Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 13 July 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aapkadomain.com

Non-notable per

WP:WEB. Article is an advert. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


This article is not an advert .. it carries names and links of many competing websites namely: Network Solutions, Tucows, and GoDaddy - amit (talk)

For non-notable issue Kindly search popular misspell apkadomain along with aapkadomain on google . there is no dearth of articles - Regards amit (talk)


  • Kindly advise if i should make any changes to this article- Regards amit (talk)--Amit 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this company is one of the very few acredited .in registrar who's website is worth mention unless you are counting
    eNom OR rediff.com, and yes they already have got articles here..--amit (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as NN. --Satori Son 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to article author and "keep" supporter
    cite them here and in the article and it will not be deleted. Thank you for your time. --Satori Son 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bossetta

This is an obvious hoax; no supporting evidence for the asserted noteability of the subject is offered or can be found; the only contributions outside of this article this new user has made is blatant vandalism to the Jesuit High School (New Orleans) article ElKevbo 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted?

Bossetta has raised money by speaking controversially. Few other 18 year olds have done what Bossetta has done, athetically or for the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrAnthonyMcGinnBaby (talk • contribs) 17:55, July 14, 2006

Hoax? Google Michael Bossetta properly and you will find references.

And if you want I can find many other people who would support this article, not just one minor vandal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrAnthonyMcGinnBaby (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 14, 2006

Please supply references. The only information I can find for this individual is about his high school wrestling career. Much of the article is dedicated to his Katrina relief efforts and I can find no references supporting that. If his only accomplishments are high school wrestling, then I still recommend deletion as non-noteable.
And please sign your comments by typing out four tildas: ~~~~ --ElKevbo 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the New Orleans area is being run by unsung heroes. There is a service group headed by Bossetta called YRNO (Youth Rebuilding New Orleans). There have been several articles in the Times Picayune about this. YRNO has spread to other catholic schools other than Jesuit. How do you do citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.250.189 (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 14, 2006

I have found references to YRNO on the web and references to Bossetta on the web but no references linking the two. I have searched the Time-Picayune archive with the phrases "Bossetta YRNO" and "Bossetta Youth Rebuilding New Orleans" with no results. If there are sources available from the web, please point them to us and we'll be happy to help you properly cite the sources in the article. Information about citing sources can also be found
here. --ElKevbo 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I thought the point of Wikipedia was to be the source if none other were available. Bossetta exists, YRNO exists, and peolpe who know Bossetta are the ones who will spread the word about him. If you are supicious because the article is humorous in some ways, then that can be toned down. But everything in it is true. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 68.227.149.242 (talk • contribs
) 23:25, July 14, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you seem to misunderstand the "point" of Wikipedia. Subjects in Wikipedia must be supported by
biographies
in Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, articles "[WP:V|must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers]."
Please don't be put off from contributing to Wikipedia by this shaky start! We welcome newcomers and we're all very happy that you have conducted a civil and reasonable discussion with us during what must be a confusing and frustrating incident for you! --ElKevbo 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, elkevbo.

Everything in this article is true. -Fr Anthony McGinn '66 Jesuit High School

I pray that you also see it this way. Bossetta is one of our best students. Cum laude does not begin to describe him.

AMDG


By and Large, God takes no prisoners. -Fr Richard HERMES, SJ 68.227.149.242 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete for being a straight word-for-word copy-and-paste of a copyrighted ("Copyright © 2005 Khalsa Press") web page. Editors are reminded not to violate copyright. Uncle G 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduization of Sikhism

Hi - I nominate this article for deletion because of its almost complete copyright violation from [1] and

WP:SOURCE. This Fire Burns Always 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Lyndon Hearn

Not a notable person; this article is probably autobiographical – author also created

Kelkoo article. -- MightyWarrior 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was DELETE. fails music and bio criteria. --Madchester 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance O'Neal

15 google hits on this name, none of which seem to correspond to this person. Doesn't meet

WP:MUSIC, or anything else Xyzzyplugh 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was DELETE. Fails notability criteria. --Madchester 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UEK

Delete. Non-notable artist. Nothing relevant can be found from Google that isn't a mirror site of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. nn corp. --Madchester 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout/Light Line Distributors,Inc.

Article originally tagged with {{

WP:CORP. Agent 86 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. Anyone who wishes to transwiki it - just axe me! -

talk/email 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Units in Advance Wars

game-guide
. This article is unverified and unverifiable, there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source, and the units of Advance Wars are not widely discussed outside of how-to guides. Additionally, a great deal of this article is itself a how-to guide: the merits and flaws of various weapons are constantly touted.

Relevant precedent in other AFDs: two weapon lists for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add comment: I'd like to point out two reasons why I think this couldn't be considered a game guide, and thus should be kept:
  • Accesability: What I mean is, even if you had never played Advance Wars you could still get something out of it; and if you did it's basically all stuff you learn from just looking at the unit summaries in-game. Heck, it really has little value to someone who's familiar with the game's units already; the article has very little in the area of solid tactical strategy (some spots, such as the Recon section, do have some game guide-ish things in them).
  • Little statistical info: At one point in this article's lifespan tables with statstical info about each unit were added in [5] I later removed the tables on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a game guide. I think at that point it had probably crossed the line into game guide territory (although there was still very little in the way of things such as game strategies). The article basically just provides a general summary of what each unit does (ie it shoots this, it's more powerful than this, etc).
I don't know if that's going to sway anyone at all, but just throwing out my opinions is all. --gakon5 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Units in Nintendo Wars, which is distinctly not a game guide, but compares the units on a historical basis within the series and is relevant to the design of the game series. --SevereTireDamage 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE nn-web comic --Madchester 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad the Vampire

Yet another non notable webcomic, seen here. "Brad the vampire" generates 40 Google hits, whereas an Alexa lookup of the site gives zero stats. -

n 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Also, length of time on Wikipedia should not be a deterrent in AfDing articles... I had

masterka 08:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay Pants

This article has been on Wikipedia ages, but I've not come across it until now. It's another webcomic, seen here. I had fallen into the trap of think it was notable just because we've had the article so long, like an editor did at

n 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete... I wish someone could have responded to the weak keep though! If needed, take it to

masterka 08:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Otaku no yen

Another webcomic, found [6] by a group called Guardian Sun Studios. You can also take a look at their swanky Unencylopedia page at

n 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Discuss any potential name changes on the talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic seduction

Neologism. Apparently only Wikipedia and its mirror sites use this term: [7] Also contains lots of unsourced content for an article that boils down to "professors and students sometimes date each other". Opabinia regalis 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article begins by connecting the issue to sexual abuse, it's hardly an article about "professors and students sometimes date each other". Mary Kay LeTourneau used the same techniques, as do other predatory teachers. (I've revised the article to include relationships with underage students.) The "Mother-father figure" outlined on the SHS Types of Harasserspage would be a good inclusion here as it outlines how these types of personalities operate. I think the article should stay, but be expanded upon to include the effects of such relationships, the psychology of the teachers who engage in the behavior, and all information should be sourced.Aine63 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the direct sexual abuse connection is one of the statements I have a problem with, since there's nothing inherently abusive in a teacher-student relationship. It's good that you're interested in the subject, but maybe there should be a more general article, or subsection of sexual abuse, dealing with power differentials in general. This title is a total neologism and the article history has more removals of dubious content than additions of good content. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, and one that should be added as there are some good student-teacher relationships, and even some happy marriages that have come from student-teacher relationships. A move to sexual abuse would be very appropriate for the type of behavior that this article is really discussing. Either way, if the editors decide to do this move or not, I volunteer to flesh out this section myself, using good source material, and there is quite a bit of it. Aine63 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • here are some real life examples of the problem, in both universities and secondary school: Naomi Wolf: The Silent Treatment SESAME survivor stories. It's a much bigger problem than most people are aware of. Aine63 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't there a better name for this? I know that teacher-student dating is often prohibitted by schools. — Reinyday, 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, more and more schools are prohibiting this because in most cases, these relationships do more harm than good. Aine63 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the title is the only problem, then why not just vote to change the title or move to another section. A poor title is hardly enough of a reason to delete a topic altogether. Aine63 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole article is a pile of original research and a magnet for more of the same. Dr Zak 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whole article" is not a "pile of original research," a good number of the points are cited with books and articles. Clearly, you even really looked it over. Aine63 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom "Neologism" and per Dr Zak. Even all three of the references label it "Sexual Harassment", I'll change my opinion after it becomes an actual phrase of common usage, perhaps in the press, or when "Presidential seduction" or "CEO seduction", or other similar phrases start to appear. Ste4k 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AdamBiswanger. I agree that the article needs more time and a little clean up. It has a good start though. Agne27 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article: At this point, the majority say the article should stay, but some feel it should be renamed. I've started a discussion on the article talk page, if people want to vote on this. Aine63 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

masterka 08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Ultimate Sitcom

Deletion nomination Here's the reason I gave the first time round in March 2006 which ended in no consensus: "This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines." Same this time around. Though I want to add in L'esprit de l'escalier (I was distracted and neglected to pay much attention at all towards the end of the first afd) a response to what during the first afd was JJay's reply to my rolling out the rating figures for this program (ratings which I believed to be not very impressive). JJay found those ratings to be impressive and said that we have articles for most of the other programs mentioned in my excerpt. I would now point out out that the one-off show The Ultimate Sitcom's (1.5m viewers) closest peers Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed (1.3m viewers) and Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death (2.1m viewers, a program about obese people who can't stop eating) still do not have their own articles, and I hope they never do. The only argument I see coming from the keep voters in the first afd was "the program was probably seen by a huge number of people". There are many trivial programs on TV which get low ratings that still translate to large numbers of people but are insignificant by encyclopedic standards. This is a one-off clip show which is one of these programs. Bwithh 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a comprehensive survey of industry insiders. It's just the group of insiders (including actors, not just writers) who agreed to be on the show. It's also dubious how much the few Americans know about British sitcoms (and how much the British know about US sitcoms), and no other country's programs seem to have even been considered. Bwithh 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
  • Keep per JJay. Not sure if you saw this, but it certainly wasn't just a clip show. They spent time talking about how the insiders made their decisions, and talking about how the insiders themselves were selected. Essexmutant 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said that it was a clip show with talking heads. Bwithh 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Show was entertainment not serious research. Big brother episode 112,345 was also seen by 1.5 million people. Mention of vote might be appropriate on each sitcom article instead. Major interest is in list of sitcoms, which should be added to a list somewhere. Stephen B Streater 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic --Amists 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per JJ. It is plenty notable, and remember that including someone else's value judgments does not constitute a value judgment on the part of editors. AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just another clip show of no particular noteworthiness. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. -- MightyWarrior 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No importance, no influence, no global perspective, no article. — Haeleth Talk 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and listcrufties. Zos 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to

Mac OS X. TigerShark 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mac OS X86

Unofficial neologism, not common enough to warrant an article or redirect.

raves/rants) 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Although Mac OS X86 is a small group it exist nonetheless and it deserves at least an article stating it --Drchoc007 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: How is this any different from
    raves/rants) 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per

AmiDaniel (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Craig 'Bert' Roser

Really unnotable English footballer playing for very low-level club. NawlinWiki 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:14Z

Airborn (film)

Yets to be released movie. Crystal ball, article text largely lifted from ImdB. Artw 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Needs to be categories for each national or subnational entity.

masterka 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of bands and musicians by country

Already 51 kilobytes long, redundant to the lists of musicians and musical groups by country that can be found at Category:Musicians by nationality and Category:Musical groups by nationality. Ezeu 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps replace the content with something like that at
List_of_musicians#By_location. --Ezeu 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp noir

This article violates

WP:NEO, including being unsupported by reliable sources. Jonathan F 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Actually, I meant to link to the next section,
    WP:OR#What is excluded?
    ), one meant to indicate a "sub-genre" of film noir, and there is no reliable source to support this. The article only finds instances on the web where the term is ascribed to something when the WP:NEO policy reads:
To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan F (talk • contribs)
  • Ahhhhhhhh-hah. The last sentence. Now I understand your objection. Perhaps explaining this in the nom would have stopped the keep votes. And although the quality of writing has improved and it is better sourced, tt is now a list of uses and thus tracks the term's emergence, rather than discusses the subject itself. Oh, well. It won't be the cruftiest thing here by a long shot.
    (Talk) 11:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Okay, have to chime in here since I am responsible for the rewrite (not the original article, I might add). First, I want to address Jonathan F's issues. You can see my Talk page for his full "review" of my edits. I removed the Renzi reference completely since it seems questionable and I admit I misinterpreted what the book is about from the excerpts I have. I have only selected readings from the book, back from a film class I had. If someone has the whole book, maybe they can add it back later if any of it applies to this article. I also rewrote the lead paragraph to more accurately summerize the context of this term as I found it in the other references. As for Jonathan F's other point, I accept it as a valid argument but I disagree that this is a neologism to begin with. It is for this AfD to decide that point, and I still recommend keeping the article. I think "neologism" implies that the term is specialized within a certain community or interest group, but my references clearly indicate widespread usage across different communities and in reliable media. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is not a neologism Tjc 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep looks to be
    WP:NEO. I might switch to a 'Keep' if it got a bit of cleanup (but I don't have time to do it myself). Yomangani 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Cleanup looks good, so I've changed my opinion as I said I would - still like to see the definitions of Pulp and Noir removed or referenced though. Yomangani 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some more of the unreferenced stuff that I meant to get on the first round. The opening paragraph where pulp noir is defined is derived from the footnoted source. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got the bit I meant. Nice work. Yomangani 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a neologism. Needs cleanup. Bacchiad 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article and added references. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citations are in place. Zos 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. Plenty of sources now if there weren't to start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 plus 2

