing to change that. On the contrary, the article now sounds more like a sales pitch. The page includes biographies of everyone who worked on the project as well as a giant FAQ section, and looks like a vanity article in general. Isopropyl 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert. Bobby1011 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable mod and advertising. —
    talk) 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "And behold! ... it stank." - J.R.R. Tolkien. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me reiterate that: delete, really. Unreleased mods aren't notable enough for their own articles, by the way, unless they got really brutally cancelled or something. Took me a while to realize they hadn't really made a release, when the article managed to bury that in marketory talk and the links were malformatted too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, and delete all the images. Notable, existing, commercially released games don't get this many images; compare
    ergot 04:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment The author (User:Fatsheep) blanked the article. Though he's not the sole author if we're nitpicky (User:88.153.105.61 also touched this article, mostly to remove stuff though). And I don't think it satisfies speedy G7 criteria because this article was certainly not created accidentally. (Oh, accidentally created the article, then edited it 27 times just adding more advertising stuff? =) Though I'm sure this action counts as a strong argument that the article should nevertheless be deleted ASAP! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ComoAnda

  • View more discussion on proposed deletion here: User_talk:Cymsdale#AfD_on_ComoAnda
  • Note: Please do not base the site's notability on Alexa Traffic Ranking. ComoAnda has a largely Spanish speaking audience which most likely does not utilize the Alexa toolbar which is in English.--Oceanrythm 15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am the author for this page and also developer of ComoAnda. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for deleteing this tag earlier. It was simply an misunderstanding of protocol. This site has been sited as not compliant with
    WP:WEB - content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. A9.com, a well know opensearch aggregator, utilizes and distributes ComoAnda search content. A9. Article was edited, explaining ComoAnda's involvement in opensearch(A9), after the proposed deletion comments were made. --Oceanrythm 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Tagged for

WP:WEB—delete. JeremyA 04:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 880,420. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advert. --Cymsdale 10:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'm on board with not using Alexa rank of 880K as evidence of anything other than how worthless Alexa can be as a sole judgement criteria at times. That said.... Being aggregated by
    WP:WEB. (Do all 299 other sites have articles here? Do they defend notability using that criterion alone?) I agree that a wikilawyering interpretation might, by some major stretching, confer it, but we should do what is reasonable. I'd like to see some other evidence of notability such as citations by other clearly notable sites, writeups in published material, researchers citing it, or at least something more than 4 pages of hits in Google (I may not have searched effectively, it is true) before I'd change my comment from delete, but for now, that's what it is. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Referencing
    WP:WEB
    :
Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]
When asking if ComoAnda meets criterion 3, you'd need to ask: Is A9.com well known and independent of the creators of ComoAnda? I believe - yes. And if 'yes' to the first question... Is ComoAnda's content distributed via A9? Fact - yes.
I am not clear on how this would be some 'major stretching' or wikilawyering of the interpretation of WP:WEB
Should criterion 3 be removed from the site notability guidelines? Or should web sites be required to meet 2 of 3 criterion to qualify? Or can web sites meet any three of criterias, and still not be considered notable? --Oceanrythm 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what the current guidelines say, but thanks for repeating them for the benefit of others. There are two counters to them in this case, in my view.
  • First: These are guidelines, not rules. A site that does not meet any of them can nevertheless be found notable, and a site that some claim meets all of them can nevertheless be found not notable. That is, meeting them is not a free pass, it's a guide to how to proceed in deciding what to do.
  • Second: In my view the problem is with what "distributed" means in this context. I think most people would agree that, for example, Google does not "distribute" the sites you can look up there... it merely lets you find them. Yet, it fits the above definition with some stretching. Even the Google news pages aren't making the sites they find stories from notable merely by making the stories findable. We have debated other aggregators before, such as Keenspot's keenspace, and the conclusion has been in the past that merely being syndicated or distributed by keenspace is not sufficient to make a site (webcomic in that case) notable. With 300 sites aggregated by A9, it will take some convincing to show that is not the case here. Yes, A9 is well known and independent of the site (and notable!), but that's not relevant to whether its notability is transitive to this site.
Finally, if this site truly is notable, it will be easy to find other evidence of it, evidence such as I and others outlined, citations by others, influences, references, writeups, articles, and so forth. The fact that you repeatedly cite the WEB guidelines (here and on talk pages elsewhere), instead of doing that, is why I feel it gives the appearance of wikilawyering, which will tend to leave a bad impression with others popping in here to express their opinions. You'd much rather they came in here, got interested in whether the article is or isn't notable, found some other reason to dig around, and enhanced the article or this debate with additional information and notability instead of concluding that your apparent wikilawyering is proof of non notability (by someone looking for adverts or to increase notability by USING wikipedia to enhance inward links... not saying that's you but we see that a lot), and moved on. IMHO anyway. So, consider finding those other evidences and I will be falling all over myself to change my current feeling, as I am inclusionist!!! I hope that helps. I am guessing you may not be very experienced here since you haven't set up your user page and haven't been using formatting much in your replies so I took the liberty of formatting your words above.++Lar: t/c 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
really good feedback. and yes, i do have much to learn about wikipedia. --Oceanrythm 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rebecca H. Davis

Biography of person with no noteworthy achievements. Delete —Brim 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A good biography, but no assertion of notability. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She sounds she was a like a very nice person and the biography is well written but the subject doesn't meet
    WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Also violates NPOV...what if somebody thought she was a real jerk and not a "remarkable person." Batman2005 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as nn-bio. MCB 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT Delete. This article is undergoing continual updates by the author as research continues. The author has responded to one of the commentators because of the availability of a talkpage. Some others have no means of a direct response by the author. The author is NOT memorializing this person, but is attempting to write a credible contribution of one person's high imprint for change on society around her at a time when a single woman in that location was considered a "spinster" and did not value herself beyond her front door. Also, "noteworthiness" can lie outside the average, limited public view and current judgments -- which is actually possible, given none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made. Also, if a commentor happens to be an atheist, their also lies the possibility of an underlying bias in their comments on this particular article. And the commentary of "remarkableness" vs. thinking "jerk" was actually the use of another person's opinion. I should have kept the article as a "Draft" if that was possible. I am still fairly new to writing for Wiki. mshafbMshafb 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that "none of the commentators have any way of knowing her personally, nor have the understanding behind the choices she made." proves each persons point on here, that while she sounds like a great person, she is not of encyclopedic value and thus doesn't warrant inclusion here. Additionally, your assertion that someones religous views might determine their thoughts on this article are both offensive and unwarranted, you have no idea as to the religious beliefs of the users here. I notice how you claim that the "remarkable person" content was someone elses opinion, yet you make no effort to properly cite this information, or remove it as biased and POV. The article is riddled with POV, contains original and non-verifiable research and is written of a subject who does not meet the criteria for biographical inclusion here. This is not a statement to your ability to write a memorial, nor one against the character of the subject. There are many non-encyclopedic sites on which you may write a tribute/memorial article. I would suggest looking there as the consensus here is delete. Batman2005 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - bio with no assertion of notability. I'm not sure that being a good and kind person counts as an assertion of notability. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regrettable. Well written bio. But we can't have an article on WP for every good person on earth. Agree with comments of all "delete" voters above. I suggest the author set up a webpage or blog if they want to memorialize this person (or else find a verifiable "notable" accomplishment which would qualify for inclusion in an encyclopedia). Slowmover 17:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per
    WP:NPOV then it may be considered a legitamate article for inclusion in the wiki project (however notability may still be a problem). Comment - my atheism or the fact I did not know the person does not have any bearing what so ever in this AfD process and should not have been brought to discussion. Death Eater Dan 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Washington's Hard Winter

For reasons that are completely unexplained, Washington's Hard Winter refers to the winter of 1779-1780. There is no info in this stub, and Google has just 9 hits for this title, 8 of which appear to be Wikipedia mirror sites, and another that refers to Valley Forge (which was 2 years earlier). In other words, I nominate this for deletion (a first for me) because this is completely ahistorical and lacking in every way. Oscar 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Though that winter was certaintly hard, the term "Washington's Hard Winter" seems like a neologism or original research. A Google search for this term only comes up with Wikipedia mirrors. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't appear to require merging with George Washington, as there is no information in the article itself. Poor title choice, too.  (aeropagitica)  07:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly A1 speedy. Marskell 12:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like original research to me. --
    e Ong 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as per above.
    ergot 05:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Trisha Hart

Delete - non-notable rydia 05:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Just Ignacio

Prodded, tag removed, tag restored in violation of prod guidelines. Moving to AfD. It's an Argentine web-series. NickelShoe 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Superhero manual

Delete vanity posting about a nonnotable "ongoing project" engaged in by a nonnotable club on a do-it-yourself website. Postdlf 05:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pointless. Travislangley 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's still "under construction" and Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. If it gets finished and becomes notable with some third-party references, then Wikipedia might be an appropriate place for this information. NickelShoe 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion tag has been removed twice, btw, so please help me keep an eye on it. Postdlf 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Agree with initial prod tag. Fails WP:WEB and is a vanity page. Will keep an eye on the page, per Postdlf. Kareeser|Talk! 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ajaz Ahmed

Non-notable bio. Likely vanity. Delete —Brim 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Roybacer

Delete. Vanity page, appears to have been created by the site's webmaster Graham 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not of the opinion that this thin debate needs relisting since the nomination is entirely compelling and we don't have an in-place procedure that advocates locked forks of articles. -Splashtalk 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable

Rationale for this page is as an experiment under the proposal for

naming conventions, and is cluttering up live category space with the ill-named duplicate. Alai 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

PHP Enterprise

Vanity page. Nowhere is this software publicly available, Google search turns up absolutely nothing. The author has already been deleted (archived debate).


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ian Michael Kintzle

Fledgling actor, most edits are by a couple of newer users who may be inserting publicity (Celeb Bios (talk · contribs), User:Morgancc (talk · contribs)) whose main contributions are interlocking support for this actor in various articles. I copyedited it and prodded it originally, but then Morgancc came in and removed that without comment, so I'm bringing it here. IMDB lists one movie so far, and may have bio information that was also submitted by the actor or his agent. -- nae'blis (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. -- nae'blis (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm thinking "Ian Michael Kintzle" is one of the posters supplying information. God knows he's not busy making movies or doing other acting gigs which would warrant inclusion here. Batman2005 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDB shows just one role in a not-very-successful film, and he's almost at the very bottom of the credits (after such characters as "Nurse", "Hairstylist" and "Rider Girlfriend"), so his role must have been very tiny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable actor. Needs to appear in more successful films and television series in order to make a name for himself.  (aeropagitica)  16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nom. --Lockley 18:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh LaBove

personal bio Kukini 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Could be speedied, but I see why it is on AfD, as there are links to notable TV shows... however, if this child actor did play a role in "ER", "The Magic School Bus", etc, as more than just an "extra", then perhaps Keep & Expand. Kareeser|Talk! 06:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was an actor on All That, a very popular TV show on Nickelodeon, and has guest apperances on several TV shows like E, and has an IMDB entry, he's notable enough for me. --lightdarkness (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and cleanup. A personal bio in no reason for deletion unless it is of a non-notable person, seems notable.--Blue520 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep child actor with some fairly major roles. Needs a bit of cleanup, but overall notable and not a terrible start for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, regular, credited roles on three US tv series. Monicasdude 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Violating
    WP:AUTO is just bad form.--Isotope23 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep I've cleaned up the page, wikified where possible, added a link to IMDb.com and categorised.  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are plenty of not very notable actors on Wikipedia; another one can do no harm. - Runcorn 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article.

Mailer Diablo 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pennington Grimes

NN elementary school. Assertion of nobility present (best academic performance}, but anybody can say that. No external links, statistics. Kareeser|Talk! 06:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Agreed that the "renouned" statement needs verification if it is to be a valid (and NPOV) claim to notability (and hopefully the school's educational norms include how to spell the word renowned). –Sommers (Talk) 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per wiki/schools Jcuk 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per vague consensus achieved months ago at
    type 11:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Wiki/schools is not policy. School is not notable with being granted inherent notability. Bobby1011 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are more notable than subway stations, and subway stations are per se notable. Monicasdude 14:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Elementary school with no claim to notability.--Isotope23 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Notability (music) is not "Policy", however you try telling that to anyone voting delete on a musical article. Schools guideline states the only criterion for notability of schools is verifiability. Jcuk 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does nothing to provide readers with any pertinent information. A waste of bandwidth. Denni ☯ 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, verifiable schools are perfectly notable. Silensor 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, this particular school isn't particularly notable. It claims (rather, claimed) to have an excellent academic record, but that hasn't been verified, nor will it, if the article stays. Kareeser|Talk! 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools. Stifle 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — An editor has rewritten the article. It now contains a listing of the ethnic makeup of the school, broken down into percentages. I find that a little segregatory (if that is a word), and besides that, it also contains no notable information either. Kareeser|Talk! 01:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. KWH 04:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Toonophobia

  • keep The article is sourced and is a real phenomena. It may seem ridiculous because it is , but is is nevertheless a very real phenomeneon.--CltFn 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a hoax. Original author has even stuck the humor tag on it. At best is a non notable nelogism. I originally stuck a speedy on it as nonsense, yet original author decided to remove it instead of sticking a hangon. Even though they stuck the humor template on it, it is not even that funny.Delete TheRingess 06:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Porn

Non-notable concept that appears to be Webspam for one specific Web site. Only 737 Googles. Prodded but contested.

FCYTravis 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This debate isn't conclusive enough in the delete direction for me; the final comment is correct since Alexa headlines 3month moving averages, whilst this site's daily/weekly rank is better 1,000th. Since the debate rests mainly on unexplicated "nn" or "low alexa" I don't think the deletion case is made at present. -Splashtalk 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexadex.com

Not notable website abakharev 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Currently features on the front page of www.alexa.com zzuuzz (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes to interpret; relisting.

Chick Bowen 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The most clearly supported position here is to delete and it also makes it easily above the two-thirds level, probably even before the usual discounting of anonymous, very new and mission-driven editors. The fact is that this is an 'internet thing' that is new and not widely spread on the internet: the arguments to the contrary clearly haven't persuaded anyone who was not already persuaded. -Splashtalk 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futuristic Sex Robotz

Band with no actual releases, a link to their

FCYTravis 07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: This is not a user(penmoid, as they claim), its 209.221.140.121. As you can see by their contributions, they have made 4 edits; 3 of them to this vfd. Their first contribution was today. They are almost surely a sockpuppet.--Urthogie 12:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may surprise you, but you don't have to have extensively edit an online encyclopedia to be a real, independent person. At one point, you made your first edit. 209.221.140.136 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit wasn't a vote to keep a non-notable article, because like most people at that point i didn't know what a vfd is.--Urthogie 13:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I am now taking responsibility for that IP address. Penmoid 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:Username was created today and this is his first entry
NOTE: Check the IPs, Sir. The username was registered yesterday, everything I have posted matches the IP that I posted under prior to creating the username, which I did for no other reason that anyone without a username is considered a sockpuppet. So while my username may only have one (now 2) edits, you yourself were only recently speaking of 5 edits from my IP address, which, using basic math, equals 7 posts. You talk a lot about NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, and yet you constantly attack anyone who speaks out in support of this entry, which shows extreme bias on your part. How many posts do those people who voted to delete have? I doubt you have even checked. And I also find it funny that you chose to bold your entire comment so that people would ignore every other comment you made to me, posting as the IP address that I claimed for my username. But I guess if all bold is en vogue now... Penmoid 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't check their usernames because a)theyre in blue, which means theyve made a userpage and b)their vote shows they have a basic understanding of policy concerning notability.--Urthogie 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excuse my inexperience with Wiki editing. How do you get a list to nest properly? Yes, Biased:
  1. "Band with no actual releases" Define "actual release." Not a valid argument against notoriety. The band still qualifies for other requirements in
    WP:MUSIC
    without being represented by a major label.
  2. "a link to their
    Encyclopaedia Dramatica
    entry" Completely irrelevant. Are you saying that the article is vandalism? Was it written by documented vandals? No.
  3. "and such beautiful lines as..." etc. Biased argument that the article isn't appropriate simply because it documents something you find personally offensive.