It can refer to more than what this article covers, including

talk) 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong keep: Is this really a new nomination? I think the proposer doesn't understand that there's a disambiguation page, and this isn't it. See 2+2. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that's no reason to delete it. I see there's now a link to 2+2 to cover your point.-gadfium 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.
    (Talk) 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    Ethiopia 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. The previous AfD (VfD at the time) discussion is here. DarthVader 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Possibly could be kept if moved to 2+2 (car body style) — and if a source cuold be found. But, for now Delete as unsourced protologism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Questions: This looks like a different topic than the original AfD, is it? Are there any trade magazines, engineering, popular science, auto show, hot rod, etc., that can be used to substantiate this phrase? Ste4k 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I think it is indeed a different topic. I recently created a disambiguation page because "2+2" redirected to "Two plus Two publishing". I think the original AfD came before I did that cleaning up of redirects and disambiguations. [EDIT: In response to question 2, the article mentions several vehicles which specifically include the term in their model name. The manufacturers' data (such as sales brochures) supports this.] – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup by adding sources. Possibly move as proposed by Arthur Rubin. Not a protologism. The term has been used for decades (with this meaning) in dozens of issues of Road & Track, Car and Driver, Autoweek, and other magazines, as well as the advertising of several manufacturers noted in the article. Unfortunately I don't have access today to my old collections, or I'd find and cite some sources. Barno 14:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barno with good faith. Ste4k 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You have to ask yourself, "is this right for an encyclopedia?" Zos 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is, unless you think we should junk the Coupe page too. Moriori 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, things seem to be sensibly set up as they are now. This is a very different topic to the original AfD. -- Mithent 00:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to 2 plus 2 (car). Moriori 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close since the nominator has no intention of getting the article deleted. If you wish to propose a merge, there's {{

mergefrom}}, and talk pages. AfD's not the place for this. Kimchi.sg 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Street Fighter Zero 2 Alpha

All the other Street Fighter Alpha pages redirect to

Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shadow Moses

Metal Gear Solid, which already has such a long, overdetailed plot summary that merging this article there would be a bad idea. The only part of this article that isn't plot summary is a wholly unsourced and possibly fanon Features section, which wouldn't be encyclopedic in any case (as the rest of the island doesn't appear in any fictional work). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

FlexPoint Source, LLC

Blatant advertising page for non-notable private company. Fails

WP:ADS. Search of Google News produced 0 hits for firm. Satori Son 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Clack

Fails

WP:BIO. Didn't play professionally and not enough notability as a college player. Delete BlueValour 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment A quick Google search shows that Clack has played professionally for teams in Italy, including
Lega Basket, Italy's premier basketball league. Zagalejo 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep Some of the worst NBA players ever, were still some of the best in the world. Only 1 in 1000 make it to the NBA. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Summonmaster13 (talk • contribs) . Sorry Summonmaster13 only 1 'vote' per person. BlueValour 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete barely. If he had managed to play in one counting NBA game or be drafted in the first round, I'd vote to keep. But above-average college players with no professional or international experience aren't notable. --EngineerScotty 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he does have professional experience -- just not NBA experience. Like I said, he's been playing in Italy [13] [14] [15]. Zagalejo 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the stub does not do a good enough job of explaining his accomplishements yet, but he scored 1,500 points as a college player. He is notable enough for his college accomplishments. Johntex\talk 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- The nomination is misleading in three regards. Firstly, the article passes
    WP:BIO, since he was a D-I NCAA player. Secondly, he has played professionally, as noted above. Third, he was a four-year starter at a major college with numbers that ranked him in the top-10 all time among Texas players in several categories [16]. Clearly expandable. -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - I agree we need more detail. At present D-1 players are /not/ inherently notable but can attain notability if they prove sufficiently outstanding. The Bio guidelines are presently being reviewed and expanded. BTW I have seen no evidence that the Italian league he plays in meets the 'fully professional league' requirement.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

OMarketing

Neologism. So new that the article previously claimed that the term was coined in June 2006, by none other than PJ Conley, which happens to be the name of our friend the author, who has no other contributions and may or may not be affiliated with OMarketing the non-notable consulting firm. It's like a resume for a deleted-article application. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No Guru 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Hyper-Threading

Technology is fictional[17] Yamla 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep! you can rewrite the article because it is not a feature in Rev. F/G K8, but it is a possible feature in
    K10, although it is mere speculation for K10, but we cannot delete this article for it doesn't exist in K8 and K8L chips and exclude the possibility of being implemented in the future, as there is a report of REVERSE HYPER-THREADING for K10 chips. If anyone doesn't remember that, I recommend them to search in Google[20] before stubbornly(sp?) delete this article. Thank you. --202.71.240.18 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Zero

Festival with no claims of notable insufficient claims of notability - only seems to be slightly notable on a local scale at best. Never seems to have had any notable performers, national coverage, etc... Deleted before with little objection, but apparently can't be speedied. See previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Zero. Wickethewok 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that some of the issues from the previous AFD do not apply to this article, as this article is not derived from the previous one. In particular, the objections of needing secondary sources for verifiability and copyvio are irrelevant wrt this article. AFIAK, only notability is in question. --Ravelite 04:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Festival was named in City Paper's Best of Baltimore in 2000. This is evidence of notability. --Ravelite 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Wikipedia - I hope this AFD does not discourage any future contributions you plan to make here. Cheers!  :) Wickethewok 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see two counts of notability mentioned in the article.--God Ω War 05:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No recommendation for the moment, but this festival does appear to be notable in my opinion. DarthVader 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you believe it to be notable, Mr. Vader? Because it was awarded a not particularly notable award by the "alternative" weekly press publication that sponsored the event? It looks like that is the only year they seem to have given out that award. Do the winners of their "Best Drag Queen Award" also need their own articles? Aside from this award, I don't really see any of assertions of notability, unless you count the "one of the largest festivals of it's type in the US", which is both unverified and vague. Wickethewok 05:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Wickthewok. Receipt of non-notabe Awards does not confer notability. -- GWO
  • Weak keep It needs references and some more weight behind its claim of notability, but neither of those need to come from Ghits. If it can be cleaned up I say keep it, otherwise put in a sack and throw it in the lake. Yomangani 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --NEMT 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Until more notability is establishedZos 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. More notability evidence: Here's another mention of HZ in the City Paper, the second paragraph of which confirms other press the festival has earned: 2001 city paper reference

The first two years drew press attention from fringe-oriented music magazines such as Cadence and The Wire, but the fest also won the notice of more mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and National Public Radio's All Things Considered.

Sure, City Paper is an alternative press weekly, but I doubt it's lying.

To confirm the Washington Post references, please visit the archive search and type "High Zero" in quotes, or use this link

Notability of performers: In 2005, Phil Minton performed (listing in performers) and directed a Feral Choir at the festival. He's internationally known as a vocal improvisor who has developed extended vocal techniques since the seventies. If you web search his name, you'll come up with a variety of mentions on jazz sites, sound art sites, and listings in discographies.

On the

Music_festivals page, observe that many genres (Jazz, Reggae, Country Music, Dance, etc) have festivals with articles in Wikipedia. However, the avant-garde genres are lumped together (Electronic/Electroacoustic/Experimental/Industrial/Noise/Sound Art) and only given links to outside sites. This may be a case of Systemic bias
against these genres.

While editors may consider certain avant-garde genres obscure, their communities and musicians pursue them with as much dedication as in more popular genres. The material may be obscure to some music listeners, but is not a danger to wikipedia. It helps maintain a comprehensive representation of music across stylistic boundaries.

Thanks for the welcome. The quality of my writing will hopefully improve with practice. --Ravelite 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A few points:
    • the evidence you cite for notability needs to be included in the article
    • you are free to edit the
      Music_festivals
      page to change the layout and links. It's less likely to be systematic bias than lack of interest in these categories from previous editors.
    • Lack of notability isn't a deletion policy (see
      WP:BIO we should apply it, but it seems a shame to remove articles on non-policy grounds when notability is arguable. Yomangani 11:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Pokémon by color

original research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)

This author is not notable enough to have this terribly misnamed article in addition to his biography. Integrate this into bio and delete. People can read his books if they want to know more.

WP is not a soapbox. -999 (Talk) 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was MERGE to

Sailor Crystal. TigerShark 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Star seed

delisted this from

WP:CSD-- — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge with
    Sailor Crystal - a starseed is a lesser form of a Sailor Crystal, and so it could be covered in the same article. - Malkinann 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with
    Sailor Crystal per above. — Deckiller 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per all. -- H·G (words/works) 07:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. --Kunzite 12:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merege as above. Davidpdx 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and DAB because, IIRC, starseeds are featured in Larry Niven's Known Space as a feature of the Outsiders. 132.205.45.148 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and possible Merge with
    Sailor Crystal. They are not exactly the same thing, but as a Sailor Crystal is a subtype of especially powerful/pure Star Seed, it would make sense, especially since as far as I can tell, the term "Sailor Crystal" was only used in the manga; in the anime, they used "true Star Seed" or something very close to that. Runa27 09:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • merge as above please Yuckfoo 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the best I can do. Kneejerk reaction was delete the lot of them, but after going through some of the articles and comments above, a merge would be appropriate. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Question - is there an anime-wiki which would be even more appropriate for this content to be transwikied to? -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Sailor Moon wiki has already created an entry. It's common info among fans of the show. --Kunzite 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the subject. Content to be dealt with by

Mailer Diablo 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Philip D. Reed

Non-notable bio. He served on many corporate boards, with success, but so what? So have thousands of other people in the world. Nothing especially notable to make him worthy of his own encyclopædia entry. Delete EuroSong talk 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should delete this as copyvio, (or a complete rewrite is nescessary) --Amists 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is a cut-and-paste as stated by Mr. Stephen above, however, I am an employee of that institution and am authorized to distribute it. Is there some form of boilerplate text I should use to indicate this and where can it be found? In any case, it is not a violation of copyright since I have permission.Richardjames444 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be an employee of the institution, but are you an employee who is authorized to release the copyright of corporate material? Typically that would be a very specific person working in a legal capacity. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, admitted fiction —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:16Z

Quidditch World Cup Results

I just went and checked my well-worn copy of Quidditch Through the Ages, and it does not contain a complete list of Quidditch World Cup winners. In other words, this list is original work (not research, because it must have been made up by the author (in one day at Hogwarts?)) NawlinWiki 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Brown Stein

I'm note sure if a trophy played for between two college teams justifies an entry ... please discuss !!! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). Pepsidrinka 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charity baptist church

No claim to notability. Short almost to speediable proportions, but sadly, I think it provides enough context to avoid it. Prodded, removed by anon without improvement. Morgan Wick 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rev. Nathan Rowan Speer

Notability in dispute. Very few ghits [24] & [25] --NMChico24 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Omnipotism

Neologism. --

Peta 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the content for another wiki, drop me a note - I'll undelete the material and send it to you. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series

All uncited research. Not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Directly from the talk page of the article: "The research originated from GameFAQs" - hardly an encylopedic source. Also nominating Jeigan (archetype), which is the same thing but a specific case. Wickethewok 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could the nominator state why GameFAQs is not an acceptable source? We can hardly expect a peer-reviewed paper in the Oxford Journal of Nintendo Studies. 69.108.49.138 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Please read
    WP:V for more info on verifiability. Note that anyone can submit any information to GameFAQs, which means we can't use it as a source. Also, its preferential that you create a Wikipedia account if you wish to participate on AFD - it makes it easier to keep track of who says what. Wickethewok 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You may save the content on your computer if you wish, thus preserving the content for your use. Wickethewok 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make encyclopedic. It should be made encyclopedic, rathering than deleted or transwikied. WikiBooks does allow game guides. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following is a quote from Jimbo Himself on 22 April in the computer and video games bookshelf talk page: " am unaware of any elementary school, high school, or college courses which require computer game walkthroughts as a text. Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation! Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go." Ace of Sevens 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that things being "agreed upon" by fans is not a reliable source of anything and is probably original research. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nabarl and Oguma sections. Like "Jeigan", "Nabarl" and "Oguma" are also widely accepted and used term among Fire Emblem fans. Nabarl and Oguma are analogous to Swordmaster and Hero. The Nabarl and Oguma sections of the article are long enough to be separate articles. They were originally separate articles. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused what your opinion is, Zanarukando. First you say you object to deletion, then you say "Make Encyclopedic" (whatever that means), and now you say you want to keep some specific part of it. What exactly is your vote/recommendation? Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds consistant to me. They are endorsing a keep with a rewrite to make this fit Wikipedia's goals better (ie remove fancruft). Ace of Sevens 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ok. So his opinion is a partial keep with a rewrite - gotcha. Wickethewok 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cars Inc