Perhaps the quality of the article could improve (I didn't write it), but certainly belongs here. Cellophane 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Dramatica entries are, well, generally not encyclopedic or useful external links. I trust it's obvious why someone would mistrust an article with external links to ED. Funny, generally. A reliable source? Not so much. Anyway, we'll let the community decide.
FCYTravis 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A google search for Futuristic sex robots outside of wikipedia gives 297 hits, actually-- less than urthogie. Nice try biasing the search for one side and not the other, though :) --Urthogie 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[18]

And a search for "futuristicsexrobotz" (no spaces) yeilds 878 results. A search for song lyric "Yo Coaxke, what's killtacular mean?" -Robotz yields 114, meaning that there are that many people citing lyrics as a pop culture reference who aren't bothering to name the band directly. -Schrodinger82
Comment Umm...Google compresses most of those results, as many of them are from quoted forum posts. So it looks like eight different forums have lyrics posted to them. 878 results are unimpressive; that clearly is not all nerdcore has to offer, viz. MC Hawking. So FSR is simply not notable. --Mgreenbe 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google also compresses results for "Urthogie." Which was pretty much the point. -Schrodinger82
Well you've managed to prove that they might deserve an article slightly more than a 16 year old wikipedian; congrats!--Urthogie 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google counts the number of times a phrase or word has been mentioned on the internet, but can't count the number of fans someone has. Cellophane 10:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Cellephane's first edits were today; likely a
sockpuppet.--Urthogie 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
NOTE: This user has made 8 edits(4 on their user page), and this is their first edit in the wikipedia namespace.--Urthogie 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I generally edit wiki without logging in first. Girlmecha 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't know whats going on in the world anymore. Convinced by Urthogie that this article should not be. Smitz 12:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't fit the criteria for notability.--Urthogie 12:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urthogie You really have a problem with this entry don't you - did you fail an audition? And a user who has been here for all of 21 hours really doesn't have the right to cast doubt on other users such as Girlmecha. The fact is this is a known band, I have heard of them, others on this page have heard of them, and no one has heard of you. Now relax sunshine :) Smitz 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want fancruft to stay. You hearing about it is not a wikipedia guideline last time i checked. Perhaps you should try out wikicities? And what do you mean, been here for 21 hours? I've been editing for several months.--Urthogie 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No entry at allmusic.com All music has nerdcore artists MC Hawking, but not these guys-- why? Because theyre not notable.--Urthogie 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MC Hawking has been around for upwards of 9 years. Futuristic Sex Robotz's debut album has been out for two days. Consider the possibility that Google hasn't spidered a significant amount of coverage as of yet. Also, FSR's views about intellectual property combined with the fact that the album is free and not printed on a physical medium make it incredibly unlikely that the band will be recognized by the music industry at large, especially on sites such as allmusic.com. The idea that Wikipedia relies on industry controlled recognition to gauge notoriety is disappointing. Cellophane 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to sleep now. Do whatever the hell you want, this has all been your time to waste. Sooner than later, there will be far more than enough verifiable proof of the notoriety of FSR, which has primarily been an underground phenomenon spread through communities and mediums that are not being tracked by the criteria you're using as an excuse to debunk this article. I'll still be using this account; Cellophane has consistently been my online identity for years. I registered it to be treated with respect, not some kind of troll, and especially not to be shit on by association with people who you happen to dislike/distrust. Cellophane 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE this is Cellophane's second "Keep"^ Percy Snoodle 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Band has gone beyond simply "making a few MP3s in GarageBand" by creating a music video that has gone on earn fame and even an award for best music video within the Halo community -- a gamne that grossed $125 million US in its first 24 hours. The game itself has several articles written on Wikipedia specifically on fan videos (e.g., red vs blue, the codex series), making it a valid genre to achieve notability in. The video went on to become so popular that it even inspired a group of impersonators who tried to capitalize on their name by calling themselves "Clan FSR," starting their own website, recruiting members, and even creating crossover videos of their own with other groups under false pretenses. (The impersonators were since revealed and most references were removed in embarassment, although you can still find hints of some -- though not all -- of this in google caching.). Google searches are unreliable, for a number of reasons. First, because the name is long, and people may "mispell" the word "Robotz," abbreviate the group, or most likely, simply link to the files directly. Aside from Halo blogs (which are low in number but feature high readership), the main means of promotion for this genre has been livejournal and instant message, which google either doesn't store, or doesn't store longterm. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure that. However, download counts should speak for themselves. Yes, the band has not sold millions of copies, nor has it signed on with a major label. However, the band has managed a strong following for itself within its own (admittingly niche) genre. -Schrodinger82
NOTE: User Schrodinger82 has made 4 edits[20], 3 of them today, and of those 3, 2 of them to this vfd. Their last edit before these 3 was on November 11th. Possibly a sockpuppet, but not necessarily. (I'm not targetting anyone with these notes, just trying to ensure that a fair vote occurs).--Urthogie 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User has 8 edits[21], and all of them except this one are from october of last year.--Urthogie 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. I watched their mechanime video, which is surprising catchy. -- Samir · TC 07:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite diatribes suggesting the contrary, it doesn't seem to meet
    WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 07:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep We're talking about nerdcore here. A 14-year old beatboxing into a microphone would count as notable within the nerdcore circle. LupusCanis 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he wouldn't. Tuf-Kat 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity, puppetfest. MCB 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned the article up significantly to meet Wikipedia's standards, or at least the standards by which other articles have remained consistently undisputed while documenting subjects of equal or lesser notoriety. Not to rationalize, but does seem to be a common theme. In regards to sock-puppetry, I honestly think this article has attracted an audience that is simply not generally active on Wikipedia as opposed to just throw-away accounts in order to troll/avoid accountability. I am still suspicious that there is a bias against the article based on the subject matter as opposed to whether it actually meets the requirements of
    WP:MUSIC strike me as absurdly arbitrary. Cellophane 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It still doesn't satisfy
Nerdcore hip hop genre, which has been around much longer than them.--Urthogie 15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Tourette's Guy[22] was downloaded way more, and still got deleted.--Urthogie 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally missing my point, though, and that isn't even close to being related to
WP:MUSIC. Podcasts and music are essentially the same medium, not to mention that video is exponentially larger in data than audio. The point is, the album would be considered more than sufficiently notable for an article if it were a wrapped in a 5 line XML document first. Cellophane 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think I missed your point-- you're arguing that its notable because so many people downloaded it. Hence, I replied with an example of why being downloaded a lot(millions of times in the case of tourette's guy...despite video format taking more time to download) doesn't matter as far as notability. If you have problems with
WP:MUSIC, feel free to help make it better. But in the mean time, don't claim this article fits Music notability when it clearly doesnt. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not making the point that an arbitrary number of x downloads automatically equals notability, I'm making the point that relatively speaking, the group is more notable than many other articles that remain undesputed, and Podcasts are the most similar example. Tourette's guy doesn't have an article because it's 1 out of a billion ridiculous videos on the internet. Futuristic Sex Robotz should have an article because it's 1 out of 8 or so notable acts in a notable genre. If you think this article "clearly" doesn't meet music notability, then you're one of the many others looking at this discussion and thinking "group releases album on own with no record deal, it can't possibly be notable," without giving any consideration to the fact that it's been recognized by verifiable sources as a significant member of a genre that is recognized by Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to how this group can be in the artist list of
WP:MUSIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nerdcore_hip_hop Do you see any argument over whether or not Futuristic Sex Robotz belongs in that article? None. And there's nothing that distinguishes Futuristic Sex Robotz from the others that means that it has to be an external link while everything else has an article. --Cellophane 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS? --Cellophane 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Letting this stay lets anything in the genre stay.--Urthogie 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It lets anything with media attention stay. Besides, if a small genre is notable and it only has 10 artists, those artists should be considered notable based on different standards than yet another band of a heavily populated genre. --Cellophane 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From
WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." A gaming website and a college paper are not The Source or Rolling Stone last time I checked. Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media.--Urthogie 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
External links such as Unencyclopedia, a joke wikipedia, and the fine journalism of game websites and something like tarheel.com?....--Urthogie
You are *seriously* dense. GameSetWatch is published by
United_Business_Media and The Daily Tar Heel, University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill's newspaper has one of the largest circulations of a college newspaper in the country. --Cellophane 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps your not knowing about Wikipedia:No personal attacks is part of your incomplete understanding of policies and guidelines here. And by the way, huge corporations own lots of tiny things-- being owned by one isn't a big deal-- actually being recognized as mainstream by the public is whats important(and gamesetwatch isn't that well known by the non-gaming public). Also, your unproven claim that its among the most distributed college newspapers is not backed up with a statistic.--Urthogie 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The gaming public is a notable subculture. "Futuristic Sex Robotz" returned the DTH article via Google News search during the month the it was published. Apologies for the insult, but I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing to you over and over. BTW, do you frequently vote articles for deletion if you suspect that the authors are Palestinian? That wasn't an insult, it was a question. --Cellophane 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may surprise you, but I don't even know who you are or where you're from. I'm just trying to get rid of an article thats not notable. And I think you'll find that most of the experienced wikipedia community would support its deletion. If it proves to be more than an internet fad that gets a lot of downloads and gets written up by college students occasionally, then good for it. Until then, its unencyclopedic.--Urthogie 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, my god, you are trying very, very hard 209.221.140.136 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He really is, isn't he - I wonder what his problem is, do you have some kind of vendetta against thisarticle Urthogie? Because the amount of effort you are putting into having one article deleted is amazing. Seriously, why do you hate this article so much? There must be thousands of non-notable atricles in wiki, and your putting all your enrergy into an article that is being vigurously defended as notable by so many people? Go kill one of the other 999 articles that NO ONE will complain about. With the amount of support this article has, much from registered, experienced users (don't ask me to cite my references, but you know what I mean ;)) this article will not be deleted, and if it is, it will be restored at some point again. I suggest you just drop it and leave this article be :) Smitz 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I care about this because people are ignoring policy in keeping it. No vendetta involved, just came upon it while cateogrizing.--Urthogie 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're wrong, then we aren't ignoring policy. Unfortunately, you're so convinced that you're right, any attempts to reason with you are pointless. Maybe the majority of experienced Wikipedia editors would agree with you, but just because we *don't* agree with you, our opinion must just be a symptom of ineptitude? That's logically false. You need to consider that the standards upon which notoriety is established, however specific they are, are still a matter of personal interpretation. I agree with Smitz in that it's astonishing just how dedicated you are to having this article deleted. It's fine that you're standing up for yourself, but you're being unreasonable. --Cellophane 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm working so hard for its deletion is that it sets a precedent that makes it easier to delete cruft in the future.--Urthogie 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job having an agenda instead of just seeking consensus. Convince me that I'm wrong and I'll agree with you. You've just been spouting out the same position over and over again without addressing my criticisms of your argument, and stop referring to the precedents as if 1. they're set in stone, and 2. can't be interpreted however you want in order to get what you want instead of something everyone can agree with.--Cellophane 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll try and convince you. Their only claim to notability is that not many people make nerdcore hip hop. Where do we draw the line? Can anyone make a nerd-rap album and get an article? To this, you might answer that they've been mentioned in a college newspaper and a gaming website. In reply to that, I suggest you read WP:MUSIC which says "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." Neither a gaming website nor a college paper is a major medium or a music medium. Thus, the basis for keeping this is simply that its nerdcore hip hop alone-- a precedent its important we don't allow to be set.--Urthogie 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The so-called non-notability is simply lack of exposure in heavily-indexed forms. The group is real and a few kilobytes on an online encyclopedia acknowledging this fact won't hurt anyone.--Mod 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: This user has been registered for over a year and has made hundreds of edits. Penmoid 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having reached cult status on several message board communities within a fortnight, it would seem like rather a waste of effort to delete the entry now, only to recreate it in a week when Google catches up with the excitement. If only perfect download stats were available from all mirrors and P2P applications: I'd be curious to see what the actual number of copies in the Ether is.
NOTE:Although they might not be a sockpuppet, this anonymous IP's last edit was a month ago.--Urthogie 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Comment: according to the [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz Enyclopedia dramatica article], one of the members of the FSR edits with the name cellophane01. I posit that cellophane is the same person, in which case he's committing a serious faux pas by promoting his own band on wiki, and I would ask cellophane to remove himself from further discussion. - Crenner 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that. --Cellophane 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows that they have broken the policy of not editing articles autobiographicaly.--Urthogie 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that policy written? I have enforced it several times, but always as a point of etiquette, not as an actual policy. I'd love to know where point people to the explanation. - Crenner 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Autobiography--Urthogie 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In his defense, from what I can tell: (a) he didn't start the article, and (b) the changes he made appear to be factual clarifications, some of which were more modest than the original wording (e.g., “The Futuristic Sex Robotz are the world’s first ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group” to “Futuristic Sex Robotz is a self-described ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group”). I do agree, though, that this probably still violates Wikipedia policy (I don‘t, however, agree that it‘s as cut-and-dry as a character judgement). (N.B.: I am a friend of Cellophane’s, though currently only online.) --Wevah 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no clue what he's like as a person, I'm just saying that the premise of AFD is that you follow the guidelines in making your decision.--Urthogie 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable even if it skirts the poor guidelines at
    WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • DeleteNot notable. Nigelthefish 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say that they pass
    WP:MUSIC by "establishing a tradition or school in a particular genre," in this case, the tradition of "Gangster Nerd Rap" within the "Nerdcore" genre. They would also pass by being "frequently covered in publications dedicated to a particular subculture" with mentions on Slashdot, as well as entire threads on Something Awful. NOTE: This is CellBlock's first edit. It's probably my last, as I mainly just read the WP and don't worry too much about it, but FSR really shouldn't be deleted. - Whoops, thought the timestamp was automatic. --CellBlock 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NOTE:This user's only edits are on this vfd, and this user was created today.--Urthogie 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is the point of deleting this article? It's well-made, it describes a fairly well-known band with some unusual points and quite a strong following... just keep it, guys. Don't be pedantic. VJ Emsi 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i discovered the page via the nerd core hip-hop wiki page. this page provides information on a music group which has music released, and as far as i can tell, reached a significant audience.--Wakingrufus 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's last edit was 3 months ago.--Urthogie 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many of your countless edits every day are just pointing out other people's regdates and number of comments? My guess is a lot. Also, if you refer back to WP:MUSIC, you'll see that the criteria for inclusion and proof of notability has been changed, completely nullifying this entire argument. You yourself even quoted the line that was changed earlier in this AFD page, finishing off with something along the lines of "Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media". Oh well, because major music media is no longer a requirement. So your BASE argument of notability is rendered moot by the changes to WP:MUSIC. But my guess is you're going to stick around until you see this article deleted. Penmoid 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is now fairly well-written, band appears to be popular in their sub-sub-genre. I found these guys on [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ AD], and came to WP looking for real information about them. Glad this article was here. --Ultra Megatron 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

WP:MUSIC has been changed, and those of you who are participating should review the changes and make your votes accordingly. Penmoid 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Urthogie Note: Quote his RegDate, I DARE YA Smitz 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has VFD reached such a low point where we need to point out whos not a sockpuppet? :) --Urthogie 16:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Alternative political spelling, although there are other suggestions. Since this is effectively an editorial decision, it can be pointed elsewhere if someone wants it to be. -Splashtalk 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro$oft

"Micro$oft" deserves scarcely a own article on Wikipedia. Possibly can the article be merged with

Criticisms of Microsoft, but articles about satirical names can never be entirely NPOV. Delete. --Off! 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia is not a place for crusade, regardless if the concept is common or not. The article should be deleted (or merged). --Off! 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a merge would probably be best (or deletion for notability reasons), but I don't see how this page constitutes "crusade". The article is pretty much in line with the
good-faith neutral description of a point of view that doesn't try to advance it. –Sommers (Talk) 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge with Wikitionary This makes more sense --Cymsdale 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The term sees such common usage that I think it needs to stay. If we delete this, someone will come around and recreate it someday, almost assuredly with less NPOV. And if we delete this, should we also delete
    Warrens 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's exactly the point, it's a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think that some of those other articles should also be moved to wiktionary as well. --Cymsdale 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Yes, I see what you're getting at here. I've no involvement with Wiktionary so I'm not familiar with its focus. I'll change my vote though, this route sounds good.
Warrens 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect per Sommers. I think that makes more sense. -- Srasku 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge to
    Criticisms of Microsoft. There's already a merge proposal apparently; what do people expect when they look up this term in Wikipedia? Just adding Micro$oft to Wiktionary won't help those. squell 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree with this, but not becuase of the reason cited - users would be told that Wiktionary would have an article for this and they would look there. However it is not a real english word, and has meaning beyond its misspelling. gatoatigrado 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I changed my vote to Redirect per Sommers. squell 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Criticism, but redirect to Microsoft, extremely widespread. Gazpacho 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Microsoft (or an appropriate subpage). This is a pun on a proper name. It's not really Wiktionary material. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Get rid of it all! KILO-LIMA 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Health Information Organization

The article is a POV essay (

NPOV; in this case, it merely makes it a well-supported POV. Unless this article can be substantially rewritten to neutrally describe the opinions advanced by the cited sources, rather than echoing them from a rhetorical/opinionated stance, there's no content in it that should be kept under Wikipedia's policies. –Sommers (Talk) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep but remove nearly all content. RHIOs are real so just cut down to a substub of verifiable NPOV information. — ciphergoth 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the subject is worth having an article on, but I nominated this for deletion because the article currently contains nothing (that I see) suitable for keeping, and I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to cut it down to a stub as you said. I was thinking it could be deleted as POV and then re-created as a viable stub when someone is able to do so (I understand this to be a valid procedure in these cases—please correct me if I'm wrong), but if you or someone else can change the article in this way now, please do so and I'll be happy to vote "keep". –Sommers (Talk) 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess I'll admit my ignorance on the Wikipedia way but by deleting nearly all the content the motivation for more than $200 million in expenditures in just the last year would be lost and RHIOs would appear to be an isolated concept. I'm unclear what fact or source cited in the article has raised an issue whether that fact/source has been modified to meet a desired POV and why reporting facts doesn't constitute a NPOV. While not everything is known about RHIOs it is a given that the US has a health information technology reform effort underway, it has the root causes in high cost and quality, 150 or more RHIOs have been started, and they are state, local and rural. So, what is the issue that another POV might make?- futurekansas 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, valid subject and we seem to have a knowledgeable editor, I would rather have them read the
    NPOV policy and help edit the article than delete it. - cohesion★talk 08:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Sommers and Cohesion. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, already in BJAODN, replaced with a redirect to

Beach cricket. - Bobet 12:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Corridor cricket

I find it very well written and amusing, a high quality article, but either delete or userfy as an unverifiable personal essay containing original research about a non-notable subject. It was submitted to

WP:PROP, but an anon contributor has removed its nomination there so I am submitting it here for consensus. The anon asked in an edit summary, "please keep this page alive!" I can report that it will be kept alive, as I have added it to BJAODN. RobertG ♬ talk 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rishi Patel

Delete. Spoof/vanity. No sources, not verifiable. zzuuzz (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. Reads like a (lame) joke article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A reasonable time on google can't find any reference to Rishi. Likely spoof. Kcordina 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spoof. Can't we speedy this? — ciphergoth 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if true, it is definitely not notable enough. DaGizzaChat © 07:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - Daphne A should have used {{

db-author}}. -- RHaworth 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

"Bamboo_Annals"

article added with quotes in name (sorry); same article now exists without the quoted name Daphne A 09:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decreto Número 99.226, de 27 de Abril de 1990

This page has been left in a largely untranslated format for over a year now. It consists of a one sentence summary in English of some Brazilian polemical decree and then a page worth of the actual text of the law. This doesn't really need an encyclopedia entry for it, certainly not with a page title like this. Cyde Weys 09:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Stony Brook Press Editorial Board

PRODded, but undone by article creator without comment. A list of the entire editorial board of a college newspaper. Unencyclopedic/Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/Non-notable. Randwicked Alex B 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Stony Brook is a student newspaper, and this is merely a list of who works on it. Wikipedia is not a directory of names. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, list of students who worked on the paper. nn for now. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --
    Aaron 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as nn. --
    e Ong 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Kcordina 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 17:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascists You guys are all fascists. Thousands of people have worked on this paper, you pathetic morons. These are just the editors in charge. What's so bad about having it there? Is it taking up precious space? If the wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of information, why is everyone such a dictator as to what stays? And to the person who said "this is merely a list of who works on it": your negatism and complete ignorance astounds me beyond belief. Above those qualities, however, is your narrow reductionism. Go back to the list and look at the part that says Editorial Board before you cast your self-assured opinion of marginalization and belittlement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.212.65 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-23 12:30:22
"Negatism?" CrypticBacon 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Freeport3volution

Appears to be non-notable guild vanity. A remarkably small number of google hits for a guild [24] the count of members is also very small - my own forum has more. MLA 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity; of little interest to anyone outside of the guild. --Cymsdale 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --
    e Ong 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Cymsdale. —
    talk) 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete vanity. — ciphergoth 17:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Bkwillwm 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- was one of the major Freelancer servers and is still well-known in the Freelancer community. To respond to the first deletion comment, this gaming site (not a guild or clan) had over 1500 multiplayer accounts. --Monty 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Vinalia. - Bobet 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Vinalia

Delete, Context free and not verifiable Xorkl000 10:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cymsdale 10:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --
    e Ong 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Vinalia. These were real Roman wine festivals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I was just about to cleanup this one, but we have an existing article already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle. Stifle 00:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

File processing

Delete, a novel redefinition Xorkl000 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Whilst a large part of the keeping contingent is of unestablished editorial history, the case for keeping it is certainly good enough at present to outweight the case to delete it on the spot. -Splashtalk 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

Does not meet the criteria set out in

WP:BIO A Y Arktos 10:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: In light of your comments on the Noticeboard, could you please explain why you say it does not meet the criteria set out. He clearly seems to qualify as noteworthy to me, particularly in light of the free speech issues and his professional prominence anyway. I am very uncomfortable with this being deleted in circumstances where there is no meaningful discussion. Userfreespeech 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)[reply]

Response to above comment - this article will not be deleted without meaningful discussion - this is the place for that discussion. My comments at
WP:AWNB were: he might fit under "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - but I am not sure - I had not read of him outside wikipedia and only came across him because of the mention here [at AWNB]. As I have doubts that he has achieved "renown or notoriety", I do not believe he meets the criterion and hence my nomination.--A Y Arktos 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
comment - despite Capitalistroadster's best efforts, I am not convinced he is usfficiently notable. While he is involved in a high profile case, there would be plenty more notable accountants working on potentially more notable cases. His work does not seem to be leading the profession, for example writing books, involved in ground breaking cases, ....--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Ambi 10:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- nn. - Longhair 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge -- Now supportive of a merge into the
    Melbourne University Student Union article. - Longhair 23:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The issue here is not the motives of the person who started the article, or even whether the article as it stands is good or bad. The issue is whether McVeigh is of sufficient prominence to have an article about him. Adam 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. He's worthy of a mention in the MUSU article, but nothing further. Agnte 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: In The Age archives there are 63 references to him, that seems like a lot. I haven't looked at all of the articles because they charge for them but he seems like a prominent insolvency practitioner. 138.217.97.27 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — ciphergoth)[reply]
  • Keep. Activities appear regularly reported by national press, involved in noteworthy event. Keep until shortage of cyperspace develops. Monicasdude 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those articles refer to McVeigh's insolvency practitioner activities, including Melbourne University Student Union and other liquidations including Rug's Galore and prior to that. Clearly well known person anyway but involvement in the contempt of court action seems to put him well over the top. 59.167.73.44 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From talkpage: Here's an ABC link [26] . Here's a HeraldSun link; the story has expired and isn't cached at Google, but the search summary is clear enough ("Liquidator Dean McVeigh now has 24-hour protection outside his suburban Melbourne ... "To say that I am a threat to Dean McVeigh is just comical," he said. ...") Also [27], [28] ,
[29] (subscription only, but clear Google summary), [30] . There look to be enough general/specialty press references to indicate notability, plus all those blogs . . . Monicasdude 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
copied from talk page by A Y Arktos 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly prominent and raises many other issues of public interest around defamation/free speech/ contempt of court proceedings. Userfreespeech 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (very new account — ciphergoth)[reply]

I've marked "keep" comments from very new and anonymous users as "small". I haven't checked "delete" comments (too many, and my suspicions weren't raised) but others are welcome to. — ciphergoth 16:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Judging from this article in the Age, he seems to be notable enough. [31] A search on an Australia and New Zealand newspaper index shows 23 hits. The POV in the article needs to come out. Capitalistroadster 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, AfD is not a vote. But yeah, highlighting if he does make the article worthwhile would be good, as a hint to the closer that some "votes" were cast in ignorance. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as above. 203.153.200.204 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Improve or Delete. This biographical article does not address the global importance of its subject. The article suggests that McVeigh is famous in Australia for performing a (presumably) multimillion-dollar financial transaction. The article does not give comprehensive details on the transaction. I think McVeigh can be characterized, at this point, as a major player in a single local news story. Cdcon 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't read this and have no vote but I strongly object to making anyone's comments small. Why stop at small - just change their font to junk so they can't be read at all! Très uncool. I've gone ahead and restored them to their former state. If people want their comments small, they can make them small. Admin's have full discretion to weigh the consensus however they want, including by how long the commenters have been users. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve the article. He is clearly noteworthy and arising from the contempt of court action will probably become much more so. 59.167.73.44 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (anonymous account — Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) My account is anonymous but that just means I haven't signed in as a user yet, I'm no more anonymous that the other anonymous users. Is there anyone here who I identifies as a real person with contact information. If so I'll gladly put up my own. Perhaps everyone should before a vote is counted. The most relevant issue with McVeigh is his prominence, illustrated by many press articles and his involvement in newsworthy events. The issue of the quality of the article is a separate matter, it should certainly be improved as several users have noted. 59.167.73.44 05:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment about anonymity - the issue is not so much whether we identify as real people with contact information but rather that our wikipedia contribution history is known and in fact we are the sum of our edit history, not any identity, real or otherwise that we might claim, see for example this New Yorker cartoon. I have been editing Wikipedia for just over a year, and my edits can be seen and thus assessed through this and similar tools which navigate to those articles which I have edited the most. Whether or not my edits are useful or not is another question, but they can be identified and I am not anonymous as far as the wikipedia is concerned, because as a logged in user, my edit history can be seen. The benefits of having an account are explained at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Hope this helps--A Y Arktos 06:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am very interested in Dean McVeigh and I run a website and I believe the issue of businessmen shutting down other website is an unAustralian and an outrage.Kipps 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (User's second edit. Suspect sockpuppet Xtra 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. The "citation needed" notes on many of the key points indicate the article has verifiability problems. --Carnildo 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously this article was started by someone with a direct involvement in the MUSU matter, and equally obviously it has been attacked by others with some other kind of involvement. Since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing it really can't complain when this kind of thing happens, and it will go on happening at an increasing rate, as Wikipedia becomes better known, until something is done to tighten up the rules on who may edit. That being said, the MUSU case is a major story in Melbourne, and McVeigh is a fairly major player in it. It may be that all the allegations against him are bunk (I have no idea), but that doesn't alter the fact that they have made him newsworthy and notable. Obviously if the article is to be kept it needs vigilant editing to keep out everybody's POV. I'd also like to know User:Ambi's rationale for blocking User:Unitypigdog. He obviously has a direct involvement in this matter but so far as I know there is no rule against him editing on those grounds, and he hasn't been abusive or unco-operative. Adam 06:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the article removing the unsubstantiated allegations and adding material from verifiable sources such as newspaper reports. No change of vote position from Keep. All people who voted Delete have indicated that they support deletion to be advised as requested. Capitalistroadster 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For vote, we meant of course, expressed an opinion towards arriving at a community concensus view.--A Y Arktos 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note that I removed the AfD notice from the article. I will try to restore it. Capitalistroadster 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above, some people think that this might be better merged with the
    Melbourne University Student Union. That may well be a good idea especially if there is continued POV editing. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I reiterate my view that the article should be kep, that is clear but equally clear is that those editing have a point of view. I certainly do. The article needs improvement, particularly with its references. Linking to articles in The Age and The Australian when they evince a strong point of view also doesn't address the problem.

One assertion by Capitalistroadster contained the assertion that one of McVeigh's targets "fled overseas" to escape "charges." No part of that is true and nor is it even claimed that "charges" were laid. Presumably if the target in question, Andrew Landeryou, had fled and then returned nearly a year ago, he would have been punished for doing so. If Wikipedia is sensitive about defamation as some suggest, such claims should be considered carefully.

The only Police investigation confirmed is into Dean McVeigh's actions, which is supported by a document that was at one stage linked to I see but is now deleted.

McVeigh's actions as Liquidator of MUSU, particularly the contempt of court issue is a big deal and needs a separate treatment from any article about the Student Union. They are very different subjects. I have been reading through the Wikipedia rules and notice the mandate to assume good faith. I see very little of that here and what seems to be my some a manic determination to make political points. There are real issues of controversy here and they should be addressed correctly. I would like to contribute to that and I would hope a compromise could be achieved. 59.167.73.44 12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. If any of that is notable (and true) then it belongs as a small part of an entry about the Union. Midgley 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to
    Melbourne University Student Union as per above, and general precedent for people who are otherwise non-notable except for their connection to a notable incident or institution. MCB 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Johnnie Cochran has an article, and all he ever did was be a lawyer for prominent clients in prominent cases. Except in the matter of scale, how is this different? Adam 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response liquidating the Melbourne Student's Union and "worldwide fame for successfully defending Simpson" seem to have different levels of notability. I would have thought the challenging task of defending Simpson and the novel trial indicates leadership in his profession. McVeigh does not seem notable in his profession - perhaps perfectly competent (I am not going to juge) but seemingly only a practitioner not it seems a leader breaking new ground.--A Y Arktos 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged the difference in scale. We have articles on local councillors, even though they are not as notable as presidents and prime ministers. By same token, we can have an article on an accountant who provides services to notable clients, just as we have articles on lawyers who are notable only because of the services they provide to celebrity clients. Adam 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the defence of OJ Simpson, moreover the successful defence, was pretty remarkable, not merely a service for a notable client. More than 10 years later that trial is memorable and, although I have extremely little interest in US celebrity news, I would be prepared to discuss at a backyard barbecue ( but perhaps not stop a barbecue) on the subject "how come Simpson was not convicted?" No one got Skase, but I do not recall McVeigh's name in connection with Qintex. No doubt he was involved, I don't disbelieve the Age assertion - but not prominently. I think we should write the articles on the two professional bodies first and then look for prominent practitioners. As Ambi put it, the poor chap who is "just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare" should not be our choice of prominent accountant in Australia.--A Y Arktos 06:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he was notably involved with several cases, would it be possible to merge him with OJ's trial? Andjam 10:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --
    nixie 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would like to know why some people express a view here about wanting an article deleted without explaining their view. I don't think their view should be considered unless are willing to justify it. DarrenRay 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is an inadequate solution as it would delete all references not relating to MUSU, which while the principal reason for his notability would exclude reference to a highly unusual event, his removal by a Supreme Court judge in the Rug's Galore case and his involvement in other interesting Melbourne insolvency cases. I am yet to see a valid argument supporting its deletion, he is clearly notable on any objective test, with very many media reports about him and his profile as an insolvency practitioner and so on. The article is substantially revised and while different from what I would write, I am happy to accept as an agreed compromise so we can move on. I have many other articles I am keen to attend to. DarrenRay 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resource. --Sunfazer (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For any particular reason? Per a genuine debate. DarrenRay 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ambi: He's just a random insolvency practitioner who had the misfortune to run into some vengeful student politicians with a lot of time to spare. Nothing has changed. Cursive 12:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a random. Eminently notable on any objective test, notable in press articles, prominent events, especially MUSU but many other things. Very few Liquidators/Administrators are ever removed by a court for their conduct, this itself is highly noteworthy. To say nothing of the attempt to shut down critics' websites using contempt of court applications. I am neither a student politician nor do I have any time to spare. I would appreciate you withdrawing the personal implication. Nothing has changed from what? DarrenRay 12:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What personal implication? There's nothing there stating that you're the student politician that is being referred to. Nothing has changed from what Ambi said (which I directly quoted). That's what I meant by saying "Per Ambi" - I assumed you thought that something had changed between when he said that and when I was agreeing with him and hence felt that my justification was invalid. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. Cursive 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should take Cursive's application of Ambi's quote as a personal slight. I happen to agree with them and that isn't intended to be personally against you. You're being too sensitive, IMO. Specially when you ask people to explain themselves further.
Talk) 12:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Much better put than I managed. Cursive 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology. Thank you, I'd be grateful for a response on the issues, because Ambi's assertions are a) false, b) a personal attack and c) not much of a contribution to the debate about the man's notability. DarrenRay 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent more than enough time on this AfD. I stand by my original comments, and disagree with your assertion about Ambi's assertions. Cursive 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi's comments were not a personal attack. She was merely expressing her opinion. She doesn't think the guy is notable; I don't know what more of a "contribution" you expect.
Talk) 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd welcome a debate on the issues around his notability that I've raised. I may misunderstand the nature of this particular page and if I have I apologise in advance. But I think there such substantial evidence of his notability that there seems to be some reluctance. btw, if Sarah Ewart is your real name congratulations for editing without a pseudonym as so many do. DarrenRay 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Alhutch 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny Day

Somebody's rather poor joke. Valentinian 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to February 14 it was "invented" on 14 Februrary 2006, but is "celebrated in many countries". Need I say more? Valentinian 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Richard Prince. There seems little support for the standalone article but certainly insufficient support to delete it outright. This being the only suggested redirect target, it will do for now and is amendable at will. -Splashtalk 22:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse paintings

minor branch of a subject, vanity page, no meaningful content other than an external link.