Probable hoax. If not then definitely NN auto insurance agency. Fails

WP:CORP. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English name of the Persian Language

The article likely contains copyright violations (notice anonymous edit [26] four months after [27] was written), does not maintain a NPOV (written as a position paper), and lacks references. --jonsafari 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: Vote stacking may have taken place. Please examine closely. -
· 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: If there's nothing to merge, delete. Redirect unnecessary, since it's not a likely search term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe I need to be a little more direct about this. The whole article was copied from another website. If you revert it back to before this copyvio, it would be another copyvio (from Farhangestan's announcement). –jonsafari 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Zereshk. Shervink 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
  • Keep as per Zereshk. Khorshid 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with minor edits. This does not qualify as OR, it's verifiable, and the POV could use some editing, but is nowhere near deletion-levels. This is a topic considered important enough to warrant an official statement no less than three times in modern Iranian history (once by Reza Shah, once by Mohammad Reza Shah, and now once by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature), and has serious repercussions in the academic community. The page should stay.--Spectheintro 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)spectheintro[reply]
  • Comment Why shouldn't it be merged into
    · 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Because of article length. The issue is complex and confusing for many people and it would be nice to have a separate article to avoid that. Khorshid 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Basically, everything that's not POV-pushing in that article can be condensed into three or four sentences. And those three or four sentences already exist in Persian language#Nomenclature. By the way, the article should surely also describe who does use "Farsi" (e.g. Ethnologue and other linguists); the lack of such references clearly mark the POV agenda here. And I sense a contradiction: The article implies the problem only became one after 1979, whereas Spectheintro above notes that it had occasioned official declarations earlier, so the problem must have been around for much longer. (Implying that an opposing viewpoint is very recent is of course a well-known cheap propaganda trick of POV-pushing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to say merge at first but I think khorshid has a point. The article is too long to be merged with Persians language it deserve its own page. Gol 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deletendo. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiTendoFi

This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Delete per

WP:N, WP:VAIN. NisMax 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If it's little different than the previous version, it can be speedied. [[28]]. --Chaser T 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:WEB. Dionyseus 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The site isn't notable enough. Considering DSmeet was a bigger and more popular site yet and it had its article removed, I don't see why this one should get one. --Sakurina 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotion of a trivial website --Killaferra 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Davidpdx 19:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:WEB. -- Alias Flood 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:WEB. -- ebradford 18:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom and Dionyseus. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The site is very unique, has a very large member count, and is somewhat important to the DS community due to its devotion to Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, and also due to its highly helpful features. --Gaming King 22:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re:Gaming King This site isn't unique. There are numerous NDS friend code sites out there. As mentioned below, DSMEET is one of them who had a Wikipedia article deleted. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the creator of WiTendoFi that asked for it to be deleted. As mentioned in the discussion regarding DSMEET's Wikipedia article, Wikipedia is not a web directory... nor is WiTendoFi a notable enough site to warrant such an article. This article is nothing more than an advertisement for WiTendoFi and as such fails to meet Wikipedia criteria. Even you admit it's only "somewhat important." That's definitely not notable enough to be here.NisMax 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They didn't like DSmeet it when DSmeet had one of these, I remember that, and DSM had more users and features then compared to WiTendoFi now. agahnim 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

masterka 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Haluwelkyu

Deprodded by article's creator (who is himself a likely sockpuppet). If this isn't a hoax, it's still a dicdef.

WP:NOT a dictionary.--Chaser T 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was clown delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Mass

Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. For becoming "increasingly common," the so-called "illicit" clown mass is in general not widely talked about.[29] It looks like there are at least a couple verifiable incidents in the U.S. in which a priest and/or his assistants were dressed as clowns for mass, but that doesn't make a "clown mass" practice so much as "masses in which a participant was dressed as a clown." Even if we considered the priests the subjects here (though the article seems more intent on attacking a heretical "practice"), the "most well known" recent priest/clown that the article mentions is apparently not that well known at all.[30] Perhaps if we really dug around we could construct a list of unusual mass costumes, simply given the sheer number of priests around the world and the number of ways in which they could express their own individual approach to the faith or simply try a gimmick to draw attention to the parish. Postdlf 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Dionyseus 05:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom-pretty weird, actually Michael 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. "A Clown Mass is typically viewed as an illicit celebration of Mass...the antics are often seen as detracting from the sanctity of the celebration, and it is likely the celebrant commits a sin by celebrating it." Woah! Definitely a POV candidate for cleanup, at best. Google lists 316 unique hits (not counting Wikipedia pages). It's a known topic, but not well known. -- H·G (words/works) 07:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From doing a quick Google search, I can't see more than a few instances where anyone has performed a Clown Mass, besides the incident from 2002 that apparently got this article started. (Also, the picture appears to be a copyvio from the same page, despite the assertion that it can be licensed under the GFDL.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tagged the image as having no copyright license; the uploader had no basis for asserting GFDL. Also, the uploader's image description really explains the agenda of this article: "It is important that Catholics be made aware of such illicit practices..." Postdlf 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yes, it's pretty darn weird. Davidpdx 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think this is weird? You should see the other AFD I posted recently... Postdlf 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an urban legend and follows the pattern with alarmist tone and no verifiable sources. --Xrblsnggt 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could this be moved to a Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense page? It might not be encyclopedic but it did make me chuckle:-) mikemoto 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be my guest.  : ) Just keep in mind that the image is probably a copyvio, so just move the text. Postdlf 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Hanuman Das 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has a distinct POV slant that needs to be cleaned up but there is apparently some "controversy" in this, especially among conservative Catholics. That controversy is notable. I know blogs are not good sources but here are a few things that give a sense of the apparent controversy.
This Catholic Blog Nov 18, 2002 has info about a Papal mass where apparently a "clown" led part of it.
This Blog references an article from Fidelity Monthly, a Catholic Magazine and includes the follow dictionary reference and additional source CLOWN MASS: Liturgical innovation comparable to the innovation of Gregorian chant; relevant: “A clown liturgy may sound sacrilegious but those who attended a special Mass at St. Agnes Church described it as moving, uplifting, spirited and colorful” (Catholic Herald, Milwaukee, February 16, 1984).
This blog complains about an Episcopalian Clown Mass
This site uses the "Clown Mass" as an example of what is wrong with Vatican II
And finally, an Episcopal web news mag has an article about the NYC Clown Mass Agne27 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peruvian parcher fish

Hoax: no results on Google for either "Peruvian parcher fish" or the likely misspelling, "Peruvian archer fish."

raves/rants) 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Kelly

Subject appears to be a non-notable adult model or non-notable website of adult model. Deleted previously as non-notable or spam, see first nomination. hateless 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Muhammad Amin al-Hasanat Shah al-Qurashi

Aside from the initial (unsourced) claim that he was "one of the greatest gnostics and spiritual leaders of his time", the article does little to assert the importance or significance of this man above any other run-of-the-mill Islamic scholar. It's actually quite hard to pick out any relevant bits from the article, because it seems to be 90% waffle. Much seems to focus on the achivements and positions of this man's relatives. The subject was politically active in the '60s, but so were a lot of people. I don't see that this man has any special notability. Only 24 Google hits. Aside from all that.. the whole article is extremely POV and smacks of religious preaching: something that does not belong in an encyclopædia. (e.g final paragraph, which begins "Shaykh Amin al-Hasanat is the rightful torchbearer of truth and spirituality"...). Delete EuroSong talk 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless someone is able to rewrite it to be usable (I tried briefly, since it sort of connects to some interests of mine, but I'd need to be more awak at least). BigHaz 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio[31]. Tagging it as such now. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Zos 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikiair

Fails both

WP:CORP, reads like advertising, and is largely crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. DS 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLaZeD (comic series)

Fails the Google test - cannot find it at all - and no other related terms return more than one or two results. Possible hoax, or simply vanity.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, specifically to expand upon this entry:

raves/rants) 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dan Koshute

Non-notable biography: the name returns only 26 hits on Google, while "Daniel Koshute" returns only 55. I see no other evidence for notability.

raves/rants) 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I whole-heartedly disagree. I decided to look up Dan's bands and make a page on Wikipedia because people ask me about Dan Koshute and want information on him. Everything I wrote on that page is absolutely one-hundred-percent factual. You say it's not a notable biography, but people can't look for him if we don't have something for him. He's done a lot of studio recording and he's an unfathomable talent. He plays with lots of people and does tons of gigs, so people would very much benefit from having a source of info avaiable on Wikipedia. If it gets deleted then there's nothing I can do about that but I will be deeply personally insulted as I put a lot of heart and soul into that webpage. There's no word for it other than injustice. I'll puke if in a year Dan Koshute becomes a popular radio artist and you guys deleted my page on him. How big do you have to be to be on Wikipedia? I know artists with ten well-selling independent albums, but they don't get play on VH1 or Clearchannel, does that mean that no one would want information on them or that they're unworthy of being talked about? I can't concieve of any serious ill that having this informative available would do. It's not a vanity piece what-so-ever since I'm not Dan Koshute and I don't even know him personally. I've just seen him perform. I'm nothing but a passionate fan, case in point see the glowing review I gave to Rambling Ron Boone. --AboveGroundSound 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, I'm not disputing the factual accuracy or validity of any of the information in the article: I'm arguing that Dan Koshute is not a notable enough artist to warrant an article of his own in this encyclopedia. Whether he is famous in a year's time or not is irrelevant, really, since
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
: we live in the here and now, so we need to look at the situation as it is at present. This article need not be deleted if you can provide evidence that Dan Koshute is now famous, notable or significant.
On that note, please don't take offense at these proceedings and their outcome, whatever it may be. They are in no way intended to be a personal insult or slight on your ability as a contributor - I, myself, have had more than a few of my edits reverted and/or deleted entirely. Nearly every long-time contributor at Wikipedia has. Deletions, such as this, are a normal part of the Wikipedia process, and are never intended to as an insult.
raves/rants) 08:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

More google results might come up for The Rhodora as far as the many places they play. Though I tried it and it's also the name of a poem. If I merged Dan with pages on The Rhodora and/or other related bands or rising stars would that be any better? --AboveGroundSound 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a worthwhile suggestion, but I don't believe that would be an adequate solution. Eliminating various search terms from the above search leaves less than a thousand that don't explicitly refer to the Emerson poem, with an unknown number of those remaining relevant to Mr Koshute. Since The Rhodora's only relationship with the band is in name, they aren't close enough to warrant a page merge as suggested. Sorry.
raves/rants) 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:MUSIC. My username and even my non-notable real name has more Ghits than Dan Koshute. Amazon.com search shows no albums or singles by Dan Koshute. Dionyseus 08:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Under what condition can I prove that Dan Koshute is currently notable? It's obvious to me based on the amount he's done. I really can't accept a place that would cut down something like this that has only potential for doing good. I won't be using wikipedia again. --AboveGroundSound 08:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted way would be to provide outside sources that also assert his significance, such as a major newspaper or magazine. It's just the way we've done things for a long, long time - we are, of course, attempting to build the best encyclopedia we can. I'm sorry this has left you dissatisfied with Wikipedia, but we simply can't accept material indiscriminately.
raves/rants) 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, read the criteria at
WP:MUSIC. Dionyseus 09:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete, nonnotable (yet). NawlinWiki 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. And if he ever becomes notable, I'll eat my own knee. -- GWO
  • Delete. Sorry, AboveGround. I took a long hard look at this one, as I'm very interested in music pages myself and many of my interests lie with some of the more obscure acts. However, I have to agree that this chap isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would therefore agree with all the others that this article should be deleted. However, it's not a badly written article and therefore I'd encourage you not to give up as an editor, as you could make some very valuable contributions in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaise Joshua (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 July 2006
  • Delete' -- Any music/band/people article that starts "...2006 graduate of Mt. Lebanon High School..." has some major hurdles before being notable. Sorry, not yet. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OmniCode