KarlBunker 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete For reasons above. Perhaps should be a redirect to artist
    KarlBunker 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merging would be a good idea. A redirect would depend on how commonly the name is used for those paintings. JPD (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --
    e Ong 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (rather than redirect) to the Richard Prince article. The title suggests an entire genre of work, but it's only Prince doing it. --Lockley 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is being expanded (by me). It is not a vanity page as it is about the artwork not the artist. The series of paintings is one of the few serious artistic attempts to explore issues of
    stereotyping of nurses. The artist is notable and the paintings have been widely exhibited. Google for "nurse paintings" gets 521 hits. " 'Richard Prince' artist " gets 191,000 hits. "Pulp fiction art" gets 6,350,000 hits. So the subject of this article is notable in TWO areas--nursing, and art. Mr. Bunker deleted the stub article with no notice or explanation and now has proposed it for deletion after I complained to him about his vandalism. Is there a new policy forbidding stubs? Deletion of articles should be taken quite seriously and those voting for deletion should do a little research before flippantly voting as an instant reflex. Thanks. THB 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I apologize (again) for deleting the article without going through the proper procedure. The stub status of the article isn't the issue. I don't believe that a single series of paintings by an artist of less than monumental stature is a valid topic for an article.
KarlBunker 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read my note above and review the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, verification of notability, criteria for deletion, etc. I accept your apology but hope that you understand that that type of behavior is completely contrary to the basic concepts of Wikipedia. Thanks. THB 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Richard Prince may be of "less than monumental stature" but his artwork has sold for $US 1,000,000 and set records at auction. That would suggest that he is considered "important" in the art world, although I agree "monumental stature" still would be a stretch. THB 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the paintings was used on a Sonic Youth music album cover "Sonic Nurse". The article has been expanded and notability made more evident to the casual reader. THB 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Richard Prince. These do deserve mention, but not in their own article. Prince is minorly important in the art world, and as such definitely deserves his own article, but the nurse paintings are better mentioned as part of that rather than with their own separate article. And let's face it, the artist's own article is hardly big enough to need splitting. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Richard Prince per above. Stifle 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

UFOs as unknown natural phenomena

This article is a mass of original research and pseudoscience, as well as making many vague, loosely-worded claims. This is also a POV fork from the main

type 11:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pukehou

Delete: Blatant advertising with no encyclopaedic value. If someone would like to add some pertinent detail I'll happily remove the delete tag. Nickj69 12:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a real place. The article needs wikification, but I don't see any particular advertising in it. JIP | Talk 12:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, it doesn't look like an ad to me. --
    e Ong 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete does look like an ad to me for the only shop in town. Puke Who? Defunkier 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the place may be real but this isn't an article about it, it's an advert. If it becomes an article about the place I'll change my vote. — ciphergoth 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I rewrote the article. Not brilliantly, but its a start, and the place does exist. Jcuk 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a bit more to Jcuk's fine start. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stub and category added to article; it appears to be perfectly legitimate in form and content.  (aeropagitica)  23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks fine now. --Martyman-(talk) 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Change my vote to keep - Good work done by Jcuk, Grutness and aerpagitica - I'll remove the delete tag. --Nickj69 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Clearly such a long debate could call for a lengthy closure statement, but the fact that this debate is somewhere between a "no consensue" and a "keep" is plainly clear. It strikes me that noone has mention

WP:AUTO, though. -Splashtalk 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Nikki Craft

Original nomination and comments re process and authorship

This was first nominated for speedy deletion by

prod}} tag. This was removed by user:Nikkicraft (the only significant contributor to, and almost certainly the subject of the article). I am therefore nominating this here. (see below for my vote) Thryduulf
12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) LATER NOTE: It has been pointed out that user:Nikkicraft is not the only significant contributor. I saw the screenfull of edits by User:Nikkicraft but failed to spot that this wasn't the only page of edit history. My apologies. Thryduulf 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, do you (Thryduulf) plan to maintain your "delete" vote below? --StuffOfInterest 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my delete vote for now, but I remain undecided on her true notablity, so I may reinstate it later. Thryduulf 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI feel it is important at this time for me to explain that I removed the text because I thought it was saying that unless the user Nikkicraft thought the article was noteworthy, and if I did not directly challenge the request for deletion that the page woud be automatically deleted. So I thought I needed to show that I challenged it by removing the order for deletion. Seemed reasonable at the time, but now I understand it was not appropriate and I want to apologize to y'all for doing so. I thought the entry had been made by automation somehow since it was unreadable codes. : ) Well you have to admit until you understand this process it can be pretty mystifying. Also, while I'm entering this I would like to clear up that I do not know the person who started this wikipedia entry, nor had I ever had any conversation with him at the time he started this page. Nikkicraft 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkicraft, all your actions were completely proper. The article should never have been speedied -- that is basically for nonsense like JOE SHMOE ROXXORS HE IS THE COOLEST KID IN SKOOL etc. -- and the Prod delete system specifically calls for moving articles here to AfD if there is any reasonable basis for discussion, which it appears that there is. Herostratus 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's vote and following comments and evidence

  • Delete. I feel there are definate NPOV and WP:VAIN issues with this, and my gut feeling is that the assertions of notablity probably overstate Nikki's influence on them. If sources are provided that prove me wrong, and the article is made NPOV, then I will reconsider my vote. Thryduulf 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. Almost all the google hits that I've been able to find have been from her own sites, of those that haven't many seem to be mirrors/copies of a few articles she's written. There are also hits for an artist/sculptor called Nikki ("Nikki's Craft") which are proving hard to filter out. Thryduulf 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • no vote for the moment. Thryduulf 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My mind is now made up - see the votes following rewrite section for my vote and its rationale. Thryduulf 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nikki Craft is well known in the nudist/naturist communities because of her activism against and allegation concerning naturist activities. The bio article needs work (major work), but I think the subject is notable enough to keep around. As for User:Nikkicraft (T), this account should be forbidden from editing the bio article or posting links to the Craft related websites to avoid POV and self promotion. --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article existed for almost two weeks before
    Assume good faith!BCorr|Брайен 13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked in vain to try to find anything that would make Nikki craft noteable. I found lots of self promotion for herself and her cause, but nothing to indicate she could get arrested if she tried. Not noteable. Not verifyable. WAS 4.250 13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, a quick Google search turned up over 12,000 hits including sites such as MIT and this one regarding her arrest. --StuffOfInterest 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell neither of those google hits points to a source we can use in a wikipedia biography of a living person according to the wikipedia policy on that topic. Therefore there is no source for any content that we can use! WAS 4.250 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Just googling ["Nikki Craft" Dworkin] demonstrates notability. Monicasdude 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you get a lot of hits; because she has a lot of self promotion on the web. Actually find just one site we could use as a source for a living person that claims she is noteable. I couldn't find one. Can you? WAS 4.250 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Wikipedia censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known, treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and bad faith than any real question of notability. [32] [33] [34] [35][36][37][38] [39] [40] Monicasdude 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please,
          WP:CIVIL. --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Seconded. Thank you for this useful work, which has changed my vote; there was no need to be so rude about it. — ciphergoth 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Someone help me out here. I'm just looking foe ONE good source establishing noteability. I look at the source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/edited_transcript.html that you provide and it mentions her in passing as having a useful web site "i recommend the websites set up by the activist Nikki Craft under various acronyms including Always Causing Legal Unrest (ACLU), which are very high quality." Having websites for your causes does not make one noteable. The nexy site of the nine you gave that I look up http://www.prostitutionrecovery.org/prostitution_timeline.html establishes she is noteable by saying "1984: National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler begins. Organized by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft in retaliation for the December 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine where Japanese women were shown tied up, hung from trees, with several appearing to be dead. Over 21 communities participated in almost 10 states. Hundreds of pornographic magazines were destroyed, resulting in over a hundred individual arrests and countless raised consciousnesses" Great I think, noteabilty. So I google "National Rampage Against Penthouse and Hustler", the noteable organization she organized and ggofle show one hit, this one! Is this site written by Nikki or a friend? I don't know. I'm still lacking a good source. So instaed of researching the other seven, I put it to you: find me one good site that establishes noteability. Don't give me nine bad ones. Is there a good one in the seven I didn't investigate? Point it out. WAS 4.250 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Site 3: This is a speech given by Andrea Dworkin, and says "The full speech is also available on Nikki Craft's Andrea Dworkin tribute site", with no other mention of Niki. This link does not establish Niki's notability (its about Andrea, not Nikki).
              • Site 4: A "Timeline of the Sex Industry in the United States". "1977 Women Armed For Self Protection is founded by long-time feminist activist Nikki Craft", Niki's Nostatusquo site seems to say this group's last action was in 1974? So I'm not enamoured with the reliablity of the site. A group that existed only in the 1970s cannot really be fairly judged by online hits alone (imho), but what there are don't establish notability enough for me - other sources would need to be cited.
              • Site 4: This site also says (in the same bullet point): "Craft also founded The Kitty Genovese Women's Project, which released a list of over two thousand men indicted for sex offenses against women in Dallas, Texas." Nothing I've found online seems to give any more information about this group than this one action, that Nikki founded it and that Nikki is keen to mention she founded it. Again this appears to have happened in the 1970s so I'd be willing to concede it is underrepresented online. All in all, this doesn't on its own show she is notable enough.
              • Site 5: This is a scathing review by a feminist against pornography of a book that is pro pornography. Nikki's name is mentioned only once, when the reviewer lists 12 anti-pornography feminists (including herself) who the book's author does not mention. Quite how this is meant to show notability I'm not sure.
              • Site 6: This is about a small group (membership estimated at 15-30 women) at MIT in the mid 1980s, who demonstrated against violence against women. It mentions that the group "has arranged for groups to attend lectures and forums for such activists as Catherine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Andrea Dworkin and Nikki Craft.". This does show some notability, but nowhere near enough on its own.
              • Site 7: "But modern feminist figures like Dworkin, Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, Susan Faludi-- their works & choice of words + issues harken back to the idea of women as OVEREMOTIONAL, VICTIMIZED, IN NEED OF PROTECTION [legal and otherwise], SENSITIVE, and most of all, DIFFERENT FROM MEN." This is from what is an opinion piece (I'm not certain whether this is a blog-type site or something more notable) "The Trouble with Modern Feminist Spitfires". This is the best of the sites so far, but again it just mentions her in passing.
              • Site 8: Is an interview with Andrea Dworkin, one question is "I noticed your Web site was built by Nikki Craft, the radical feminist who was active in Santa Cruz during the mid-’80s? How did you two meet.". The publication is a newspaper in the Santa Cruz area. Undoubtedly the best of the sites presented so far, its pushing the notability of Nikki a bit higher, but again I would prefer a reference that actually deals with Nikki.
              • Site 9: The site is "The Feminist Chronicles" a page listing notable events in feminism (from the pov of a feminist organisation) for 1990. It includes a two-line note of her protest over the Esquire magazine and subsequent arrest and 23 days in prison. Another source confirming what we already know, but providing less notablity (for me) than some others for being within the movement.
              • Conclusion: These sites collectively say to me that Nikki possibly does, just deserve an article, but in a large part only because she is very good at self-promotion. It would be very easy to get the impression that she was the biggest thing to happen to femminism in the 20th century, wheras it appears she has just been a minor player in a lot of events. It is a very borderline issue from what I've seen. These links do a significantly better job of proving Andrea Dworkin's notability, she definately does deserve an article. Thryduulf 23:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Very thorough analysis. Still, I have to ask you a question. Is it better to leave someone in who doesn't quite reach Wiki standards of notability or to delete someone who just qualifies? --StuffOfInterest 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Generally it depends on whether there is enough verifiable information about them. But as a confirmed member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD I'm going to give you a categoric answer. In this specific case, I honestly haven't made up my mind yet. Thryduulf 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Congratulations on finding the longest damn acronym I've ever seen in my life. Geez, and I thought the US Navy had some long ones. --StuffOfInterest 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other votes and comments following

Update: I added references to the talk page for the article, such as the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. May I also point out that finding a bunch of inferior sources does not prove the non-existence of better sources. -MichaelBluejay 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments following beginning of rewrite

NOTE: MASSIVE REWRITE STARTED AROUND THIS TIME: 20:44, 24 February 2006

Rewrite? This page is only a few weeks old. There was apparently a premature call to quicky delete this page. People on this page requested substantiation. I have never been, hmm, let's say self-promoting enough to write a book about my work or even compile my "credentials" in a concentrated and thorough way. Too busy doing the activism and research. I'm doing so now at the request of those on this page who have asked me to do it. P.S. If it is not acceptable for me to enter this up here after the text I'm replying to and it should it go at the bottom of the section I will move it after I can find out. thanks for your patience. --Nikkicraft 02:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is inconvenient for some of you that Nikki's notability peaked in the 70's and 80's before the advent of the Intternet. Only a certain amoun of that supporint documentatoin has found its way onto the Internet, but there is definitive documentation of her activities in Lee Baxandall's publications. Thre is a lot of documentation about her in what amounts to old "newsletters" which are problematic for citations do we just have to do a better job at traditional scholarship. This woman is much more than just her own web site. Please give us time to line up better documentation. AWM -- 216.31.255.130 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Craft's noteworthiness has already been firmly established. Those who dispute it will dispute it no matter how much evidence is presented. BTW, do anon votes count here? -MichaelBluejay 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has been established is that we lack a consensus to delete, so the article will probably stay and its contents will have to be made to conform to the requirements of verifyability. See
        Wikipedia:Voting is evil to read Voters feel misled at the end of a poll if the numerically superior option is not the one acted upon. "But it won the poll!" they claim, and not realizing that a poll is no substitute for consensus, are understandably upset, feeling that their voices have not been heard. to understand that this is a dicussion in the form of a vote as opposed to an actual vote. The comments that make sense (are believed by the admins that delete or don't delete) are what count. The "voting" is not binding. What's best for wikipedia is what counts and thoughtful discussion takes precedence over voting numbers. At wikipedia, its the evidence and arguments that represent consensus that count, not the raw voting numbers. So far there is no consensus to delete. WAS 4.250 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • AAAAHHHH HHHAAAA! You are ready to conceed the point? Good. Do you know how to close this item out and properly remove the delete tag? You have to update the Talk page and logs also. It would be easier if you remove the tag ASAP. I can do that for you, if you like, but it is better if you do the tag. Let me know. I am off-grid right now, so you can notify me at [email protected]. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you maybe have a wrong impression. The tag's not going to get deleted until the AfD process is closed by an admin after the appropriate amount of time has expired. It looks like we can guess the likely result at this stage, but that doesn't mean we can close things early. — ciphergoth 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was my vague impression that if AfD can be pulled by the orignal AfD'er. I mean, if someone stupidly put an AfD on one of the Presidents of the USA, you would think that they could also pull their own tag and save the admins the trouble of having to do so for them. Also, the article has undergone major changes during the AfD process, so maybe that is yet another case. If I am wrong that we can sew this thing up today, sorry! -- 68.122.118.161 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The AfD can be "pulled" by the original nominator, but this normally only happens when there is a clear consensus that the article should not be deleted or if the nomination was made in error - this rarely happens after the first day or two and never when there are good-faith votes to delete. The only other times a discussion is closed early are if the article is speedy deleted (definately not applicable here), or the nomination was in bad faith. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Thryduulf 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there has been a massive rewrite an only one call, early on, to delete. I think that the article is now solid: notable, supporting documentation, the works. If the person who had added the delete tag had done a little more homework, they might have used a milder tag. OTOH, the article is now so much better that it was, for me, worth the crisis and an opportunity to be a hero to a lady that I have known of for almost 25 years but never just never happened to have contacted before. We talked for hours and hours as if we were old friends. AWM -- 71.141.235.70 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is essentially a vanity page for a barely notable individual. Web hits are the result of aggressive self-promotion on the internet. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Three articles in New York Times in the 1980's TOPLESS BATHER ARRESTED IN CAPE COD PROTEST August 26, 1984, Sunday FloNight 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Craft may be a net.kook and self-styled "activist", but she's definitely one of the more famous ones. She has definitely achieved "renown or notoriety" over a period of years. I disagree with pretty much everything she's done, especially her attacks on the naturist movement and on sexually-oriented media, and her tendency to find child molesters lurking in every shadow, but cannot contest her notability. MCB 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reasonable grounds for deletion. --SpencerTC 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Michaelbluejay above mentioned that "Incidentally, I know that Andrea Dworkin dedicated one of her books to the subject, though I don't know which one just yet." For reference, the book is Life and Death (1997) (ISBN 0684835126), a collection of speeches and essays dedicated to Nikki Craft and Dworkin's late brother Mark. Craft is also mentioned in the acknowledgements of at least two of Dworkin's other books, Scapegoat (2000) (ISBN 0684836122), and Heartbreak (2002) (ISBN 0465017541). Radgeek 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject seems notable enough, and as the article stands now it's worth keeping. Edgar181 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've just had to delete three identical (with slightly different titles) articles that were simply advertisements for this person's website. She is clearly a determined self-publicist, and this article is a straightforward example of that. As Skinwalker points out, Google hits are unreliable in such cases (she's tried to add at least four links to hereself on Wikipedia, and who knows what she's done elsewhere? If she's so notable, let's delete this, and wait to see if anyone else starts a decent article about her.
Did you fail to notice that somebody else DID start this article about her? She didn't start it herself. It's unfair for you to label her a self-publicist when she didn't start the article and has had only minimal input into it. Also, did you actually read the article, and if so, did you really come to the conclusion based on this person's history that her experience doesn't merit a Wikipedia entry? -MichaelBluejay 18:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair enough, I didn't check the article's history — I was depending too heavily on my experience of her recent behaviour. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is really discouraging. This is at least the second time someone has admitted to not investigating the article's history. Come on guys.
Dandelion1 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Ciphergoth, You had initially called for the deletion of this page, then changed your vote. You had asked me for documentation, and I'm just now beginning to supply it and going to some effort to comply with your request. Maybe I don't understand, but are you now saying here that it's too much documentation? Too noteworthy? Or are you saying that Wikipedia has not documented enough about other feminists yet? I would say it's probably the latter. --Nikkicraft 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the latter, definitely! — ciphergoth 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool and you are totally right! Because of your post I just added a huge amount of material to the main page as well as the talk page for Diana Russell so now her page is way longer than mine. : ) I hope that others who are editing feminists pages will get it all presentable with appropriate links. thanks. --Nikkicraft 09:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I appreciate very much Dandelion respecting my work enough to start the article in the first place, and for all those who voted to keep the page and defending it staying here. It means more to me than I can say for a variety of reasons. However, now that I do know there is an option to delete the article--and I have not made up my mind for sure about what I will do--I would like to know if the is an option for a "living persons" to delete their own article due to concerns about violation of privacy and other concerns. I would appreciate advise on this topic. I have tried to fix it so I can be emailed off my talk page, but it does not work. I did get as far as confirming the email address, but it never allowed the option to send an email on the page, so I don't know what is wrong or how to fix it and I don't want to publish my email address here because of robots and spam. But if you do want to email me about a deletion option privately, perhaps it is not appropriate to post it here, then please go to http://www.nikkicraft.com and email me at the address on that page.
Also, now that it has been established that the article will not be deleted there are many peripheral and inconsequential links that need to be deleted and were there only for the purpose of substantiating this "notability" requirement. Now that that is done they need to be removed. Also, if it's a problem to link scanned articles that substantiate the content on the Wikipedia chronology then we can move them to another website other than my own. I don't care if the links are off my own website, just as long as the documentation is unrefutable. So anyone can let me know the preferred way of presenting that documentation. thanks, Nikkicraft 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Canadianism

I felt this page needed to come to AfD to see if people feel it belongs. At present, it's a cut and paste of the lead from Anti-Americanism. There's little context provided. I'm actually a no vote as it isn't entirely unwarranted (anti-Canadian commentary/ideas certainly do exist in the U.S.) I'm just not sure if this requires an article. Marskell 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Canada I agree with Marksell, this doesn't really require its own page, why not refine it and insert in the Canada article.Nmpenguin 12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to
    e Ong 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and expand We have an Anti-Australian sentiment article. The Canadian article could be modelled after that. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but some sources of people hating Canadians must be around somewhere. I understand the Americans to enjoy having a go at their northern neighbours (though usually all in good fun), and that the Canadians took a particularly brutal beating at the hands of the Waffen-SS in the second world war. Being western they must have some enemies in the east. I'm sure this article can be fleshed out to a considerable size. Bobby1011 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no content to merge — it basically says "Anti-Canadianism is hostility towards Canada". Well duhhh. StephenHildrey 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Bobby1011. --
    Aaron 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Canada. Not really needed as an individual article. --Hetar 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I think there's precedent, plus there is definitely enough anti-Canadianism down there to warrant an article. 23skidoo 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generic cookie, just change the country name and you have another article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to see here --Srasku 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You shouldn't bring articles to AfD if you're not voting to delete them yourself. Use
    WP:RFC to solicit opinions. squell 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: AfD frequently improves articles. There's nothing wrong with bringing articles to AfD for community input. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD can improve articles. But by its nature, AfD will attract a relatively higher number of people who are enthusiastic about deleting articles. No precedents or criteria for article inclusion are established here either. At best, you get a bunch of people telling you to "Expand" the article. squell 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jacksum

Wikipedia is not a Sourceforge mirror. — ciphergoth 12:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Scientist

Removed speedy tag as discography added and I'm a conservative speedy-er. Abstain for now.

brenneman{T}{L} 13:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as non-notable. --
    e Ong 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep passes
    WP:MUSIC. Bobby1011 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • How so? — ciphergoth 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments by R paraphrased from discussion on the WP:Music talk page: The WP:MUSIC criteria do not mention anywhere that the bands must be national in scope. Many local bands have in fact released albums (crit#3), have been featured in magazines (crit#4) or indeed are among the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (crit #6). Indeed the point of the criteria is to weed out the examples cited such as teenage garage bands, etc. and not in any way those local bands that have been playing for years, have been featured in local music media, and have locally-successful records. Madangry 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment On further review, perhaps is doesn't, though I at first thought that "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." sactioned it. Bobby1011 01:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment- Bobby1011, I agree with your first instinct and all text within your comment's quotations. Madangry 01:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. — ciphergoth 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Added discography to article. All releases on discography which also contain articles on Wiki are notable (some had BEEN proposed for deletion but kept by administrators as notable). Did not include self-released cassette releases as noted on official website in discog section, listed only notable releases. (text taken from talk page)Madangry 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - Wikipedia should not place "mainstream = notability" constraints on
    independent music. (Paraphrased from Japanther delete page comments by Howrealisreal) Madangry 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - For those of you deeming this non notable or saying it does not meet WP:MUSIC, please read current discussion on [WP: MUSIC]. Madangry 17:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a keep. Albums make notability. Stifle 00:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Madangry as per myself previously at the Japanther AfD. --Howrealisreal 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for Keeping article: -Added reviews (good and mediocre) for one of the band's releases reflecting non-biased write ups in verifiable music media, and per the new updated (as of March 1st/2nd 2006) criteria now the article DOES without a doubt pass
    WP:MUSIC. Madangry 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 05:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gregg

This is a Non Notable American Footballer. His sole claim to fame appears to be that he injured someone in a tackle. Imagine if we list all footballers all around the world who play in their leagues? I believe that Nassau has some particularly splendid football leagues -even if they play with a rattan ball. I originally put this up for PROD claiming lack of notability, but it was removed as apparently there is a consensus that all American footballers are notable, by definition. I look forward to your verdict. Delete Maustrauser 13:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sangeet ke sitare

A non-notable web discussion site. Site itself reports 127 messages in the last seven days. An early version of the article was speedied and hangon'ed, article improved since then. Weregerbil 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted per author request. — Phil Welch 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory

September 11, 2001 attacks Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • keep No theory is supposed to be presented as factual in wikipedia, as long as a notable amount of people, both i grass root level, and also in USA congress and former Bush secretaries dispute. The
    September 11, 2001 attacks is only to present the uncontested material as factual, everything else is pov to present as fact. All other theories being jamed in a single article outside the main is POV. --Striver 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have. And i will continue to do so.--Striver 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete the article is already covered in
    September 11, 2001 attacks article and smells of POV fork anyway.--MONGO 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is NOT, i repeat NOT a atempt of POINT or pov forking. All other theories have their own article, as so is this one going to get. Choosing one single article, and presenting it in its whole in the main page while pushing all others to a SINGLE page is pov.--Striver 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Dont just blindly vote "delete". This is not a vote, this is a dialog to reach a conclusion. that is why it no longer is named "Vote For Deletion". My claim is undiputable:

  • This is A theory among theories.
  • This is contested by very notable people, in all spheres of society
  • This is the most accpeted theory
  • This is accpeted as factaul by a great many people
  • Wikipedia is not to present a theory this hotly disputed as factual, that is POV
  • Wikiepedia is to give more space to more accepted theories, but it is not to let it totaly dominate a article.

--Striver 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV. --
    e Ong 14:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
How exactly is it pov to unpov a theory? Do explain that to me!--Striver 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is to be merged into the main aritcle, so it every thingle other theory to be merged into the main article. Only letting ONE singel theory to be FULLY represented in the main article is POV. As long as the other theories get their own article, so must this one. --Striver 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per MONGO. Already tagged the article 2 times for speedy. Tag removed by Striver - Aksi great 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The only reason that this article is claimed to be a pov fork, while the other theory pages are NOT claimed to be POV forks is systematical bias.--Striver 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is NOT a pov fork, if the article of the other theories are not pov forks either. Remeber, the people that belive in this theory are in majority, and its easy to just muscle a delete throug. How about disproving what im saying? --Striver 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again another one just sayin "POV". What POV? Whos POV? Just saying pov dosnt make it pov. Motivate, dont just muscle in since you have majority. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. --Striver 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is POV does not make it POV. What makes it POV is that it is POV. Calling things "conspiracy theory" is POV. Weregerbil 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is POV to call it a "conspiracy theory", then why are all other theories labeled "conspiracy theory"? those being labeled as "conspiracy theory" clearly proves that it is NPOV to call it a "conspiracy theory". It IS a theory of a Conspiracy.--Striver 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least to me, "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy" have somewhat different meanings. Do you consider them exactly synonymous? Perhaps that could be the root of our disagreement. Weregerbil 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All "delete" votes so far have NOT been based on any valid arguement. It is NOT pov, it is NOT pov to call it a "conspiracy theory", it is not a POV fork. Give a valid argument for any of the accusations. --Striver 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what im talking about! Why is this theroy fully preseted in the main article, while all other theories are jamed in one single article? If this theory is not going to get its own article, then for NPOV's sake, it needs to also be jamed with the other. --Striver 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My point is easy: It is POV to give this theory FULL coverage in the main aricle, while all others get a single article to inhabit. How is that NPOV?

This article IS the most widely accepted, but that does not give FULL access to the main article. That is pov. --Striver 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is, by far, the most widely accepted and best proven account of the events of that shameful act of violence. Pretending otherwise and portraying it as just another conspiracy theory would be non-factual. Weregerbil 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i agree that it is "by far, the most widely accepted". And i also are convinded that you belive it is the "best proven account". But i dont not agree that it is the "best proven account". And wikipedia claiming it is, is simly pov. Wikipedia claiming it is Factual is POV, your POV, the majority POV. But POV non the less.

And it was truly a shameful act of violence.

And yes, it IS a theory of a conpiracy. Are you claiming it is pov to call it a conspiracy theory?

I do NOT say it should be treated as the others, it needs to get proportionaly more space, but it does not have 100% support, and giving it 100% coverage in the main article is pov, your pov, and not my pov. --Striver 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to conspiracy theory than any theory about a conspiracy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You ask if I think calling a theory about a conspiracy a conspiracy theory is POV. Yes, I think it is very much POV. In my non-native speaker understanding of the English language those things mean different things. Are they synonymous to you? Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. Weregerbil 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, no evidence this is a widely held theory. Properly sourced (which actually shouldn't be that hard to do) something along these lines could be added to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. No reason for a separate article though.--Isotope23 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is, in fact, a violation of copyrights. The original can be found here. The version in the article has been shortened and the wording slightly altered as to give the impression that it is only a theory. Bobby1011 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. The actual source is Wikipedia itself, as was pointed out to me by Tom and Kmf164.
Heh; That site's material is originally from our article,
September 11, 2001 attacks. I'm sure Striver copied and pasted from there, to start things off. I think that's okay, unless you take the position that it's a copy-and-paste page move. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Meh, it is, IMO, unethical to change only enough of the author's statment to alter the POV from which it is written. The original author obviously had no intention of having their words skewed to imply something so different. Doesn't bother me that much though. Bobby1011 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by copyright violation? The link cited in fact is a copy of the Wikipedia
September 11, 2001 attacks article (which it cites), not the other way around. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not a copyvio, unless because of a
cut-and-paste page move, and probably not then. Tom Harrison Talk 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Another random delete... waht soap box? I just want a theory to NOT be presented as a fact. How is that a soapbox? Or did you just see lots of text, didnt like the title and figured a convinient way to say "delete" and still having something to say?

Section break

Man, you are just incredible... Let me quote this:

Delete no sources, no evidence this is a widely held theory. Properly sourced (which actually shouldn't be that hard to do) something along these lines could be added to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. No reason for a separate article though.--Isotope23 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This gentleman didnt even bother to read the article! I mean, is the closing adming going to take this kind of voting into acount?

Anyone that actualy READs the article will see that it THE official theory, presented in a NPOV wording. And guees what? Just becaus it contained the word "conspiracy theory" in the heading, he belived it was some othere theory.

And what about this?

unethical to change only enough of the author's statment to alter the POV from which it is written

Isnt that what wikipedia does every single time somebody puts up a POV sign? Somebody takes and re-writes the article in a NPOV way, and that is supposed to be unethical?

Guys, look at yourself, just because i took the official theory and made it NPOV, that is, not claiming it to be factual, you became so uppset that without even bothering to read the article, you started lanbeling it as a "outlandish claim"!

As for POV fork allegations, why is this a pov fork, but 9/11 conspiracy theories not a pov fork? Could i get a straight and logical answer to that? A answer that does not go like "Well, its a pov fork since this is TRUE, and the other theories are FALSE, hence, its a pov fork"?

And dont you dare to claim my good faith edits are POINT!


As for the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy", could somebody be kind enogh to explain to me the difference? Thanks--Striver 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, dont give me that. If you ask me, there is no difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy". Some people tried to claim that conspiracy theory" had a negative conotation, and thus should not be used in titles since it was pov, but the majority of wikipedians did not agree with him. If you in fact claim there is a difference, then you are at the same time claiming there is a pov issue in using it in ANY tittle. --Striver 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. A conspiracy theory is an objectively identifiable thing. A theory involving a conspiracy is different objectively identifiable thing. There is no issue with using 'conspiracy theory' in article titles, as long as it's used correctly. Tom Harrison Talk 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striver, I read the article before I rendered my opinion and my reasoning stands as stated: You did not source your claims nor provide any evidence that this is a widely held theory, or in your words "accepted as factual by many people in many parts of the world". I know this is the official account and like I said, it should be ridiculously easy to source your claims... but you have to source it. You can't just assume that everybody knows this is the mostly widely held belief of who was behind September 11th. Furthermore, I don't see any reason for this article to exist as a standalone. It is mentioned in the main September 11 article and if you have a concern that the concept that some people see this explanation as a "conspiracy theory" is not accurately portrayed there, then mention (along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory) at 9/11 conspiracy theories... and don't automatically assume bad faith just because I disagree with you.... and it's not a "vote" as you stated, this is a gathering of opinions.--Isotope23 20:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, sorry if i gave the impression of assuming bad faith. I apologise.

About sourcing, what do you expect me to source? That all western governments officialy belive in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory? That the 9/11 commision belives in it? That every single major newspaper in the USA and Europ belive its factual? That anyone not beliving in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory is considered a idiot? That i have on several occasions claimed to be a nut case for not beliving in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory?

I dont get it. The

September 11, 2001 attacks claims the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory
to be factual, and therefore i have put a pov sign on it. I suspect we are not conecting....

Im sure you dont mean that the article should be deleted for not sourcing such an obvious statment?

My reason of it being a standalone is simply that it is POV to give a full account of it in the main article, while all other conspicacy theory COMBINED get this:

Almost immediately after the attacks, conspiracy theories about possible U.S. Government involvement and other speculations were fostered by political opponents to the Bush administration, anti-American groups, those looking to make a quick profit, and some who had doubts about the mainstream media account.