There are a lot of self-classification codes, like the Geek Code, out there. They're fun to make. However, this one doesn't appear to be widely used; a Google search for "LAEN+omnicode" - an identifier which should appear in most such codes - picks up only 40 unique hits, and a search for sites linking to it picks up mostly User Friendly diary pages. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn per nom. --Huon 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the creator of the OmniCode, and the test used in the AfD is flawed. It makes the assumption that only English speakers use this, while the community this started with at User Friendly is extremely international. Further, that Google search only finds those whose sole language is English.In addition, a Google search for "omnicode site:userfriendly.org" turns up 17,300 hits, showing the popularity within that community.Searching Google and including the last few version numbers ends up with well over 1000 hits. In any case, I won't argue further the AfD, but votes on this should not be based on the flawed logic of Zetawoof. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creator has announced that work has begun on version 1.0, and tools to create and decode it, to be released before the end of 2006." We are all waiting breathlessly. Do hurry, K3wL haX0r! Delete --Xrblsnggt 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I won't argue the deletion (look at my history...I didn't create this page, and I am a regular 'cleaner' of crap pages on Wikipedia), but there really is no need to be insulting. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The nomination is only arguing lack of notability, and I disagree with that as per KickStart. The "categories" section is probably overkill, but there's enough in there for a good stub. And I expect that there really are people out there asking themselves "what's this OmniCode thing?". Andrew Rodland 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That OmniCode is multilingual and used primarily within a community of geeks doesn't mean the article isn't useful in Wikipedia. --Heavyphotons 06:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it used anywhere other than the User Friendly forums, though? (I couldn't find it in use anywhere else.) If not, then I don't see how it's notable to the world at large. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" (removing the userfriendly.org site entirely) shows 966 hits, and there is no requirement to list 'gadgeteer' in the code block. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --Robert Wall 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --Lord Lizard 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew --
    L1nX 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed. The users of the code are multilingual, so a restriction to English skews the search result, and a simple Google search shows approximately 24700 hits. Ayelmar 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The restriction to English is simply an attempt to pick up some sort of characteristic string that identifies uses of the code. If you can come up with a better alternative, please mention it. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As stated above, "OmniCode -site:userfriendly.org gadgeteer" shows nearly 1000 that aren't on the User Friendly site at all, which is a clear dispute of your claim that you couldn't find any. 'gadgeteer' is certainly something that is extremely unlikely to be included elsewhere in combination with 'omnicode'. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too agree that the criteria being offered as basis for deletion are flawed.Viktorin
  • Keep Due to lack of correct arguments for deletion I have been reading through the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. To make it short: I can't find anything that explains why this article should be deleted. It is not bogus, it does not insult or violate personally or any laws, it is valuable Information (in the meaning of being correct facts and undisputable, and being searched by at least myself - after finding Omnicode and knowing GeekCode, I was curious to find other codes and read through them - I don't know if the wiki page existed at this time, I can't remember, but I wanted to know - and that's the reason why it should be there. Unfortunately the list at self-classification codes is rather empty. To get back to the deletion, I find reasons why the article should NOT be deleted but even expanded (key word: stub with potential, maybe subject branch (but not a minor one since the main article is inappropriate for detail information since it's more a category summary due to its nature). -- QCS as 84.185.210.203 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, don't have a login at en.wiki)[reply]
    • There is an undertone to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that suggests that the subject of an article should be noteworthy - not merely valuable information, but information that would be valuable in an online encyclopedia. (To quote the section on abuse of deletion process: "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existance on Wikipedia. That is, its subject matter is notable, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship.") I think OmniCode does reach that threshold and that a deletion isn't warranted, and said as much; other editors believe it doesn't and is. --Heavyphotons 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also agree that the criteria used to justify deletion are flawed. -- Illarkul 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a subject that's of interest to thousands of people, it's notable enough. The fact that it's only a limited community is irrelevant. Notability isn't a policy, and OmniCode has a fairly long history and a lot of fans.
    Wikipedia is not paper. Of course, I'm biased - I once started writing an OmniCode encoder before more important things intervened. Keep. ::Didactylos 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - The criteria and especially the search terms for deletion are flawed. On the subject of notability (which may or may not matter), I'd state that it has a non-negligible international user base spreading beyond the User Friendly forum, which I deduce from e.g. traffic statistics for the decoder. --IByte 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails
    crystal ball. The Geek Code article wasn't created until 2003. Get used all over the Internet, then c'mon back. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

SkaterGames

Fails

WP:WEB, extremely few Google hits, no Alexa rank. Prodded, prod removed without comment. Delete --Huon 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alternative Perspectives of Zionism and Racism

An

Zionism and Racism, Anti-Zionism, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete both.

Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Kim Mizuno

Also nominating Michael Bisco

Neither of these subjects meet

WP:BIO Ste4k 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James Brazelton

The article claims no assertion of notability byond his role in the murder trial of

WP:BIO Eluchil404 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Yomangani 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sanje Lanka Private Limited

Non-notable company, spam, advert. Rob 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Trish

Was tagged as a speedy, but claims to be skateboarding legend. A quick glance at Google results seems to show he's mentioned as featuring on one or more skating DVDs/Videos. I think a speedy is premature. Taking it here for further examination. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Form-less Document Systems

Spam & advert for nn company. I've already listed the companys advert page for delete. Rob 09:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Theo Valich

Article was created by Theo Valich himself. [32] Fails

vanity. Dionyseus 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was a consensus to delete the article.

Mailer Diablo 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Pokémon by species

Wholly unencyclopedic trivia. We already have

List of Pokémon by name (as well as several other lists at List of Pokémon, so we really don't need the "species" (which is never mentioned outside the info screen in the games) in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

James K. Quinn

He is claimed to be the co-chairperson of some organization. Is that a valid claim of notability? - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jane de Almeida

Resume of professor who does not obviously meet

WP:PROF. Needs massive clean-up even if she is notable enough to be kept. Eluchil404 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:PROF. Dionyseus 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, seems that the wikipedia criteria is only about people who lives in US or speak in english and...if you don't realize, there is a rest of the world and a place called Brazil where people work, write and live... Beststudent 19:06, July 15, 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Teapot Dome scandal Ryanjunk 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teapot dome affair

This article appears to be a poorly written POV fork of Teapot Dome scandal with nothing to be merged. Ste4k 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A redirect is inappropriate here, as

Thief (computer game series) context, and actually refers to other things. Mangojuicetalk 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mechanist

We're working on cleaning up the Thief articles, but a sect from the second game doesn't deserve it's own page. --BradBeattie 10:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect it, then. Sandstein 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect at best. Draft it userspace and then bring it back to the big show. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thalir

Advert/spam for nn company. Rob 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good info about where I can buy the book - point taken. But nonetheless this is a spam. It is asking you to decide to buy the book and telling you where from. It even lists how much the darn thing costs. If I look up 'Gone with the Wind', I can find a lovely article, but not that I can purchase it from Amazon for $9.95-. If the article contained detailed info about what the stories were about, then maybe. But as far as I can see, this is spam, pure and simple. Of course, the great thing about AfD is that I'm simply asking for a Delete. Everyone can have their say etc. Please vote for a Keep if you disagree that the article is spam. Thanks for your comments. Rob 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. Rob 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No Guru 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tdi group

Advert for nn company. Recent edits have removed much of the spam, but nevertheless I cannot see what makes this company notable. Article reads like an advert and nothing indicates any notability other than they sell stuff. They have also listed themselves under categories they do not appear to belong to, e.g. electronics manufacturers, at least based on the contents of the article. Rob 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn company, I wrote the article and agree with its deletionbodlang 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and original author's consent above. Would prefer Speedy under
    CSD G7 but doesn't qualify because an editor "other than its original author has made substantial edits." --Satori Son 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

talk/email 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Digitalism

Neologism that is only used in this context in this wikipedia article.--

Peta 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, the term Digitalism was first coined in an issue of Wired (magazine) (which is referenced in th article) and has been used by increasing numbers of other people since. The article could use some cleanup though. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 344,000 google hits on the word "digitalism". They may not have been used in the same sense as the article is using them, though, but clearly it's a word that's being used. --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to digitalis. "Digitalism" originally refers to poisoning with foxglove, and this is really the only established sense that isn't a cyber-buzzword neologism. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Loremaster 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Browsing through the first few hundred entries in a Google search seems to indicate two things: (1) a lot of people seem to like the word, and (2) they all seem to have a different idea of what it means. I see nothing to support this article, and nothing to even support any common definition that an article could be built from. Fan-1967 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at best, this is dicdef. I agree with the research of Fan-1967, though I'm not sure what basis for deletion is described - neo? nonsense? Tychocat 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way neologisms deserve articles is when they have become notable concepts. Since this word does not represent one concept, but seems to be thousands, none of which have any widespread currency, I think
    WP:NEO applies. Fan-1967 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agreed. Tychocat 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to cleanup and expand with
    WP:V. Just because there is more than one usage doesnt mean it cant be verified in a few of those usages. If nothing is done to the article in 4 days I'll change my vote to delete. Zos 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Most of the top Google hits seem to be about the musician. I don't see any evidence this term is anything other than a loose blanket term for various scientific, philosophical, religious, et al ideas (possibly) coined by the author of the Wired article. This is reflected in the Wikipedia article, as it's just a listing of articles on such loosely related ideas. At this point, that puts it in the category of uninformative neologism. Tox 08:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on the diversity of things that show up in the search, my guess is most of them are unrelated to the Wired article, and are independent inventions of the word with different meanings. Fan-1967 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Tox. -- Jeff3000 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to Delete, though if the article must be kept I would support a Move to "Digitalism (philosophy)" or "Digitalism (religion)" to avoid ambiguity.--Rosicrucian 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No Guru 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macforum

Non-notable internet forum (43 registered users at the time of nomination). Was prodded as such and deprodded anonymously without comment. ~ Matticus78 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Merging can be proposed separately and debated on talk pages in this case. Mangojuicetalk 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1982 in India

The page is practically empty and has been since its incarnation in 2004. If deleted, nothing is lost, really, but I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone expands it. Punkmorten 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not sure I have a problem with this type of article. It seems to be very useful, and allows more detail than just a vast timeline. AdamBiswanger1 14:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its present state is very useful..? (Note that the AFD is not about the type of article) Punkmorten 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I think that to delete it would only be counterproductive, especially with an article that has both an enormous potential for growth and an enormous number of potential contributors. It's not 1982 in Northwestern Togo. I'm not a fan of keeping short articles such as this, but when an article will inevitably grow, and the usefulness is so overwhelming, I have to vote keep. AdamBiswanger1 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added this project to the "to do" list for
Wikiproject History of India AdamBiswanger1 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge and redirect per Eluchil404. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of series. There is a similar series in Australia which could be used as a model for expansion. You could expand it by listing leaders during 1982, notable events that occurred during the year, births and deaths etc. I am sure that there are resources available especially in India which would allow for the expansion of this article. It is an important country. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and write up. Ramseystreet 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as reposted content.--Andeh 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl

This article is a repost. Anonymous ips are removing the speedy deletion tag. Here's the link to the second nomination: [33]Dionyseus 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Saval Foods

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

RomleyOmley.tk

Delete - Advertisement. Article was deprodded by author, so bringing it to AFD.

Brian G 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gamestotal.com

Delete

unverifiable. Prod was rmoved without comment. Gwernol 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Please hold any lengthy discussions on the talk page, so that the AfD will not become too cluttered. Likewise, please check this AfD's talk page for more discussion. --Philosophus T 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This theory is not a generally recognised notable scientific theory. It doesn't meet Wikipedia policy for notability for scientific theories, not having been published in a proper scientific journal.
Moreover, the way it is written is almost completely unintelligible, with too much jargon that is unique to the theory the article is meant to explain.
See the article's talk page for the concerns that have been raised and the manner in which they have been handled. Edits attempting to "fix" it are simply reverted by ardent proponents of the theory.
So far as I am aware, this is not the first time either that this article has come up for deletion. However, I do believe that the proponents should be given the opportunity to respond. So over to the community!
  • Update I was right, in fact this article was deleted before, for similar reasons, and was re-introduced with a hyphen in the name so as to bypass Wikipedia policy. See this record of the process. What happens now? Is this spam, since nothing has changed materially since the last deletion?--Byrgenwulf 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belive the article becomes a candidate for Speedy Deltion. Best to ask an admin. Jefffire 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I find one of those? Byrgenwulf 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just do I suppose... I'll ask one on your behalf.
Since there isn't anyone who remember the original, we can't be sure it is a direct recreation under the Speedy Deletion criterion. However, it is likey that this will count against it in the current AfD. Doesn't seem worth the effort basicaly as the article will probably get deleted anyway. Jefffire 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The deleted article was insufficiently referenced and contained only a few paragraphs, none of which were reproduced in the new article. Since the articles were not "substantially identical", the recreation of deleted material criterion does not apply. The current title includes a hyphen because the name of the theory includes a hyphen; see The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory. The deleted title was incorrect. Tim Smith 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: Delete --Byrgenwulf 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally advisable to make it explicit in an AfD that's likely to contain a lot of text, as this one already does. :) Tevildo 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBAnyone reading slurs on my personal character here is asked to please read the discussion on the talk page, which should help put things in a bit more perspective.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original approach was to try to edit the article. However, Asmodeus, DrL and others simply reverted absolutely every attempt to try to make it more legible and balanced, even referenced concerns, as being "vandalism". As they made the article completely uneditable, and even removed tags saying that there was a dispute about quality/neutrality/factual accuracy (when it was empirically obvious there was a dispute like that), this seemed the next logical move: that article is being used as a soapbox. In my sandbox is an alternative, more balanced article following the usual layout for these "disputed theories": if you have suggestions, do add them to my talk page. --Byrgenwulf 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bergenwulf, there are a lot of people interested in the CTMU. Take false and unsubstantiated accusations (e.g., "socks") to the discussion page (or, more appropriately, to the trash). Your attempts to "edit" the article began with the insertion of links to "pseudoscience" and "crank" and escalated to attempts to equate the CTMU with "Creationism". When the other editors wanted you to slow down and discuss changes, you balked (after all that might have taken hours as opposed to seconds) and threatened to call in the moderators. When the moderators didn't respond to your editing emergency quickly enough and you were thwarted in your attempts to insert your anti-Creationist platform (into an article that has nothing to do with Creationism), you threatened to nominate the page for deletion. Interestingly, you started out by saying the article belonged in Wikipedia, just needed a few changes (according to you). So clearly you have used this Wikipedia procedure in a totally coercive manner and because you were unsuccessful with regard to both the speed and content of your anticipated wholesale changes, we now have this page and this debate. DrL 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wishes to see the sordid details of this petty little saga is more than welcome to review the history, and the talk pages, of the CTMU, and count how many times I mentioned "creationism" (none). I did go in heavy-handed at first, but I rapidly toned it down. But, as usual, we aren't debating the theory, we are debating the article. My major complaint is that "disputed" tags were just removed, on the grounds that they were "vandalism", and not an empirically true description of a state of affairs. This is soapboxing, and an attempt to take out the fly swatter to squelch critics (a metaphor Langan once used about those who disagree with the CTMU). Why not address the article itself, DrL, instead of me? Do you deny that it is in need of revision? Moreover, while at first I thought the article did merit inclusion, my subsequent reading of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc., as well as a consideration of the popular press attention (focusing on Langan, not his "theory") has convinced me otherwise.BTW: should this and DrL's comment not be moved to the talk page as well? I'll leave that to someone more experience than I.--Byrgenwulf 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TABLE

The following table has been identified as a confused or dishonest attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community. The problems with it are as follows:

1. Langan is not "discussing" the CTMU in Wikipedia. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, and is notable in his own right. It is those who wish to dispute the CTMU, or declare it non-notable, who must show their credentials and prove their authority.

2. Again, Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, not merely the owner of a website which talks about the CTMU or which contains archived materials regarding it. This is a very important distinction which the table fails to reflect.

3. Langan did not write the Wikipedia article on the CTMU. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, the notable, widely-publicized theory ABOUT which the article was written.

In short, the table below is irrelevant or worse, misrepresenting the situation at hand and encouraging the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines.

Maybe that's why nobody signed off on it. Asmodeus 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -->

CTMU Article Wikipedia guidance
Langan is of limited means and largely self-taught. Beware false authority
Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree.
Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
(Langan's) first paper on the theory, "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", appeared in the December 1989–January 1990 issue of Noesis, the journal of the Noetic Society (now the Mega Society)"
(Langan was editor of the Noetic Society when the cited paper was published in Noesis [34].)

Cites Langan's self-published works on his website. 		The first question to ask yourself is,
"What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?"

Anyone can post anything on the web.
Cites Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID)

Cites the Christopher Langan biography at ISCID.
ISCID and PCID, parts of the same oganization, of which [Langan is a "fellow", have an obvious agenda. 		Also ask yourself:
Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?

Check multiple sources. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)