That is POV. I didnt try to put it in 9/11 conspiracy theories, since i would probly get baned for it :P

Further, it is the most reqognized conspiracy theories, so if any, this one should get its own article. Optimaly, the main article should only state the non-contested facts, then have a section where it summs all conspiracy theories, including the bin laden one, giving the bin laden one most space, then linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The 9/11 conspiracy theories should the START by summing the bin laden one, and linking to it, then going though all others on it self. OR just have all conspiracy theories on the same article.

It is simply POV to present the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory as the factual in the main article, and everyone else being sumed in two lines as shuved into a single article.

It is even pov to present Bin Ladin conspicacy theory as a theory, and only giving all others only two lines, and shuving them to a single article.

Just on a hunch, i belive this could be NPOV: Presesnting non-contested facts, then giving the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory some space, then giving all others theories COMBINED 30% of that space. If ONE or several theory is called a conspicacy theory, the ALL should. either all are called conspicacy theory, or none.

I repeat: It is simply POV to give ONE conspiracy theory FULL coverage in the main article, to the point of it not even needing any article, while shuving everything else into one single article.

It is also pov to label some, but not all, as a conspicacy theory.

It is also pov to present one conspicacy theory as factual.


One more thing: You seem to assume that i belive "conspicacy theory" is a pejorative label. Some people do. I dont. I regard all theories about who and why the attacks where done as a conspicacy theories: a theory about a conspiracy.

In that view, i dont even see what this means: "along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory"

That sentance seems to to say that you belive the "conspicacy theory" to be pejorative. During my whole argumentation, i have assumed it is not pejorative. The reason is that people tried to remove the "conspicacy theory" from titles, saying it was pejorative, but the majority did not agree with them.

Anyone beliving "conspicacy theory" is a pejorative term needs to support the removal of it from ALL article, since it is POV to have pejorative terms in titles.--Striver 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some people seem to belive that a "conspicacy theory" is not the same thing as a "theory about a conspiracy". How do you objectivly decide if one theory is a "conspicacy theory" or a "theory about a conspiracy"? I claim it is not possible to do it obectivly. If im wrong, please correct me.

I included the link to conspiracy theory because you asked for an explanation of the differences between that and any theory involving a conspiracy. I assumed you asked because you wanted to know, and not as a rhetorical device. Was I mistaken? Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, no problem... no offense taken. I may be riding my sourcing stick a little hard today. I'll see if I can find something that would satisfy me.
I don't think you would necessarily take alot of heat for adding this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article if it was written correctly. "Conspiracy Theory" is sort of a loaded term because it suggests to some people that there is some doubt as to the validity of whatever is being claimed. Calling something a "Conspiracy Theory" is generally considered a pejoritive term (and indeed while it appears you did not intend it that way, I read it that way); at least in American English. It evokes UFOs, Alien Abductions, and a vast network of people who were dedicated to killing John. F. Kennedy. What I meant by "along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory" was in the light of "Conspiracy Theory" as the possible pejorative: simply that while a majority of people believe Bin Ladin and Al'Qaeda were materially responsible for the September 11th attacks, ther are people out there that do not believe this to be the case and that his connection to 9/11 was manufactured. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent with this article, but that also illustrates the connotation that is inherent in the term "Conspiracy Theory". I can see you disagree, but I imagine if you took a poll here, the majority would consider "Conspiracy Theory" to be a negative connotation term.--Isotope23 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, if that is the case, and we are supposed to agree on that definition, then why is wikipedia claiming my view to be "doubt as to the validity" of its claim?

Isnt it POV to label my view with a pejorativ term in the heading?

How is it not like renaming Christianity to Jesus worshiping?

I was assuming there was no differnce, so i named it "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory". In view of what you are saying, it, all other theories should be named "Theory of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy". Surely its not the intent of Wikipedia to judge the validity of a theory? --Striver 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I apologize if it is perceived as bad faith. Yes, it was in some way a rhetorical question. But i stil stand by the question: What is the difference, and how do we OBJECTIVLY claim one is "conspicacy theory" or a "theory about a conspiracy". I know that some people perceive "conspicacy theory" to be objective, while a "theory about a conspiracy" to be pejorative.

Tom harrison, Are you among them? Do you belive there is a difference between them, and that "conspicacy theory" is pejorative? --Striver 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly do not belive there is a difference, not more that SOME people belive "conspicacy theory" to be pejorative. The discution of wheter "conspicacy theory" should or should not be used in Wikipedia articles concluded that the word was NPOV, so im going with that standard. Both being NPOV means that none is pejorative, meaning that both "conspicacy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy" are synonymos. If not one of them being pejorative, what other difference are there? I can not see any other difference. --Striver 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tom, you wrote:

Not at all. A conspiracy theory is an objectively identifiable thing. A theory involving a conspiracy is different objectively identifiable thing. There is no issue with using 'conspiracy theory' in article titles, as long as it's used correctly.

Please Tom, i urge you, spell out the difference, dont dance around it. Say:

"A "conspiracy theory" is X, while a "theory involving a conspiracy" Z, and Z and X are not equals since Q"

If you do that, you will inevitibly come to one of the following conclusions:

A: There is no diffence between Z and X

or

B: There is a difference, being that one is less credible.


If the answer is B, then it is pov to use it in Wikipedia titles. But earlier discution have concluded that it is NOT pov to use it in titles. Thus, the answer must be "There is no diffence between Z and X".

And it is with that reasoning i say its NPOV to say "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory" --Striver 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please dont take this as POINT, i am sincerly trying to abide by previous desicions. --Striver 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two phrases refer to different things; They are not just different ways of saying the same thing. There is a difference, and it's spelled out in detail in conspiracy theory, which you might find interesting reading. Have a look at the references while you are there reading it. There's an extensive body of academic literature about conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory can be used as a pejorative, but it need not be. You can recognize a conspiracy theory by its structural features. Conspiracy as a legal term is a different thing. Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming there was no differnce, so i named it "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory". In view of what you are saying, it, and all other theories should be named to "Theory of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy". Surely its not the intent of Wikipedia to judge the validity of a theory? --Striver 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer
September 11, 2001 attacks. Since this is actually about whether to delete 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory, I'll follow the discussion here, but probably won't reply further. Leave a message on my talk page, or continue at Talk:Conspiracy theory or elsewhere. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Acctualy, you are missing my point. It is undisputed that there was a

September 11, 2001 attacks. That is NPOV to say as a fact. But it is POV to say that Bin laden did it. The event is one issue, who and why is a totaly other. And there are many theories of who and why it was made. My problem is that ONE of this theories is singled out as factual, and thus merged with the factual parts of the event. The facts and the theories need to be separated, no matter the popularity of a theory--Striver 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as
    pov fork as per above discussion. MCB 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete There is no need for this article. The entire basis for its existence is fully covered in the 9/11 conspiracy article. Whether Striver likes it or not, the 9/11 commission account is the verified factual account until or unless proven otherwise. It does not have the status of theory, it has the status of historical fact so does not need to be presented as a theory. Other historical facts that are disputed do not lose their status as fact simply because there are conspiracy theories about them. The format that existed with the main article covering what is the established historical record and a separate section regarding conspiracy theories that dispute the historical record seems perfectly reasonable. MLA 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It not being a theory is not true. The Bin Laden theory can not account for many things, for example why building seven was demolished. It is heavly contested by mutliple scholars in multiple fields. It is not factual, even though many people belive it is. It is pov to have such a disputed theory stated as a fact. --Striver 13:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per
    WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Lacks valid references to provide credibility to an otherwise purely speculative, PoV assertion. — RJH 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Statement

I do not see any point in continuing this. I am convinced my arguement is valid, but i get discouraged when people keep reiterating things i have disproven. Ill return to this later, you can delete it now. --Striver 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a {{
Aaron 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Certified 3 Dimensional Wealth Practitioner

Delete. This blatant advertising and not encyclopaediac content Nickj69 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Beautiful Plains Community Foundation

This appears to me as an advert for a Foundation that is not of sufficient importance to warrant a Wikipedia entry.

Dancarney 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jamzinia

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This is a very marginal debate, and I'm not sure the case for deletion has been made convincingly enough to delete at what is at best the two-thirds numeric level. -Splashtalk 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katilce Miranda

This afd nomination was

(operator) 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Seems to be notable enough. Check out this page ([42]) for an explaination. Altanar 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability quite unconvincing. — ciphergoth 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Do not delete'" it's true and the links prove it. She's really a huge internet phenomenon, from zero to 814 communities related to her in Orkut, in only 3 days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.151.59.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Note -IP's only edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an "internet phenomenon" who has 3 unique Google hits? I don't think so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Do not delete'" I doub't that Google's spider can reflect such type of event so quickly. Brazilian portals such UOL and Terra have several news about that girl. Also, someone that receive more then 1000000 scraps in only 3 days sure is a Internet Phenomenon. Se this news. It reads in english "Fan wich received a kiss from Bono becames a internet celebrity". Fellipe 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Even the page on the portuguese page seems more 'flash in the pan' than a lasting notability. -- Ch'marr 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The portugues version of the page is indicating that Katilce is being submitted for a Guiness Book entry. If she makes that, then that would make her notable. Otherwise, no. -- Ch'marr 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page contains nothing of interest, and as far as I can see, the person it's about has done nothing notable to write an article about. As for "a Guiness Book entry... would make her notable": *snort* 69.181.66.75 08:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very restricted event from Brazil. It is unique from the fact that first she made into the U2 concert and kissed Bono - may not be that big - but latter her orkut profile was targeted from thousands os users leaving scraps. Right now, she has about 2 milion scraps. As you can see, this is an information very restricted to the brazilian orkut comunity, but I think it's big enought. I also would like to point out that the portuguese version of the article is being voted for deletion, and the last time I checked it was 12 to delete and 11 to keep (I think that by the rules there, you need 3/4 of delete to delete the article). algumacoisaqq 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a brazilian phenomenon. FML hi me at pt 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Although completely irrelevant, other equally irrelevant internet phenomenons have their articles. Only time will tell if this one will be worth a separate article. --Kristbg 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random internet phenomenon and not verifiable. Stifle 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't random, but specific. FML hi me at pt 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, perfectly verifiable, if you speak portuguese, or have an orkut account. algumacoisaqq 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn rubbish.Zaheer89 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as ciphergoth; Nuno Tavares 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Now 608 in Google. And counting... FML hi me at pt 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Now 905 and counting... FML hi me at pt 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LINK in INK

I'm nominating this because I have no idea what it is. No, seriously, I can't figure out what it's trying to say, and the site it references has only one link - a link back to this Wikipedia article. Go figure.

FCYTravis 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The entry makes sense if you break it down. It refers to Permanent URL's (PURLS), the handle system (handle.net), and the DOI system (doi.org). These are systems for referring people to content in a manner that protects against broken or expired links. If you've ever bookmarked a page that can no longer be found, then you can imagine the need for a permanent URL that hunts down the current location of the content contained within the URL. A Link in Ink, like a DOI (Digital Object Identifier), is a unique URN that points to a directory. This directory is maintained by web publishers who update the associations between DOIs, e.g., and their associated URLS. I wouldn't be so quick to delete this. I've seen a printed flyer with Links in Ink embedded in the copy. These links have referred me to online resources.

Does a lack of of google search results mean that the article is of no use? I'm not convinced that popularity-according-to-google should measure the merit of an wiki article. There is now an example of an implementation of the system. I think one idea would be to inform that the technology is purported by LINKinINK.com

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE appears to be the way of things. And it was too tagged and this

List of lumberjack jargon

Violates

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • This afd nomination was
    (operator) 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain. I don't consider this an unreasonable subject for an article, but I'm concerned that it might be a copyvio, depending on how much is copied for the cited book and whether said book is still under copyright. No vote at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Lists of words are not Wikipedia material. Stifle 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the copyright concerns can be resolved, transwiki to Wiktionary and delete from Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

World Bet Exchange

The link to the official site on the article says the site is "launching soon". The article was created in 2003, so maybe three years from now it will launch and merit an article but it should be deleted now because "there is no there there". 2005 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Note: This article was not tagged for deletion, so the VfD is not valid.  Grue  16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009)

this can never be an even remotely comprehensive list and will be of limited utility at best Mpennig 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — In my opinion, the list itself is too specific. Why is it only between 2000 and 2009? Seems oddly specific to me. Kareeser|Talk! 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as list with completely arbitrary criteria, useless, and appears to have been set up only for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jones (media)

Article was nominated for deletion via

WP:PROP. No case is made for notability, except unreferenced assertion of "renown". Writing for The Times is not itself a mark of notability. RobertG ♬ talk 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Whilst editors may not be in the know of is relevence in the empowering of young people. His upcoming second national tour later this year is supported by the UK Government, in which he has personal backing of Education Secretary Ruth Kelly, and previous Shadow Education Secretary, now leader of the Conservative Party - David Cameron MP. With a little bit of research this can be supported. I also see you have Lynda Waltho placed as 'a famous person' in Stourbridge. She is one of the said MPs to support the education campaign on a local level, on behalf of the UK Government. She can be contacted.

As a completely seperate comment to this. Having been a reader of Wikipedia for quite some time you can't be feel that editors often come accross as 'know it all's' who when it comes down to it, don't know a lot apart from there own first hand knowledge. As someone who has worked in education for over 30 years, I find it quite remarkable how, Wikipedia advertises itself as an independent website, yet if certain people who are not knowledgable of a certain somebody or something, inclusion is questioned.

JL

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Captain Useless

This was prodded as an unsourced comic book character and deprodded without explanation. It was reprodded as a character from a non-existent comic book (presumably by an editor who didn't check the page history). Ivote delete as apparently

unverifiable. NickelShoe 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fractal cryptography

The only thing indicating this field even exists are the papers Ancona F, DeGloria A, Zunino R Distributed VLSI implementation of fractal cryptography Alta Frequenza, Nov-Dec 1996, vol.8, No.6, p.38-41, which as far as I can tell is about using Hilbert curves to alter the layout of VLSI cryptograhpic chips to prevent inspection, and [43] which seems to be a science project. —

Ruud 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. —
    Ruud 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete — Matt Crypto 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete;
    unverifiable. The magazine "Alta Frequenza" appears extinct and I could not find any evidence it was peer-reviewed; the other Google hits seems unrelated. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - rubbish. — ciphergoth 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Liberatore. Such a waste to lose such a good description of recursion, though. :) --Mgreenbe 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the field of Fractal encryption on the other hand is rather an active one, without an article on Wikipedia - perhaps this stub was misnamed --DV8 2XL 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it isn't - how did you get that impression? — ciphergoth 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fractal encryption or the misnamed part? I did a quick Google on the term 'Fractal encryption' and got a number of hits. --DV8 2XL 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look more closely - none of it is recent research published in peer reviewed cryptography journals or conferences. What you've found is that lots of people who don't know the field have had the same dumb idea as the authors of this page. — ciphergoth 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that's why I should stay in nuclear topics where I belong :) Count me as a Delete. And thanks for taking the time and setting me straight. --DV8 2XL 20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unverifiable; either star trek technobabble or unpublished research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've tried various searches for variations on the concept and while there is material on the subject it was pretty much universally by uninformed novices and no had no real content. Leland McInnes 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-24
    20:41Z
  • Delete as unverifiable and probably OR. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles.

Mailer Diablo 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Rule

non-notable band. I'm listing this article along with its constituent members. The claim that they've been nominated for Minnesota Music Awards doesn't strike me as notable MLA 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles relating to band members:


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

The result of the debate was keep/revert. Misplaced nomination of a copyvio. mikka (t) 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allesley

Nearly all of the text is directly copied from http://www.denspages.co.uk/history.htm and other pages on http://www.denspages.co.uk/ Gu 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it's a copyvio it could be reverted to stub version which existed on December 7, 2005. [44]- No Guru 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Golden Sabre of Muji

A piece of fiction.