  • Still Neutral. As philosophy, it's just warmed-over Neoplatonism that ignores the past 2000 years of metaphysical thought, but our duty as editors is not to assess it as philosophy, but as an encyclopaedia article. It _does_ assert the notability of the subject adequately, although more than one link to the claimed plethora of media articles and interviews would help. It's rather too POV at the moment, but deletion is not a solution to that problem - see Orcadian for a similar example. The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay. Tevildo 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response If you actually think that the CTMU is "nothing but warmed over Neoplatonism", Tevildo, then you obviously have a few holes in your knowledge of philosophy. Similarly, if you think that the CTMU ignores 2000 years of progress in metaphysics, then you should have concentrated a bit more when reading Langan's paper(s). As you probably know, you couldn't even begin to coherently justify either of these assertions. By making this kind of sweeping, unwarranted statement here and now, you're merely encouraging others to vote down an article whose only crime is that it takes a bit of honest effort to understand. By the way, the disputed article contained plenty of links confirming notability and verifiability; they've simply been disputed and tampered with by those who don't appreciate their content. ABC News, Popular Science...come on, give us a break. Either those are reputable sources, or Wikipedia is really just an appendage of academia which limits its sources to a small set of journals under direct academic control. I don't think that's the case, and if you reflect on it for a moment, I think you'll have to agree with me. (If I'm wrong, please quote the Wikipedia policy statement that effects this limitation - I've looked hard and can't find it.) Asmodeus 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will concede that no student of philosophy can put together an argument against the ad lapidem, so will decline your implied offer. This AfD is too long anyway. I would still urge, however, everyone who reads it to take into account all the opinions expressed, and make their judgement accordingly. Tevildo 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I think one of the biggest problems with CTMU is that the bombastic and needlessly sesquipedalian language in which it's worded does lend credence to the theory. However, it seems most of the criticism of the theory arises from this single complaint, which says nothing of the theory's validity. Regardless, it has garnered considerable media attention and is certainly noteworthy in that respect. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article provides an overview of the theory which is free of the needlessly sesquipedalian language, and in that respect I also find the article useful. Those who wish to criticize the theory should create a "Criticism" section, not simply request to delete the article. Tarcieri 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as gibberish. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and the few fragments that seemed coherent enough to read and not statements singing the praise of the inventor were incorrect ("all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic" overlooks fuzzy logic, "the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological" overlooks Gödel's incompleteness theorems if I understand correctly). If the popular press links are valid, they also should be linked from the relevant press sites in any rewrite, not the invetor's mirror. --Christopher Thomas 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. Jefffire 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do Not Delete - The Wikipedia article entitled "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) is subject to ongoing vandalism, largely by one highly dedicated person (and now by others).
Christopher Langan and his theory, the CTMU, have been the recipients of extensive media coverage. Sources include ABC News, Esquire Magazine, Popular Science, and other journalistic periodicals and television documentaries which seriously investigate and employ fact-checkers regarding the material they cover. Both Langan and the CTMU were featured in virtually every instance. The CTMU is a complex, and in my opinion valid, theory. While some laymen complain that they cannot understand the CTMU, there is no reason to believe that this does not owe at least in part to their own negative attitudes and low level of expertise in its subject matter (logic and metaphysics, with broad implications regarding science in general). While there is no expert consensus on the CTMU, neither has it been found wanting. The theory has been out there for a number of years and is therefore eligible for peer review; if this has thus far been inadequate, that is certainly not the fault of the theory or its author, and does not detract from the theory itself.
The editor calling himself "Byrgenwulf" appears to be negatively obsessed with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. What began as an offhand attempt to tar the CTMU and its author with misdirected, unverifiable and decidedly non-neutral epithets like "pseudoscience" and "crank" has now seemingly escalated into a full-time vendetta, to the extent that one wonders where Byrgenwulf finds the time to eat and sleep. He appears to have no understanding of Wikipedia policy; even when various aspects of this policy are patiently explained to him, he attempts to restore past edits, or rewordings thereof, which have already been found in violation.
Although Byrgenwulf has repeatedly claimed that he could effortlessly rip the CTMU to shreds were he so-inclined, he has been caught red-handed in a number of critical errors regarding that theory; and although he claims to have thoroughly read Langan's paper in PCID, he has boldly denied that it contains things which it can be plainly seen to contain (sometimes after falsely stating that he has carefully searched for them). Unfortunately, he appears immune to the sort of embarrassment that anyone else would feel under similar circumstances, merely redoubling his destructive efforts in retaliation. In short, he seems to have no idea what the CTMU is, what it does, how it does it, or for that matter why it doesn't do it (if that is indeed the case), and perhaps for these very reasons, appears hell-bent on sabotaging its Wikipedia entry.
As I understand it, Wikipedia does not consider this to be acceptable behavior for its contributors. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that I have better things to do than ride this article 24/7 to keep Byrgenwulf from corrupting it, and to reverse the falsehoods, innuendos, and accusations he nevertheless manages to plant in it against Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that if the Wikipedia moderators were to read this discussion and explore the history of edits, they would quickly verify the truth of everything I've just written, and deal with Byrgenwulf and his accomplices as they deserve. But meanwhile, in apparent denial of this very possibility, Byrgenwulf persists.
Needless to say, the personal misgivings and bad feelings of Byrgenwulf et al are not enough to justify repetitive attacks against an accurate, legitimate, and informative Wikipedia entry. And now, to make matters worse, after Byrgenwulf has tallied a string of edits the likes of which Wikipedia has seldom seen, we have an additional flurry of negative edits, dispute tags, and so on, claiming that, for example, ABC News - which repeatedly ran a 20-minute segment on Langan and his theory - is an "unverifiable source". Such protestations are utterly ridiculous. It seems that a tiny handful of critics (or sockpuppets, or fellow travelers trying to strike a blow for their pet philosophy, or whomever) have taken it upon themselves to change history, declare all of Langan's media coverage one big "unreliable source", pretend that the CTMU was not mentioned in those articles and television segments, and so on ad nauseam.
This article was carefully reviewed for verifiability and NPOV well prior to Byrgenwulf's initial incursion. It was one of the best sources for a lucid overall introduction to a unique and arguably very promising theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism or "Intelligent Design Creationism" but merely had the misfortune to be published in an ID-sympathetic journal. In fact, as its author states, the theory was intended to give both sides of the evolution debate a common framework for ultimate reconciliation, something which is very badly, and very obviously, needed by all concerned.
I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. DrL 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
the CTMU's inventor and a couple pages directly related to him. Anville 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that I did not edit the CTMU page prior to Byrgenwulf's initial vandalism. DrL 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    WP:SOAP seems to apply here, apparently. Tevildo 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - DO NOT DELETE The CTMU is a valuable intellectual contribution which has been erroneously, and in my opinion foolishly, targeted for attack on philosophical and opinionative grounds. It's not easy to understand without the proper background, but that means absolutely nothing, since the same can be said of many of the other legitimate theories covered in Wikipedia. For anyone who knows the relevant technical fields, it displays adequate conceptual integrity - probably far more than the vast majority of what one encounters in the paradox-ridden field of analytic philosophy and the modern philosophy of science - and is unquestionably unique in both form and application. On the other hand, if you can't understand it, then why not do everybody a favor and leave it up for those who can? [By the way, I think it's important that voters know that this vote has not been presented by a "professional philosopher of physics", as Byrgenwulf claims to be on the discussion page. On searching the web, I got a couple of hits on "byrgenwulf". One of them leads to a registered contributor on an anti-ID website. In his personal bio, this person describes himself as a 22-year-old college student from South Africa. Now, while I grant that this may not be the Byrgenwulf that is currently wreaking havoc with the CTMU entry, it is highly probable on orthographic grounds alone (not to mention that he lists "the philosophy of physics" among his interests). This tells me that Byrgenwulf is probably not a professional philosopher of physics, as he claims to be, but just another college kid, perhaps a first-year grad student, drunk on the seemingly boundless knowledge that he has greedily guzzled from the brimming well of academe, no doubt including an introductory course on modern philosophy which devoted almost an entire class period to Godel, whose writings Byrgenwulf has egregiously misapplied to the CTMU (see discussion page), thus displaying that he understands precisely nothing about it. Personally, I find this perfectly consistent with his puerile behavior and the kindergarten level of his criticism. So much for the motivation behind this up/down vote.] Asmodeus 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please refrain from personal attacks -
      WP:NPA refers. Whatever Byrgenwulf's professional qualifications may be, his views appear to be shared by most of the other contributors to this AfD to date. Tevildo 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
CommentUser:Asmodeus has likewise only edited the CTMU article and articles relating to its inventor and his high IQ society.--Byrgenwulf 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- GWO
  • Keep - Do Not Delete - Its controversial nature is already noted in the article itself, and the text of the article reinforces this notice through the use of Langan's name throughout it. I don't know why the author's carefulness with regard to highlighting the controversial status of the CTMU through the body of the article itself should be held up as a strike against both it and him. What has not been noted in the argument over this article is whether or not Progress In Information, Complexity And Design is a peer reviewed journal, regardless of what institute publishes it. If McDonald's, for whatever reason, began publishing a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, its mathematical contents would still be peer-reviewed. I don't know why complaints which amount to a request for recategorization have to take the form of a motion for deletion. As far as the jargon issue is concerned, the external links should supply the needed information. I would, however, advise that the link to the "20/20" interview be removed, as its text is somewhat inconsistent with the content of the CTMU itself. --Danielmryan 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's only edit. Tevildo 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Thanks for the note. I included that advice as a constructive suggestion which, I hope, would add to comprehension of the article in dispute. (I'll leave the next iteration of the chorusing to Joywords.) -- Danielmryan 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does the theory explain sockpuppets?
          (Talk) 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • To quote Alan Sokal, "As a physicist, I am not impressed." Delete as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. Anville 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly the piece is openly a hypothesis and intelligent people can read and make up their own mind about its relevance or cogency. Enough people find it cogent and relevant enough to warrant its insertion. I vote not to delete it and to let time be the ultimate vote, i.e. the amount of attention it actually gets from serious people about the themes presented in his work.joywords --Joywords 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's only edit. (Seems to be a bit of a "repeat chorus" situation today, doesn't it?) Anville 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN pseudoscientific theory, of little use to the reader of an encyclopedia. The appropriate place for this proposal and resulting discourse is in the scientific literature or the pseudoscientific literature as the case may be. The press coverage alone does not make it ntoable.--Nick Y. 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in Popular Science [35] (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), Newsday (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), The Times (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on 20/20 [36] (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere. It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. Tim Smith 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks verifiability. There are only two types of "references" in this article: (1) those pointing to Langan-owned (megafoundation, CTMU) sites, Langan-edited/archived (Noesis) sites, or Langan-is-a-"fellow"-of-an-organization-who,-like-Langan,-has-a-creationist-agenda (ISCID/PCID) sites; and (2) pop-culture periodicals that focus on a weight lifter with a big brain, and not his CTMU "theory." I don't believe Wikipedia policy counts
    20/20, Muscle & Fitness, or even Popular Science as proper fora for cosmologist peer reviews. --Blaine Steinert 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. To present the CTMU as correct, we would indeed need references of other than these two types. The question at hand, though, is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it. To verifiably and justifiably describe the CTMU here, we need references to (1) its claims, and (2) its notability. The references in the article satisfy these requirements: Langan's writings provide his claims, and the mainstream media coverage establishes notability. (Popular Science focuses here specifically on the CTMU, and other articles describe both Langan and his theory.) Tim Smith 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hogwash.
      Mr. Smith, you stated, "The question at hand... is ... whether we are to describe it." Only if it is something notable, which apparently it is not (see big, red letters below). Wikipedia is clear that it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. I might describe my grandmother's theory of Quasars, and she might have even been featured in Bluehair & Fitness Magazine, but that hardly makes her ideas Wiki-worthy.
    • THE POPSCI ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE A FORGERY
      Mr. Smith, you (and the CTMU article) seem to rely heavily on the PopSci article "Wise Guy," by John R. Quain. But something fishy is going on here: The "archived" PopSci piece - ostensibly the best Langan-independent citation (read: the only reference to an outside "scientific" periodical) - is quite different from the actual, archived article. As you know, archived web pages from the
      The_chicken_or_the_egg dilemma. Pretty interesting, eh, Asmodeus? --Blaine Steinert 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • NOTE: THERE ARE TWO POPSCI ARTICLES THAT APPEARED IN THE SAME ISSUE - ONE IS AN ARTICLE, THE OTHER IS AN INTERVIEW - NEITHER ARE FORGERIES Please be more careful. DrL 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Seitz is on the board of Langan's "high IQ society". So much for NPOV, anyway. Byrgenwulf 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As DrL says, the Popular Science coverage consisted of two parts, both archived by the Wayback Machine [37][38], both stored on megafoundation.org [39][40], and both linked from ctmu.org. One part interviews Langan; the other part focuses specifically on his theory. As I documented below, other sources also give prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory. Indeed, the CTMU easily meets the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be referenced in a mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Again, the question is not whether the theory is sufficiently correct to be asserted, but whether it is sufficiently notable to be described, factually and neutrally. With circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions, the mainstream media in which the CTMU has appeared establish that notability. Tim Smith 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DEFINITELY DELETE. Whether it's been mentioned in PopSci or not is irrevelant to the notion of peer review. Popular Science is not a journal of peer review. It's a magazine geared towards popularity. This "theory"'s lack of credibility is underscored by the fact the only "science journal" this person/socks has/have in defense of the "theory"'s notability is Popular Science! Even the Wikipedia entry of Popular Science informs us that the magazine is geared "for the general reader on science and technology subjects." Luis Hamburgh 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To present the theory as correct, we would indeed need peer-reviewed sources. But again, the question is not whether we are to assert the theory, but whether we are to describe it, and not whether the theory is correct, but whether it is notable. Popularity does not establish correctness, but it does establish notability, and the CTMU's appearances in the popular media are numerous, with coverage from Popular Science [41], 20/20 [42], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and more. Tim Smith 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently notable only among creationist pseudo-intellectuals. Possibly could be merged to Creation science? But, no, they probably wouldn't want it either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CTMU has received extensive coverage in the mainstream media, including Popular Science [43], 20/20 [44], The Times, Newsday, Esquire, and even Muscle & Fitness! Remember, the question here is not whether the theory is correct—that's not for Wikipedia to decide—but whether it is notable. The relevant notability criterion is that "non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Since the CTMU has been referenced in many such publications, it is notable and deserves an article: not to assert its claims as truth, but to describe them accurately and neutrally. Tim Smith 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on a few issues here. Claiming that the CTMU is philosophy and not science is an attempt to hedge the issue. It is not the case that "science" has standards while "philosophy" is a wishy-washy field where anything goes. The CTMU claims to be a
    interpretation of quantum mechanics, and has a notion of "conspansion" which contradicts much of what the mainstream scientific and philosophic community acknowledges relativity to be. Moreover, all the popular press articles are about Langan, the originator of the concept, not the CTMU itself. They may mention the theory, but they are not about it. As such, these articles and references can be put on Langan's bio page. And besides, the nomination has nothing to do with whether the CTMU is philosophy, sophistry, science or pseudoscience. It is about the article as it appears here, and whether or not it is an encyclopaedic article.--Byrgenwulf 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Response to Comment Caveat emptor. Byrgenwulf needs to tell the truth for a change - he attacked the article, and proposed this vote, because he's an anti-ID fanatic who baselessly disputes the content and quality of the CTMU, a theory which he doesn't even begin to understand. There's a record of this on the discussion page, where Byrgenwulf fraudulently intimated that he is a professional philosopher of physics and then proceeded to make elementary errors that no expert in that field could possibly make, and which have now been seriously compounded. In fact, the article IS encyclopedic, or at least was before Byrgenwulf took it upon himself to monkey it up. Indeed, it had been carefully reworded to comply with NPOV and was provided with all of the verifiable source material it needed. All that Byrgenwulf is doing here is attempting to win the game, and get rid of the article, by propagating pathetic misconceptions about science and philosophy that a freshman in English Lit wouldn't lay claim to, thereby polluting the air and muddying the waters as is evidently his habit. (Anyone who thinks that Byrgenwulf knows the first thing about philosophy or science, let alone Wikipedia policy, need merely take a stroll up this page to be disabused.) As far as Byrgenwulf's specific comments on the CTMU, conspansion, and theories of eveything are concerned, forget about them - he has repeatedly been shown not to understand the first thing about the CTMU or anything related to it. Asmodeus 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "relevant policy" noted here is not policy - it is a proposed guideline, which is not finished and does not yet have the support of Wikipedia editors. The pseudotheory is also not referenced in any serious and reputable scientific journal, by the way. --Philosophus T 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of references. Zos 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having references doesn't affect the other reasons to delete. Having "references" is standard procedure for pseudoscience that is trying to confuse people by blurring the lines. Not that being pseudoscience is necessarily a reason to delete either.--Nick Y. 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response There aren't any "other reasons" to delete. The CTMU isn't science; it's philosophy. Therefore, it can't be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience". It's really just that simple. Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to enforce any particular set of "lines" just because he personally fears that those lines, wherever and whatever they are, may become "blurred". Things can't always remain simple just because somebody wants them to be, particularly with regard to matters of high inherent complexity. Asmodeus 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, someone please remove all of these comments and responses to this nom's talk page. I can barely make out what all the fuss is about. And to let others who wish this article kept, please replace your "do not delete" with Keep. This makes it clearer for others. Zos 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good god what a lot of blather. This is totally meaningless nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical and nonnotable mixture of pseudophysics and pseudophilosophy. My main way of deciding notability on articles on non-completely-insane pseudotheory (this excludes
    Yoshiaki Omura is notable because he has notable and reputable critics, for example. This does not. The main claim to notability seems to be popular articles articles about the person rather than the pseudotheory. We should delete this, and redirect to the person. --Philosophus T 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia article describing the CTMU has proved useful to me as a neutral source of information since the time it was originally contributed. --Convolution 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell those who want to delete the article want to because of their views on the CTMU itself and not whether it is sufficiently notable. The Popular Science article cited appears to be on the CTMU and not on Langan himself. It even includes a quote by a physicist and former NASA executive who (without passing judgement on its veracity) considers the theory worthy of "serious and open-minded review". While I have reservations on a theory presented in such a jargonized manner, many accepted theories have been presented in that fashion, too, unless or until someone good at explaining the theory comes along (a la Schwinger versus Feynman on QED). The CTMU may turn out to be total garbage, but it has received sufficient press and is a significant part of a high-IQ subculture surrounding Langan. Tox 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is titled "Wise Guy"! It is a less-than-two-page article mainly about the person and his theory. It is not an article about the theory, such as one might see in a serious journal, like one of the Physical Reviews. This is nothing like QED: it hasn't shown up anywhere in the legitimate scientific community, or any any reputable journal. It only has a handful of popular articles that, if they are not mostly about the person, are initially started because of the novelty of the person's IQ. The opinion of an ex-NASA "executive" who appears to be involved with the person somehow ("the smartest guy I ever met") doesn't really make the subject notable. The fact that the "executive" apparently doesn't merit his own Wikipedia article and doesn't show up in the first few pages of Google results makes me question the word usage of Popular Science writers, and makes the support even less important. --Philosophus T 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of the nature of the article. The purpose of citing it has nothing to do with bolstering the veracity of the theory. It is only cited to bolster the notoriety of the theory: namely people are likely to encounter it and seek out more information on what it is about. That is the usefulness of Wikipedia: we can encounter obscure topics we know nothing about and find out about them in Wikipedia, something we could not do with 20th century paper encyclopedias.
Please do not take my QED analogy out of context. I am not saying that the CTMU is remotely similar to QED in its acceptance or its veracity. I am only bringing up QED as an example of a correct theory deliberately described by one arrogant prick in the most esoteric manner possible and by another genius who sought the most intuitive and easily understood version he could find.
I am not a proponent of the CTMU. I find its excessive jargonization extremely irritating and because of that I have not bothered to delve into it much, even though I have been aware of it for years (because it is well-known enough that people looking into ToEs, who don't limit themselves merely to academia, eventually encounter it). In fact I am quite leary of it. It is only my steadfast commitment to open-mindedness that does not allow me to reject it until I get around to serious analysis of it. Which is precisely why I'd like to see a Wikipedia article (not written by Langan) on the CTMU: so I have a decent overview of the theory to look at. Anyone else wanting to know about it would find such an article useful, too. So, if the article is flawed, then fix it, don't delete it. This debate is about the philosophy of Wikipedia, not the philosophy of the CTMU. —Tox 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Byrgenwulf's first edits were "admittedly over the top" (his words) and made for a poor entrance, leading other editors to believe his motives were political and less than sincere. I did delete many of his edits but mainly because he was pushing them through too quickly. I repeatedly asked him to slow down and discuss edits on the Talk page first and indeed thought we were negotiating changes to the Controversy section, but I guess we weren't moving quickly enough (it was taking hours as opposed to seconds). He is not the only editor on Wikipedia and should know enough about Wikipedia etiquette to negotiate changes more slowly and reasonably with the other editors and readers. He only came upon the page, and Langan's work, a few days ago. Shouldn't one spend a little time absorbing the material before editing any article on Wikipedia?
What you are suggesting (that the article be retained but it be Byrgenwulf's edit) is coercive, whether or not you mean it that way. While some clean-up may be in order there was not much wrong with the article as it stood when Byrgenwulf came on the scene (or, indeed, when Tim Smith originally posted it). Further, Byrgenwulf's version is misleading on many points. For example:
It is categorized under "pseudophysics" and "pseudoscience". This makes about as much sense as categorizing a Brahms concerto as pseudoscience because it doesn’t follow the "scientific method". The CTMU is a logical model that is not claiming to be empirical science. Such categorization is designed to lower the perceived credibility of the work.
"The CTMU has close ties to the Intelligent Design movement." Here, "close ties" implies political involvement and I see no evidence of that. What I see is an openness on the part of ISCID toward Langan's ideas and a response to that from Langan by submitting his material for publication. After all, he may perceive himself cut off from mainstream academic venues due to his lack of degrees and see ISCID and PCID as an opportunity for at least some level of peer-review. If you read his chapter in Uncommon Dissent, he clearly criticizes aspects of both ID and strict neoDarwinism (mostly in terms of limits of interpretation).
"While not being of quite the same order as the time-cube, the CTMU can nonetheless be categorised as pseudoscience." By even putting a concept in the same sentence as "time-cube", you are eroding credibility. Again, the CTMU is erroneously categorized as pseudoscience.
"This is an intelligent design journal, the content and nature of which has been the subject of a large amount of criticism by mainstream scientists, including in US courts. This is because these scientists feel that the journal lacks impartiality and rigour in its editorial policies[1]. As such, any paper published in this journal cannot be regarded as being part of established scientific thought.[2]."
The fact that PCID is an ID journal is fair enough for inclusion but this rant against intelligent design journals should be contained in the article on PCID or ISCID, not here! This proposed text links to two footnotes featuring anti-Creationism material. What on Earth is that doing here? The CTMU has nothing to do with "Creationism". In fact, I would expect that Creationists might not care for the CTMU at all. I feel that Byrgenwulf's motives are political. His dogged insistence on the inclusion of these two articles is odd and it almost seems as if he has been given this material along with instructions to push it whenever he has the opportunity.
These are some of the most glaring errors and the points I was hoping to be able to negotiate with Bergenwulf. It would be nice if they could be fixed, but I expect that there is an underlying political agenda here so I don't hold out much hope. DrL
Railing against a single editor will no change the result of an AfD. I suggest that you clearly and concisely list your points, then wait. Jefffire 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jefffire, I am not railing against anyone. I was responding to Telvido's suggestion that the page be retained but using Bygenwulf's edit. My points outlined factual errors and NPOV conflicts in that edit. I am making every effort to respond to the content and primary issues and not the personalities here. DrL 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one person's theory, not in any way in contact with academic reserach. --Pjacobi 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Who cares how many people wrote it, or whether it is "in contact with academic reserach"? If you want to read about things that are "in contact with academic reserach", you should subscribe to academic journals. Wikipedia is not an appendage of academia, and the CTMU nowhere relies on "contact with academic reserach" to make its points. Please, let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Asmodeus 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is also not an indescriminate store of knowledge. The charge is that the subject is non-notable, as per the notability policy. Jefffire 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response But notability has already clearly been satisfied in the form of verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science. This is nothing but a flimsy charade undertaken by you and one or two others to remove the article because you don't like its subject matter, on the grounds that it has not been published in academic journals. You seem to think that Wikipedia is an appendage of academia, and you're simply mistaken. Don't muddy the water.
  • Merge with
    Christopher Michael Langan. The other isues like the pseudoscientific aspects and the fact that it is not noteable can be addressed later. Count Iblis 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Response This contains a terminological error. The CTMU never claimed to be "science"; therefore, it cannot be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience" (this issue is discussed in more detail on this page and in the discussion area). By its nature, it is philosophical. Ample proof of its notability has been duly provided. Asmodeus 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're in error, Asmodeus. Here's how Langan describe his "theory" in |this essay:

A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

. This seems to indicate that it is cosmology: philosophy doesn't deal in expanding universes or "conspansion", really. And, a bit of a slip up here, the Hawking-Hartle model wasn't "proposed" in Hawking's pop science book, but in Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983). Byrgenwulf 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response You know, I hate to seem impatient. Really I do. But if you don't stop it with these howlers of yours, I may end up climbing the walls of my office. Let me spell this out for you. The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. Say that one of your college professors were to ask you whether this new theory is "scientific" in the same sense as the scientific theory which generated the paradox. You just answered this question "yes!" But unfortunately for your grade point, the answer is "no". By definition, the paradox has been generated BY a theory of science; in effect, one train of scientific reasoning is slamming into another within a single theory (or conjuctive set of theories), with no chance to avoid the collision. Hence, one needs a metalanguage of that scientific theory (or set of theories) to resolve it...a higher language in which the trains can be re-routed and the collision avoided, with one train passing around the other. Sometimes, it may happen that we can extract falsifiable observation statements from this higher-level theory and thereby construe it as science in its own right...a higher level of science than passed before. Otherwise, it remains interpretative and therefore philosophical. But no matter which way it turns out, the theory remains valuable for resolving the paradox. So here's an extra-credit question for you: given that you call yourself a "philosopher of physics", why don't you appear to understand the first thing about your field of "expertise"? (Now enough already - I'm not getting paid to do your homework for you.) Asmodeus 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables.
WP:BOLLOCKS. Well, perhaps, not, but no such (intractable) paradox is discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article (Wigmore, Barry (February 7, 2000); "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:

Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.[45]

The Popular Science header says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.[46]

The caption of the article's photo reads:

Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A small number of overhyped headlines do not constitute notability. Jefffire 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, the mainstream media coverage (which says vanishingly little about the content of the "theory" itself) still calls this theory science, despite the claims of the dramatic chorus. Anville 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As visible above, Popular Science says the theory is about science, not that it is science. Philosophy is allowed to be about science; that's philosophy of science. 20/20 explicitly calls the theory philosophical. Tim Smith 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mainstream media no doubt like the
    (Talk) 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
From the 20/20 piece: "The more he talked, the more Christopher reminded me of that character Matt Damon played in the movie 'Good Will Hunting,' a brilliant guy who almost slipped between the cracks. That's Christopher’s story too." Read that how you will. . . . Anville 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the obscurity of the idea. Wikipedia is not a storehouse for every flight-of-fancy made by every random individual. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea is not obscure; you simply weren't reading the right sources. If you were asked to prove that Langan is a "random individual" or the CTMU "a flight of fancy", you could not offer a single verifiable source. In fact, you'd find material indicating that Langan is decidedly non-random - indeed, several deviations above the mean in intelligence - and that there are clearly written, publicly available papers regarding the CTMU. You would also find reportage on Langan and the CTMU from verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science.
You are taking part in an editorial process here and are bound by Wikipedia policy. By casting this vote, you have failed to meet your editorial burden regarding neutrality and verifiability. If this encyclopedia is such that content can be kept or removed on the basis of unverifiable and counterfactual opinion and innuendo, then it is founded on "truth by democracy". Since that's an insupportable concept, Wikipedia would have no good reason to exist. For the sake of Wikipedia and its users, I hope that's not the case. Asmodeus 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage this user to read about
encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • DELETE as per the revelation of the PopSci forgery. Tsk tsk! You'd figure a wise guy wouldn't be so reckless with his forged archives.