Wikipedia isn't for publishing your work. Sandstein 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Northsun

Non-notable Russian band. No google or yandex hits.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moot, already deleted by administrator. Ifnord 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotsnack

Appears not to be a notable band. Doubts as to whether Nigella Lawson ever said remark attributed to her. David | Talk 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could have been speedied as a non-notable band, although there is a BBC article mentioning them [45]. 72.224.95.121 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Urbanturban

Self-promotion of non-notable non-profit corporation. Nohat 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per

CSD A7; no credible assertions of notability. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sean O'Connor

del smells hoax. quick google search for ["Sean O'Connor" + computer engineer + security] shows nothing. History of creation and silly editing by anons suggests that it is a college student prank. mikka (t) 18:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I was unable to verify any of the content. It does appear to be a hoax. For example, "At the age of only 4, O'Connor designed the phenomenal Double-Back style of guitar playing." — RJH 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No evidence to support the tenuous assertions of importance or significance -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't verify assertions in article, and I've never heard of him in connection /w the computer security or tech journalism fields. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a teenager's vanity page (DOB is listed as 1987), complete with regular vandalism that looks like it comes from other teenagers. Fan1967 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7. Since nothing I see really seems to assert notability (but he worked at Staples!), I'll go out on a limb and tag it. --Kinu t/c 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted per above and
    WP:SNOW. So this guy think he's Steve Gibson, eh? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, anons, and new users, I see roughly a little less than 3:1 ratio in favour of deletion, which IMO is right on the borderline between keeping and deleting. I have to be honest and say that I find the arguments for deletion to be a little better than the arguments for keep. However given that this is right on the borderline, and the credo of AFD is when in doubt, keep, I must close this as no consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus

The given reason is: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." This page is only here to announce that this person alleges that they slept with a celebrity, and went on to announce that in many places. Frankly this looks like an attempt on that persons part to advertise their "claim to fame". We do not keep pages for every bimbo that slept with every celebrity out there, no matter how fascinating the tabloids think that this is.

Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news stories either. Especially ones that have ONLY been substantiated by the original claimant. Michigan user 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Comment His allegations, as well as his now marginal claim to fame as a gay porn star are notable, however much they may disgust you. This is not a "breaking news story" either. The first published references to the allegations are over a month old now. There is other biographical information included on Paulus in the article as well where sourceable. The bulk of the article is on the allegations, but that is a large part of his notoriety. --Rabinid 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking one of two votes attributed to User:Rabinid. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. He is not a porn star yet. And wikipedia is not a vehicle for his promotion. mikka (t) 20:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Clay Aiken would be the obvious choice, assuming of course that this is all true and verifiable. Note to closing admin: If this debate does not end with a consensus to merge, please consider this vote a delete. This is NOT a vote to keep the article in its current form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You may not like it, but his porn material is already available to a paying audience through the Lucas website. How does that not qualify, even minimally, as notability a gay porn actor? --Rabinid 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Rabinid was the creator of the John Paulus page. 66.82.9.53 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are videos of ME available on the internet. Not as much FUN as a porn video but they exist and they last more minutes. Do I qualify for a page?? 66.82.9.53
  • Buh? What's up with this AfD? User:Rabinid is down as voting twice, but only appears once in the edit history. Did someone paste part of this content in? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this man's claims might be appropriate for soft-news/gossip web sites, tabloid gossip columns and radio programmes. However, he is not even slightly notable or significant in the absence of
    verifiable sources and details. His claim to be a gay porn "star" is also highly marginal - he may have released porn, but that doesn't make him a star. Sliggy 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment there appears to be 2 copies of this discussion on today's AfD page, which might explain the irregularity Adrian~enwiki (talk) noticed. Sliggy 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would pose that in the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas affair the "unverifiable" allegations there were also only sourceable to one person, namely Anita Hill. Paulus allegatations are citeable through numerous published reports: tabloids, radio interviews, newspapers including the Chicago Tribune, NY POST, NY DAILY NEWS, gay and lesbian media, innumerable websites, and still remain uncontested in any manner from Aiken or his representatives. --Rabinid 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the citable references listed are just this guy out there tooting his own horn. Actually I have no problem with him having a page as a porn actor - if it is LIMITED to that. Right now 99% of the article is about his sleeping partners. Remove all the references to his self professed StarF*cking (which looks a lot like "advertising" for attention) and keep the other 2 sentences. Michigan user 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michigan user was the nominator of this AfD. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken this vote. Nominating the article for deletion counts as a delete vote (unless explicitly indicated otherwise), so there's no need to vote again. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The man has made one porn film, or, more properly, his audition was filmed, so he is not a porn star. His allegations are not believeable and the sources "reporting" them are tabloids and shock jocks. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I vote to delete. -Jmh123 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the issue/scandal surrounding Paulus has reached the National Enquirer, Star Magazine, The Globe, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and Howard Stern, he is notable as
    Katelyn Faber or Gennifer Flowers. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment The difference is that this is self promotion. Katelyn Faber did not go public for notoriety or financial gain, and Gennifer Flowers claim was eventually confirmed by Bill Clinton before it was entered into Wikipedia. Michigan user 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Paulus' intentions were such. That is not up to us to decide. What matters is that he has come forward with a claim, and that that claim has reached some notability or notoriety. Whether the claim is true or not, and for what reasons Paulus has come forward is irrelevant for the notability of the issue and of John Paulus. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do the kids ("...everyone, including kids, ...") have to do with it? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Attention whore, but notable by involvement in infamy. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia, and the user who created it I believe has some kind of vested interest in Paulus' self-promotion. He first turned up at Clay Aiken as an IP edit warring in an attempt to add the salacious details of Paulus' claim regarding sex with Clay Aiken to Aiken's page, against the consensus of many editors (myself included). That effort thwarted, he got a username and created this page that is 99% about his alleged dalliance with Clay Aiken. Absolutely does not deserve a page here. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep infamous notability as much as it sickens me. ugh. --207.200.116.196 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo more notable than I would be if I told a story to a tabloid. 69.19.14.15 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim is a matter of public record, that is, it has been published in newspapers and magazines around the world. As someone said above, it is no different to
    Katelyn Faber or Gennifer Flowers. Interestingly, Paul Barresi is a similar personality - midleweight porn identity, sex scandal with a big star, in his case John Travolta. What makes Barresi interesting is that a similar discussion to this decided to exise the Travolta scandal from the Paul Barresi page - a far more sinister act of censorship and "spin" than leaving the scandal in. It's a very basic rule of journalism - it's Clay Aitken's job to refute the claim (which he as not done) and it's not Wikipedia's job to pretend it was either never made or published. (In both cases, frankly.) I would suggest trimming the John Paulus article and leaving a brief mention of the Aitken scandal in both his and Aitken's entries. Many articles reference scandals/controversies/claims and counter claims about personalities. Whoby
Whoby (talk · contribs)'s 13th edit. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are people in this AfD with less edits than Whoby. Will you mention it for them as well? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're a registered account, sure, but I don't see any others that are immediately obvious. IP's, I figure closing admins can figure out themselves. And you've been around here long enough that I shouldn't have to point you to
assume good faith. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't realise that only 13 edits failed to qualify me for an opinion. I'm not sure that a tiered system of "worth" is quite what Jimmy had in mind when he invented Wikipedia, but thanks for giving me six seconds to speak before you kicked me in the head. I'll belt up in future.Whoby
Didn't mean to offend you -- it's common practice to point out new editors as a courtesy to closing admins. Most administrators don't count the votes of very new users because of the potential for sock/meatpuppetry. Nothing personal about you. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for the scandal and porn. <rolls eyes> --Featherer 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Featherer's 17th edit; first was to this AFD. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is NOT Clay Aiken's job to refute the claim. It is John Paulus' job to prove the claim. Paulus has not come close to proving anything. Until then Clay is the victim. Which is exactly why no mainstream publication is willing to touch this, and Wikipedia should not either. Of course as soon as Clay comments at all to defend himself - then he becomes fair game for the mainstream press - and he effectively increases the damages exponentially. In the cases of
    Katelyn Faber and Gennifer Flowers the mainstream press provided considerable coverage, making it notable for Wikipedia. 66.82.9.86 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
How are you defining mainstream publication? And on what grounds do you say none of them were "willing to touch it"? The story has been reported in major Australian and British newspapers, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Contra-Costa Times, the Buffalo News, the Denver Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Portland Mercury, the Louisville Courier-Journal.com, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Arizona Republic, plus the respected online journal Salon, and it has been carried by the AP and KRT wire services to the networks of smaller newspapers they serve. (Whoby 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
When it is carried as news, not in the gossip sections, IMHO. 66.82.9.86
I think you are exaggerating the extent and importance of the coverage. -Jmh123 07:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say for sure as I haven't looked at them personally, but my guess would be most of those blurbs would fall along the lines of ... "The New York Post reported that..." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the blurbs, and Katefan is correct, except that it goes, "John Paulus alleged to the The National Enquirer that...." I am not aware of the wire services indicated or the "major Australian and British newspapers". All reports that I have seen, including Salon, are in gossip columns. The cited sources in the Paulus article are the likes of the Howard Stern show and Bob and the Showgram, not the NY Times or CNN. -Jmh123 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting that it be recorded in the Aiken/Paulus entries as proven fact, but I think it would be inaccurate to delete the controversy from the record. Fact: John Paulus has gone public with a claim. Fact: major media outlets around the world have reported it. That's called a scandal, and like most scandals (from Keeler to Lewinsky and beyond) it doesn't stand on firm factual ground, because it is subject to claim and counter claim. To pretend the scandal doesn't exist would be either naive or - worse - a sort of censorship, either because some Wikipedia users are Aiken fans, or narrow-minded. To be frank (with apologies to User:Katefan0 who clearly believes that anyone with less than 100,000 Wikipedia edits to their name should belong to a silent sub-class) the Paulus entry should be tidied down to the barest details of the claim, the extent of its reportage and its status as proven/disproven, and it should be noted in the Aiken entry. (Whoby 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As I said above, this is common practice. Please remember to
assume good faith. I really didn't mean to give any personal offense. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would hope the closing admins make their decision based on the common sense of the arguments presented rather than who has been "tagged" as unqualified to contribute to the debate. For the record, I am a journalist of 17 years professional experience, I am not a Clay Aiken fan nor am I a John Paulus fan, and I am nobody's sock puppet. (Whoby 05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It's nothing automatic. Each administrator makes a judgment call at their discretion. But often, especially in votes like this with obvious forum-trolling, new editors' votes are not counted. However, as I said, it's up to the closing administrator's discretion. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that would be rewarding a stalker with exactly what he wants. 69.19.14.19 02:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether John Paulus proves the claim and whether it is true, is irrelevant for wikipedia. What matters is that Paulus has come forward with a claim, and that the claim has received some level of notability. That's the only thing that counts. Not the motives of the article's creator, and not the truthfulness of the claim. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe that this publication should maintain a higher standard. I refer you to the Aiken talk page, where attempts to insert Paulus' allegations began immediately upon publication. Even now, the story is not yet a month old. Six months from now, will anyone even remember John Paulus? The introduction of sockpuppets to this situation makes it even more suspect. It appears that there are a few people who wish to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting Paulus' career and/or to taint Aiken's.
Wikipedia is not in the business of tabloid news. If this story enters the pages of Wikipedia, it should be as a complete arc, not as a part of some sort of on-going "daily news" style process. There are other outlets for that kind of thing. -Jmh123 19:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is indeed not in the business of tabloid news, but it is also not in the business of opinionizing on public issues. If someone comes forward with a claim about a notable person (like Gennifer Flowers or Katelyn Faber have done before) and that claim reaches notability (as evidenced by the media who have taken up on this claim), it becomes notable enough for wikipedia. Even if the claim proves to be false and the claimant is an attention whore. But I most strongly and vehemently agree with you on the indesirability of possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in this AfD. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is that what the qualification is?? If a story gets published in 5 or 10 (or whatever number you pick) tabloids and gossip columns, then it is valid for entry into Wikipedia?? Because there is a LOT of trash out there that meets that qualification, and you would be opening the door. Just saying . . . 66.82.9.58 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already voted and commented on my position. I started the damn article. I would only add that since this discussion started it is now being reported that this guy's allegations are having repercussions extending to Aiken's career. Forgive me if I'm wrong but that does appear notable. This discussion may becoming moot. [46][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_2128222.shtml][47] --Rabinid 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spyware warning! Clicking on link #3 posted will automatically install Winfixer 2006 if your computer is not protected. Link #2 also automatically loads spyware. -Jmh123 21:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is NOT necessarily having any repercussions - there is just speculation in gossip columns. Nothing changed, because of this "breaking story". 66.82.9.58 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point in fact: People magazine just published THIS WEEK: "Who's your favorite American Idol?' Clay 69%, Kelly 27%, Fantasia 4%". MSNBC just put Clay on their "IT" list YESTERDAY [48] with the quote "With American Idol trouncing the Olympics and all other comers in the ratings, it is no suprise that the most popular "Idol" contestant in the shows history made our "IT" list. Now that he is on it, will we ever be able to get him off. Claymates do your worst". Apparently MSNBC does not think that Paulus has had the least little effect on Clay's popularity. Frankly Rabinid - it sounds like you are HOPING that the gossip columns reporting it make it true. <rolleyes>. 66.82.9.58 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how a popularity poll influences the debate one way or the other. Wikipedia's own (current) definition of a sex scandal is "a scandal in which a public figure becomes embroiled in a situation where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are publicized". Wikipedia even maintains a "list of sex scandals". It should also be pointed out there is a precedent for this debate ... in 2001 porn actor Chad Slater/Kyle Bradford claimed he had slept with Tom Cruise. That got widespread reportage "in gossip columns" and newspapers/tv/radio, and it is not only listed on the Tom Cruise page, Kyle Bradford has a Wikipedia entry of his own. If nothing else, Wikipedia should be consistent within itself. (Whoby 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I agree that popularity is not an issue. The references were in response to Rabinids "repercussions extending to Aiken's career" logic. My point was that Paulus so far has NOT caused any repercussions (as evidenced by the People and MSNBC references) - and therefore Rabinids references have nothing to do with whether or not the Paulus article should or should not be kept. The Kyle Bradford comparison is faulty because Tom Cruise actually SUED, which was reported in mainstream news and made it notable. So far Paulus is just a pesky gnat being ignored by most of the world - not real news. 66.82.9.58 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given it's widespread reportage (Google it) I think your assertion that it's not "real" news is incorrect. Who are you to judge? The horse has bolted on that one - it's had wide dissemination in the news media, therefore it's news, full stop. (Perhaps not your kind of news, or just not news you like, but it's still news.) My point is this: it fulfils Wikipedia's own definition of a sex scandal, and there are comparable precedents (big name + pesky gnat) already on record in Wikipedia ... Tom Cruise/Kyle Bradford, Paula Abdul/Corey Clark etc. If you exise Paulus, then you have to exise every other unproven party in a sex scandal. If not, then it should not only be restored to the Aiken article, but frankly, it should be added to the "list of sex scandals". (Whoby 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The Kyle Bradford article was created on Jan. 25, 2006. Funny, I don't see Tom Cruise/Kyle Bradford or Paula Abdul/Corey Clark on the sex scandal page. Jmh123 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is that you would argue against those being included? Just because they haven't been added doesn't mean they don't qualify. --Rabinid 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make you happy, I've now included Paula Abdul/Corey Clark into the sex scandal article. --Rabinid 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Paula Abdul/Corey Clark got a HUGELY wider exposure on mainstream news, and television than we are even vaguely coming close to with this Paulus conversation. And Corey Clark was a notable person by virtue of his AI participation, even without the Paula Abdul topic. Paulus is not a notable person, except for his unsubstantiated sex claims. Michigan user 02:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Millions of people has been mentioned in newspapers. Wikipedia is not a promotion tool. Mukadderat 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One scene in a movie doesn't make him a porn star, and gossip pages are not reliable source. That leaves little else. He's only notable as a footnote to Clay Aiken, if that. If he becomes more notable then we can always revisit the matter. -Will Beback 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Banja-Luka babies tragedy

Delete. It's an entirely non-neutral dramatised account of an event which is actually not very significant. Eleven babies died- but over 100,000 people died in the Bosnian War; the fact that supplies didn't get through during wartime is not entirely surprising, either. Even the title is non-neutral, and sentences such as "The humanitarian organizations wait, only death does not wait." do not belong in wikipedia. --Dandelions 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this POV and OR "article." --Kinu t/c 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that the point of view issues could be addressed with a change in the article title and a top-to-bottom rewrite. However, the article provides no sources at all, let alone reliable ones, and hence is
    not verifiable. Delete. Sliggy 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Encyclopedia isn't collection of stories, however tragical. Pavel Vozenilek 22:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP is not a memorial to the dead This event may be notable but the focus of the article is POV on two individuals in relation to political decisions. This article distorts the nature of those decisions by removing them from context and placing undue emphasis on just one of the consequential events. The title of the article is also partisan. Finally, it is poorly-written and reads as a piece of bad purple prose rather than an encyclopædic effort, as required by the manual of style.  (aeropagitica)  23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: sentimental narrative, not an encyclopedic article. At best the first sentence might find its way into some other article. Peter Grey 21:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT DELETE!: Start Sarcasm - Please remove anything which suggests Serbs are human beings who suffered too, cos, as we all know, Serbs are just willful aggressors and it was the poor poor Muslims who suffered the brunt of all the hardships during the war. i think that - the prevailing 'Western' view is the BS POV nonsense that needs to be deleted - not an article by someone whose first language is obviously not English ... in my opinion this should be cleaned up and referenced - I vote AGAINST deletion.A simple Google Search makes it easy to VERIFY SLIGGY: click here lazy Sliggy --86.141.244.72 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eleven babies- who were likely going to die anyway, judging by what happened to the last two- died. I guess that means that all of the hardship in the war was borne entirely by the Serbs, huh?

Oh my how compassionate of you. No it means that the Western media is biased against the Serbs. Those poor poor Albanian Muslims who we fought to 'save' are now the biggest Heroin cartel in Europe - I talk, of coure, of the KLA.

Take a muslims side and look where it gets you - 9/11 and 7/7. Time for the West to learn from its mistake and side with the Serbs.

  • Delete - per nom. Michigan user 19:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Man fact

  • This looks more like some kind of comic than an article. Delete if no one can turn it into an article. Georgia guy 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are just jokes. Deb 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is just an opinion-piece about how annoying its creator finds it when men invent facts about macho topics using the word 'probably'. It might have been intended as humour, but the article should be deleted as
    unverifiable. 81.158.77.176 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) {got kicked off for some reason} Sliggy 20:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above, and as a non-notable neologism. --Allen 02:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:BALLS, and also this should be on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 23:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

YGGR

Non-notable internet "fad", if it actually exists at all. No sources, can't find any evidence on google, and the article creator's only edits were related to this page. the wub "?!" 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My guess is it does exist, but is probably limited to one particular forum. Certainly doesn't seem to be widespread. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — Michigan user 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erol Spencer Hofmans

Not a notable person. only 373 google hits and no indication of notability in his biography Andries 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kashif Latif

Who is he? Justify ... Suchmuch 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Marwat

Non notable Suchmuch 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, Looks personal page. Not enough justification --Suchmuch 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Survived Afd only last month, with slim majority of comments opposing deletion, and nothing has changed. Monicasdude 20:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Normally I'd say far too soon to renominate as it's just survived AfD. However this article stinks of hoax to me! I can find no record of him or his supposed play at Pakistan television. There's no mention of him at Harvard. An anon removed the Afd notice several time during the last debate and has now blanked the talk page of the AfD record (I've reverted that). The whole CV is highly implausible and the quatrains are rubbish whatever the authors native language. This article is totally unverifiable - anyone can post photoshop book covers to wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 20:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google "Khurshid Marwat Harvard" and check cache for 2nd link. He seems to be on "Citizen magazine at Harvard". [49] Keep, if he could supply more info. --Kartoos 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well spotted - a site search didn't throw that up! So we now know there's a Khurshid Marwat in MPA1 in Harvard. Also that some of the article vandalism is coming from a Harvard IP address 128.103.186.226. The Fulbright, play and book are all unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk
  • delete. not verifiable. Mukadderat 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not verifiable through any means. If kept, should be reverted to Dlyons493's one-line version, which contains the only verified material in the page's history. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created this article and in the light of the above racist remark of Dlyons493 which is the quatrains are rubbish whatever the authors native language I would humbly request the closing editor to delete the entire article.(Jtm97 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • How does a statement about the literary merit of some poetry have anything to do with racism?? (ESkog)(Talk) 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment if any editor cares to look at my record, they will find I've been active in working against systemic bias and have voted for and rescued articles from many non-English sources. I've also edited quite a few poetry articles, so that's my literary side talking and has nothing to do with racism. I'll be happy if the article is sourced and can thus be retained. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Delete I could not locate the book Milky Way of Ache anywhere - OCLC/WorldCat, Google, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, MLA International Bibliography, my local (University of Washington) library, or New York Public Library. I couldn't search the library of congress, since it seems to be down at the moment, but the book may be a vanity press or self-published chapbook (and as such, not notable). I am open to further information, but if that is not forthcoming, delete it. --Hansnesse 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all articles.

Mailer Diablo 09:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Final Fantasy 13

Prevously {{prod}}ed per

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. We'll put up an article on FF13 when some actual details are released. For now, Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib
) 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Also:[reply]

  • Final fantasy xiii
  • Finalfantasy13
  • FF 13
  • FF XIII
  • FFXIII
  • Ffxiii
  • Ff13
  • Final fantasy XIII --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nomination ~ Hibana 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, x9 >Gamemaker 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Mukadderat 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all as crystal ballism. Untill it's released. Then it will suck up weeks of my life and someone else will have written the article before me. Sigh. Ifnord 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Nigelthefish 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Poll

Advert for some unknown site Fabhcún 20:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ed Fowler

Does not seem to be notable - "Ed Fowler" "Information management" gets only 80 google hits. Thue | talk 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting sockpuppets. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPad

Delete:

Non-notable software that was just recently released; vanity at best, spam at worst. JerryOrr 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

See Special:Contributions/Omeomi
  • Keep: The time since this software's initial public release is somewhat irrelevant, as this category of application is itself relatively new. A quick search of Wikipedia shows similar application listings, none which are both free and native in look-and-feel to someone interested in researching this particular category on OS X, demonstrating some value in keeping this entry available. Given the presence of other similar pieces of software and the relative youth of the category, in combination with the non-obvious software name (increasing the likelyhood that someone would need to look up its functionality), the page should stay. --Dannysauer 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Contributions/Dannysauer


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Friday Sessions

Is this really notable enough to be in an encyclopedia? Many people hold parties, but very few parties are notable. Does not cite references. Thue | talk 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is a vanity page about regular party in Helsinki that might cause "hysteria for example in the Kulosaari Secondary School, where all the current hosts study". Not notable. Sliggy 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. There's also a page for Chris_Hilton which is linked, and is also vanity, which should go as well. --Kinu t/c 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. Mukadderat 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of noise musicians

I've been watching this article for a few months now, and all it does is act as a depository for redlinks to artists who'll most likely never have an article written about them. Whilst there are some notable artists redlinked, most of them are not. Thus, the article is practically useless, and only serves as a billboard for people to get their non-notable projects listed. Also, 'Category:Noise music' does a better job. Cnwb 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While there are a bunch of non-notable red-linked musicians listed, there are also a number of notable ones with articles. It does need some cleanup, but other than that, I see nothing wrong with it. — TheKMantalk 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Users have to wade through all the redlinks in order to find the active links. 'Category:Noise music' does exactly the same job, but only has active links. Cnwb 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorting through them right now. A number of red links will be removed, but I see a few that seem notable, but do not have articles as of now. — TheKMantalk 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for offering to help. I've cleaned it up before, but the problem is it acts like a magnet. There are new redlinks every few days. Cnwb 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cleaned up the red links, but some of the articles listed should be placed on AfD, in my opinion. — TheKMantalk 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent work KMan, I'll vigilantly keep an eye on any new additions as they emerge. Cnwb 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you can do things with lists you cant with categories. Such as redlinks. Or notes about (in this case) individual musicians. Jcuk 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lord knows this list has its problems, but with more attention of the kind it's been getting lately, it could be pretty useful -- certainly more so than the hard-to-read, semi-organized hairball of articles, subcategories, and lists that Categories tend to be. MrBook 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP, with possible transwiki too. -Splashtalk 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of hello world programs, Hello world program in esoteric languages and Fibonacci number program

Wikipedia is not a source code repository. Unencyclopedic, valueless. Worth even less than other lists of implementations that have been deleted. --Mgreenbe 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including lists of quotes, lists of phone numbers, and lists of programs that all do approximately the same thing. —donhalcon〒 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
However, the list of languages is not indiscriminate. Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#List_articles_-_WP:NOT_or_not.3F. --moof 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of languages isn't, but the list of hello world programs written in them is. It doesn't provide any information that an intelligent reader couldn't infer from the articles on the languages themselves. The question isn't whether the programs are informative (that point is largely irrelevant); rather, the question at hand is whether they belong in an encyclopedia. —donhalcon〒 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki bogdan 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MarkSweep or transwiki. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: this page has, in fact, no value as a code repository (every programmer knows how to write an "Hello, World" program in his/her favourite language), but gives a valuable classification of programming languages, and could also be used to recognize an unknown (to the user) language. Very often in a good enciclopedya you can find tables with similar pourpose, I also suppose that the page was contribuited by many people giving it an high value according to Wikipedia parameters, Wed Mar 1 16:51:15 CET 2006 —The preceding
      unsigned comment was added by 193.205.159.53 (talk • contribs
      ) .
Number of contributors has no bearing on whether a given article belongs in an encyclopedia. As for the classification of programming languages — if the entries are supposed to show what a particular language looks like, they should go in the article for that language. If they are intended to compare programming languages, then there needs to be some encyclopedic text that actually explains the comparison rather than just a bunch of (unsourced) programs of varying degrees of correctness; stand-alone source-code is almost certainly a violation of
WP:NOR. —donhalcon〒 16:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Keep: I find this article fully enciclopedic and adequate, only its name is misunderstanding. I would call it just "esoteric programming languages", if that's the term coined for this kind of languages.
  • Keep: I have used this page not only to convey the scope and idea of "
    currencies of the world" or equivalents to "Hello
    " in other languages.
  • Keep: As stated it's an illustrated overview of programming languages, and Hello World is a well known introductory technique. This page is useful.
  • It should be noted that there are "Hello world" wikipedia artikles in 28 languages. Almost all of them contain big lists with program examples of hello world programs. This shows that in 28 languages the people think that a list of "hello world" programs belongs in wikipedia. IMHO the quality of wikipedia cannot be raised with excessive deletions (e.g: In the german wiki they sometimes "delete like crazy", but the english articles are still better most of the time). Still voting for Keep -- Hans Bauer 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • lrrp it is useful. — Dunc|☺ 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make sure this info is removed from the main artlce.
    Hello world program which was notable and verifiable but just got long. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Rosenfeld

Blatantly obvious, no explanation needed :) :) Ok, I'll explain. Not one single fact in this article is verifiable. It is all original research. The subject of the article is not notable. The article is Wikipedia navel gazing. Despite my amazing wonderfulness, just knowing me is not sufficient to make someone notable. Jimbo Wales 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this vote speaks for itself, both about the quality of the article and the work of this user.--Jimbo Wales 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article speaks that much; and if does, you want to shut it. What about me, as a user? I'm just a dude who likes to work for free. I don't complain much and I don't ask for anyone's recognition. How about you, as a user? Is it fair to call the article idiotic and an embarrassment for Wiki? How many articles have you written? And what do you mean when you say that not a single fact is verifiable? We are using your own words as a source. Whether they are true or not is not the case here. I'll rather not argue with you, Jimbo. You're the guy with the finger on the button. --Candide, or Optimism 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as much as I would like to vote keep, since this AfD seems unreasonable since the article just passed Afd, Jimbo is in fact right that it is original research, since the sources used are correspondence, which is pretty much as original research you can get. If the statements had been used in a printed source to support a similar argument, and that was referenced, it would not be. As it is, it is original research. I maintain that it could well be notable in the future, however, with better sourcing. Makemi 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo himself added that guys' name to his own article. In fact, he replaced Larry's name with Jeremy's name. Wasn't that original research, or does that rule only apply to bio articles? Please reconsider, Makemi. --Candide, or Optimism 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we then use Wikinews as a source? --Candide, or Optimism 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could certainly cite a (reviewed and published) Wikinews article in the form: "In February 2006, Wikinews interviewed .. According to Wikinews, .." In that way it should be no different from any other published news source. There are very strict standards of documentation for original reporting on Wikinews, stricter than for most print publications.--
* 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Not to show my solidarity with anyone, but because, even if the content of the
    Jeremy Rosenfeld article is accurate, it wouldn't merit a separate article. The information can be discussed in an existing article. I do think you Wiki-fan boys are getting out of hand with this one. What's next? Alexander 007 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'Delete due to stunning irrelevance and lack of notability. A footnote to a footnote. Gamaliel 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As per my vote on the last AfD. The "guy in the elevator" arguments just weaken the deletionists' position. Rosenfeld was clearly more than that.
    IronDuke 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I didn't use the "guy in the elevator" comparison, but I still find that the info on this fellow doesn't merit a separate article. It's nerdy fan-boy stuff. Wikipedia is not a fanzine, and let's not turn it into one. Alexander 007 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'guy in the elevator' argument very much is apt. Jeremey was the first person to show me a wiki and suggest that it be used to solve the problems we had with Larry's Nupedia design. But Larry and I both agree that Larry showing it to me at a later day was causally relevant in a way that Jeremey's happening to show it to me was not. There are literally dozens of people who are very important to the history of Wikipedia, including for example Eloquence who has joined this thread, and who was instrumental in a number of ways in the entire process. (Did you know that the final formation of the Wikimedia Foundation was prompted when he called me on the phone to tell me to hurry up and do it?) Unless we're so strangely inwardly focussed that we think that every single person who played any small role in Wikipedia should have an article, this one clearly should go. It isn't even borderline.--Jimbo Wales 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Jimbo, I'm theoretically happy to change my vote, but I'd be doing so on the basis of the idea that Rosenfeld had absolutely nothing substantive to do with the creation of Wikipedia (and I would also then be inclined to remove mention of him from the Sanger article, given that his mentioning the idea of a wiki to you prompted no action). Fair?
    IronDuke 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I've added a source that is not deemed as 'original research', thus, Jimbo's first argument is no longer valid. See this. --Candide, or Optimism 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy's original research reasoning is incorrect (the article is as based on published sources about Wikipedia's history; that these happen to be Wikipedia mailing lists is irrelevant), that does not invalidate the AFD nomination. The issue is notability, not OR.--
* 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Just for my own understanding, do mailing lists really count as published sources? They're clearly not physically published, they're not "peer reviewed", I'm a little confused by this. Frankly, I consider neither mailing lists nor blogs acceptable sources. Notability was the criteria for the last AfD, and it passed. Saying that the issue now is once again notability makes this seem like even more of a questionable Afd. Makemi 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, mailing list posts are not published sources, and using them is original research.--Jimbo Wales 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you're trying to source. Otherwise you might as well throw away virtually all of the references on
* 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The point is to get as close as possible to a primary source for a factual claim without adding elements of original research (results of personal interviews and studies that have not been published, hypotheses that have not been verified, valuations that are subjective, and so forth). If you want to make the factual claim "Climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100", then of course you need a scientific publication which backs up this claim. If you want to source the claim "
* 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree to a certain extent. Encyclopedias are supposed to be based on secondary material, with the occasional openly available primary info to back up the claims made by the secondary material. This article is entirely based on primary source material, it's not just quoting Jimbo to support assertions made by secondary sources. Also, I don't know about the availability of this material. Could most people go on the internet and find it, outside of the wikipedia site? I think that's a real problem with original research. For instance, let's say that I went to a library in the middle of nowhere and looked at the papers of Athol Fugard. I could quote stuff that he said in his letters and stuff, it would be true, it would be verifiable if someone could get to the middle of nowhere and look at those same papers. But it's original research, because it's not published, it's not reasonably verifiable. If, however, the letters of Athol Fugard have been published, and a score of libraries has them, it would be reasonable to quote them, because they're publically available, verifiable, no longer quite such original research. Thus I maintain that although I find this article borderline notable, since I think that a person who started something notable on a particular path is thereby notable, it is original research and should be deleted. Makemi 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And here I always thought that
Articles for deletion is a place for disscusions, not "votes". Silly me. Pepsidrinka 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek boat controversy

Apparently, some Star Trek fans think there should be more boats in Star Trek. I nominate this article for deletion purely out of spite because I dropped my monocle when I heard of this controversy and now I can't find it. ;-)

Ok, seriously, until this becomes a verifiable controversy covered by independent sources (not Internet forums) which we can use to reference this article - which it isn't - this should be deleted for lack of

(talk) 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was merge.

Chick Bowen 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Scribs
Comment Agreed. This AfD and SpinnWebe's AfD are not related. I'd hope that people will handle this article on its own merits. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racing stripe

Appropriate and more organized article already exists at Racing Stripes. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I added the redirect to the page. Bobby1011 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, yeah... that was a better idea. (I feel stupid for not thinking of that before.) Maybe an admin can please close this discussion now that it's done? Thanks. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_23&oldid=1116878838"