Something tells me a fat dude on Long Island is having a tough time keeping track of all his sockpuppets! LOL Keglined 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Just thought I'd tell everyone that Keglined here is lying about the PopSci article being a forgery - as explained above, PopSci actually thought so much of Langan that its Editors included both an article AND an interview on him and the CTMU! (Hey, Keglined - why don't you go and brush up your jealous edits regarding the penis sizes of porn stars Peter North and John "Johnny Wadd" Holmes? Or maybe just watch some more porn...heh heh!) Asmodeus 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've Seen the Physical Copy If anyone wishes to continue down this route, I can tell you that I own many past issues of Popular Science including the one featuring the CTMU article in question.68.122.147.181 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How very unimaginative of you, Chris - you assume I'm a guy. OH, and I just looked at the wayback machine stuff - there is NO record of the "other" popular science article. Sorry, Chris/Asmodeus/Dr L/whoever else you need to pretend to be - your charlatan hide has been exposed!!!  ;) Keglined 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Response I guess you must be talking to me? (In the future, please address me properly - it's "Asmodeus".) Again, you're either a liar, or too stupid to look in your local library for the article. You see, not every article in PopSci makes it onto the web, or stays on the web, and the wayback machine is still buggy, as many know who have used it. (Popular Science, October, 2001; an archived copy of the article is linked from several Wikipedia entries.) Now why don't you go and glue your sorry little nose, male or female as it may be, to a porn video featuring the penises of your favorite porn stars? ROTFLMAO! Asmodeus 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No stretch of the imagination could make such statements appear
civil. Anville 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonetheless, one has to note the irony: Asmodeus was the daemon of lust. And in Paradise Lost, Milton wrote of him that he has a "fishy odour". Byrgenwulf 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Obviously, I was merely pointing out Keglined's peculiar editorial history here at Wikipedia, as has been done regarding various others on this page, in a way appropriate to the vicious, defamatory nature of Keglined's own remarks. Would it be too much to ask that you at least try to be civil between your sporadic bursts of fraud and disinformation? Thank you. Asmodeus 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Keglined Keglined, please refrain from referring to socks. I really do not see any evidence of that here and it is distracting from the main points. Obviously people are interested in the CTMU. It is certainly notable. The article does not include original research, but rather reports on research that is already out there and possesses a reasonable NPOV in its current state. Tim Smith has posted the Wayback links to both POPSCI articles so please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia criteria. It clearly does. Whether or not you like the CTMU or its supporters is not at issue. Nor is your bizarre edit history. I just hope the admins can sort through this mess. DrL 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Megalomania, Batman... 52 Times! It’s a
    Special Relativity; and the word “Darwin” appears in Evolution 12 times. Pathetically, in the CTMU article, each of the words “for,” “as,” and “in” appear fewer times than the word “Langan”!
    Wikipedia: “The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors.”
    Yes, there appears to be a number of sockpuppets at work here; until a couple days ago this article had but a dozen editors, four of which have in one form or another rejected the CTMU. Of the remaining eight, five (Asmodeus, CaveBat, DrL, 70.20.16.129, and 12.207.19.38) have contributed nothing to Wikipedia aside from edits to this article, the article on Langan himself, or references to Langan in other articles (also, it is a matter of record that Langan has published pseudonymously in the past [47]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs
    )
Oh yeah - delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)
  • FIFTY TWO TIMES??? ROFLMAO!!! "the word "Langan" appears 52 times... "Twain in
    Special Relativity; "Darwin" in Evolution 12 times..." That's all I needed to see! It's a blatant advert. Pure garbage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs
    )
  • There are some very obvious sock/meatpuppets involved in this discussion. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense and clap-trap. linas 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Voting is one thing; unsubstantiated opinions are quite another. They are of no relevance to anything but your own state of mind, and your own ability or inability to comprehend the article and/or its subject matter...unless, of course, you have relevant, verifiable citations regarding the CTMU on which to base them. But then you'd probably have posted them, wouldn't you. Asmodeus 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Actually, I claim knowledge in broad areas; here's a list of articles I've made major contributions to; based on my knowledge, I am of the opinion that its bunkum. I understood the article -- it doesn't say much, and is mostly hot air. When its not just plain wrong. This is not encyclopedia material. Post it on some blog, if you wish. linas 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Now, now, no need to try to impress. Most university instructors do not allow Wikipedia articles to be used as a references, precisely because they are too often found in error; hence, you are not citing verifiable sources, and even if you were, you'd need to prove them relevant. But of course, you can't; otherwise, as a conscientious Wikipedia editor, you'd have done so already. Right? Now, I personally don't care whether you think the topic of the article under dispute is "bunk"; that plus a dollar will get your windshield wiped at 5th and Lex (maybe you'd like to start a blog about it). But when you say the CTMU is "just plain wrong" in a forum like this one, you incur an editorial burden. You can either meet this burden or you can't; personally, I'd bet a grand you can't, and that you can't understand the paper you say you read either. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, if you want to talk this way, you need to put up, or clam up. By the rules of Wikipedia, we can't simply take your word for things when making editorial decisions; believe it or not, you're not sufficiently notable for that, and probably not sufficiently knowledgable either. You need to verify your sources, just like all the plebes. Asmodeus 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of expending your energy trying to argue me down, why don't you just edit the article so its not gibberish and hot air? Perhaps people wouldn't be moving to delete if this was actually a reasonable article about some guy who was once interviewed by the press? linas 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have plenty of energy these days, so don't worry about it. You seem to be saying that the article is poorly written, but at this point, it has many authors. So we can't exactly blame the original author for that. As nearly as I can determine, the article was (prior to all the pseudoediting) faithful to the material it covers, albeit highly condensed. Maybe, if it stays up, I'll add my bit. But meanwhile, we have to be careful not to make statements about the theory we can't back up with reputable, verifiable sources. Unverifiable statements about content are a luxury that Wikipedia editors just don't have. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia guidelines the burden is upon those wishing to keep the article to prove that it is notable, and not visa-versa. So far all that exists is a few interview with Langon, and nothing else. It is very unlikely that these will be regarded as evidence of notability. Jefffire 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please stop lecturing people about Wikipedia guidelines, jeffire; I've already established to my complete personal satisfaction that you have no respect for them yourself and cannot be trusted in any way regarding them. You are not some sort of Prime Bureaucrat who can keep demanding additional sources, when the sources already provided are sufficient. If you don't believe it, consider that neither you (jeffire) nor any of your friends could get an idea into Popular Science if your lives depended on it, except maybe in the Letters to the Editor (if one of you were extremely lucky). Sources like ABC and PopSCi wouldn't have touched Langan with a ten-foot pole if they hadn't satisfied themselves, through a variety of channels, that he's the real deal. Please either stop your nonsense, or go away. Asmodeus 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks. Although I know I will be admonished for troll feeding, I will note that we could get ideas into real scientific journals, which is what matters. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - with the priviso that way is found to 'permanently' attach a POV and DISPUTED tag. If this is impossible (and the claim is that it is) then regretfully DELETE. --
    talk 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The word "essentially" disturbs me. I would rather the CTMU be kept as a separate article but be clearly labelled as, er, non mainstream to put it mildly. If there is a problem with keeping warning labels attached then this needs to be sorted out at a higher level since it is a more general issue. Sticking the article in with Langam's bio is sweeping the problem under the carpet. --
    talk 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The topic will be covered in the article on Langan, since it is inextricably linked to him, and only notable because of his situation. Note also that lengths of debates on Wikipedia are not a good indicator of notability - often the least notable pseudotheories have the longest discussions, since their authors will go to great lengths to support them through sock puppets and lengthy rants. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS NONSENSE. The CTMU article cites numerous publications, but only one reference is to a science-oriented periodical (and it's Popular Science? Sad). In fact, this link points to an archived reproduction on the CTMU author's own website. A search for the original article on Popular Science’s website yields no results. The
    20/20 reference revisits an interview wherein the CTMU itself is hardly even mentioned! Instead, the focus seems to this weight-lifting, "big brain" dude. It's like the tallest man in the world claiming he's the greatest basketball player in history because he was pictured in a non-sports magazine holding a ball next to a hoop. Aside from some references to self-published copies of the CTMU itself, the only other "independent" references are to magazines and TV shows that have nothing to do with science. Newsday, The Times?, Muscle & Fitness Magazine??? If you're not a cosmologist, but you play one on TV, does your TOE really matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs
    )
  • One could say the POPSCI has nothing to do with science. Really, if this is a serious TOE, where are your Physical Review references? --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The POPSCI articles help to establish notability, which is one of the WP under consideration. DrL 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest A little research reveals that there is likely a conflict of interest in the above vote. Note in history of CTMU article, user 153.26.176.34 links to crank site www.conspansion.com, which derogates Langan and falsely accuses him of stealing the conspansion idea (with no supporting evidence, of course!). DrL 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an acceptable reason to discount the opinion (though being unsigned and by an anon may be). --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CTMU, though obscure and seemingly intentionally obscured, appears to meet a minimum standard for notability; the nature and validity of the theory are irrelevent to this discussion. So long as the article does not overstate the CTMU's notability or present a biased view of the subject, it should be kept. Even if those criteria were not met, deletion would be a disproportionate response. --Tom1907 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what we are trying to do. The current article is disproportionately large and highly POV. We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself. --Philosophus T 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP is not a peer-review journal. It is not Nupedia. We have defined standards for the inclusion of fringe theories. This theory meets them. That is the only burden that such a theory must meet to be included in WP. It should therefore stay -- no delete, no merger. However, that comes with a substantial caveat. This article will require a substantial rewrite that attempts to pare down the CTMU's escalatory jargon to something understandable, and a criticism section will be needed discussing the (substantial) rebuttals to the CTMU that exist. Nevertheless, poor quality of an existing article is not grounds for the deletion of that article, ceteris paribus. Serpent's Choice 09:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is a newly created account apparently made just to discussion the deletion of articles. --ScienceApologist 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is true that my primary focus has been article deletion. My fields of expertise are relatively well-represented on WP at this time, and so I have felt that my time and resources are better spent contributing to keeping WP free of articles that violate its standards (and defending those that do). I am not a sock of any of the actors in this issue (or any other accountname, for that matter). I have no personal stake in the article's fate. For what its worth, as full disclosure, I think the theory is a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap cobbled together by its creator in an effort at one-upsmanship versus the physics community. But even if my opinion is proven true in future, that does not mean this topic is not appropriate for inclusion. It has generated mainstream media press and no small amount of critical discussion, all of which makes it a plausible searchbox entry and a notable topic. WP is about documentation, NOT validation [[[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) edit due to failure to proofread own post]. Theories that got it wrong are still worthy of encyclopedia space, especially in an encyclopedia with only the vaguest of space limitations. Regardless, a functional version of this article will probably require a protect. Serpent's Choice 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB There have been a few comments now, expressing viewpoints along the lines of the article being kept, but subjected to a massive rewrite/cleanup operation, as well as including a criticism section. It should be noted now that twice in the past 24 hours, Philosophus has attempted to do just that, but had his(?) work reverted by proponents of the theory. The idea seems to be that if there is to be criticism, it is to be entirely on the theory's proponents' terms, and no-one else is allowed to make substantive changes to the article without the proponents' prior vetting, while the proponents may write whatever they like there (even the "reception" section they have belatedly decided to include is grossly slanted). WP is neither a soapbox, nor has the theory itself (as opposed to its creator) earnt much noticeable attention. And while DrL is quite happy to class "conspansion.com" as a crank site (which features an idea either stolen from Langan or which Langan stole or some other sordid little saga), she is adamant that the CTMU does not have a "disputed science" infobox attached to it. Byrgenwulf 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ScienceApologist deleted 80% of the article after another editor (not me) had just spent an enormous amount of time setting references. Editors should really respect the work of others. Editing implies constructive changes, not sweeping deletes. That is really all that the CTMU article editors are looking for in an article cleanup. No, a "disputed science" infobox is not warranted. If there is a "disputed philosophy" or "disputed model theory" infobox, one would still need to verify the nature of the dispute (i.e., that it was from a reputable source, content-driven and not political) and that such a dispute was beyond the normal controversy and discussion that goes hand-in-hand with new ideas (and old). The page should not make any claims regarding empirical science, but discussion of the nature of science is fair game (it is part of the philosophy of science). Yes, it's true that I labeled conspansion.com as a crank page because it is void of meaningful content and more than likely put up by a Langan detractor just to bug him. People who are familiar with logic and model theory can follow Langan's ideas. DrL 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, are we resorting to scare bold now? Byrgenwulf 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo. I didn't put the marks at the beginning of the word "Comment". For some reason (possibly having to do with my browser settings) my view does not distinguish bold. I have corrected the formatting (I believe). DrL 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be well-verified and addresses a notable topic (I read about Langan and the CTMU in Popular Science). Genotypical 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of those funny accounts which crop up just for purposes of expressing opinions on this discussion. And I have an extremely strong intuition based on the name that this one is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it could be coincidence. Byrgenwulf 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to add my opinion, not to be insulted. Genotypical 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am terribly sorry if I insulted you, I don't think what I said is nearly as insulting as some of the invective that's been tossed around here. I was merely expressing my own opinion. And I didn't make any accusations either, merely aired some thoughts. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't seen this many socks since my last trip to JC Penny's. I just read the main article's description of "Expansion QUA Contraction," and had to laugh. No offense, guys (sic), but I'd bet plenty of people on psychedelic drugs have come up with more convincing "alternative" explanations of e=mc2 than this one. :)

Keep. It meets the notability requirements. Whether or not it is currently accepted by a majority of philosophers, what one considers to be "gibberish," whether one personally accepts the theory, what one's philosophical persuasion is, and what one's opinion of a theory's author is have little to no relevance here.68.122.147.181 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


Wikipendians - Please move Discussion about the merits of the Theory/Psuedo-science to another page.

If the artcle does have notability and critism outside of bar bouncers or their apologists, the article should stay. I am not a sock, I am an apologist for Berkley Idealism; neither opinions affect me unless I see the argument in real time. I can see this becoming a vanity decision (purely based on the number of socks) deleted on that basis. There is no need for paragraph after paragraph of debate. All interested editors have expressed opinions now (Disregarding ppl who have socked). I can only see what i see now, but it would make it very difficult to decide other than a delete. With the original editors continually rejecting rewrites - a blatent POV or WP:Notability. Without allowing other editors to edit text what is the point of the article? Blog it somewhere. With constant RV of critism sections the article it is a shambles.

Keep - with open access and sourcable critism
Delete - if apologists continue RV
Strongly Delete any similar article
Merge with any other ideas/clubs connected to Langam

(put please read Serpents's Choice post below re: other methods of adjudication/ resolution) - why prolong a decision with fruitless debate? Mike33 07:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) repost with amendments Mike33 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary problem is that efforts to make the page acceptable and inclusive of appropriate criticism are being reverted with prejudice to the improvement of the article, then that is a reason to escalate to dispute resolution, rather than a reason to delete. Indeed, given the widespread sockpuppetry (as well as allegations of the same) and divergence from the topic in this AfD, that may well be the best course of action in any case. Any acceptable version will quite probably require protection. Serpent's Choice 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google search for "Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe" gives only 14,000 hits, most of which are about the author. By contrast
    time cube gives 44 million. Clearly non-notable from a google hit perspective. Jefffire 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Lots of (probably most) articles would get far fewer hits than "only" 14,000 hits. --
talk 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Then feel free to nominate them. Jefffire 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I have no burning desire to remove articles that I have no interest in, anymore than I desire to burn books I haven't read. --
talk 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is misleading. Though still more than "ctmu," the exact phrase "time cube" produces much less than the more unconstrained search: 117,000 pages. (To avoid any "sock" comments, I'm 68.122.147.181 at a different computer.)69.238.48.216 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reality check: out by a factor of nearly four hundred eh?; shows that
talk 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as nonsense. Not a scientific theory. KarenAnn 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Langan article. The wide variety of news sources confirms the theory/author as notable, but not as scientific (and most of the writing on the theory itself is gibberish). Re: Jefffire, I don't think >14,000 Google hits is a fair standard at all. (Edit: Whoops, forgot sig.) Icewolf34 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's neither notable nor verifiable. Typical physics hack stuff, but more visible due to the press going, "Hey, this genius is also a bouncer!" Has it not occurred to you all we'd not even know about Langan if he'd been a sickly file clerk in Omaha? And as far as 14,000 hits constituting notability, MichaelCPrice, try Googling the exact phrase "the moon is made of cheese." I suppose we should now learn who first suggested the moon is made of cheese, give him or her credit for coming up with such a radical idea, and then create a Wikipedia article about the Parmesan Ecliptic Union or PEU (pronounced Pee-YOO) Theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Thompson (talk • contribs)
Comment. User's only edit. Tim Smith 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since we are all familar with the "cheese moon" concept it is clearly notable, since we have all noted it enough at some time to recall it now. That doesn't mean it is a credible concept, any more than astrology is. But notability and credibility are two completely different issues, which people here seem to have extreme difficulty in appreciating. --
talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Almost as vain as proudly voting to delete something one hasn't bothered to fully research, eh?69.238.48.216 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. The CTMU article was created in September 2005 and proceeded peacefully and largely unchanged until last week, when it erupted in controversy. Since then, the article has seen over 220 edits, over 140 of which were during this AfD. An edit war has waged for the whole course of the AfD, with users inserting and deleting huge blocks of text on less than a moment's notice, and reverting each other just as quickly. The size of the article has ranged from 9 KB to 27 KB, the number of sections from 7 to 12, the number of references from 5 to 12, the number of footnotes from 0 to 42. The version of the article that is now protected bears nearly no resemblance to the one originally nominated for deletion.

The AfD discussion itself has obviously also been chaotic. It is filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. Many of the reasons given as justification depend crucially on which transitory version of the article the user saw: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version more understandable.

In short, it is impossible to extract an informed decision from an AfD conducted during an edit war of this scope. At this point, the only option I see is to close with no consensus. Tim Smith 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion moved to talk page.) Tim Smith 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This review has been corrupted by moves of relevant discusion back and forth from the Talk page. Unless a clear consensus to delete can be found (which I think it has), the closing admin (which will not be me, even if I'm an admin by the time of closing) should close and relist. "No consensus" doesn't seem to be a plausible result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment from DrL - Mediator, SynergeticMaggot, has informed me of his willingness to mediate editing if the article is not deleted. I would like to reiterate that a good solution would be to require that the editors of this article agree to mediation during the editing process until a version consensus is reached (I felt that we were close in a couple of spots during the past week). This last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf might be a fairly neutral place to start. DrL 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron 'Whitey' Lewis

Two separate speedy tags removed by page author. Not notable and vanity page by the person about whom it is. Suitable for Speedy, surely Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy G1 by Geogre. Tevildo 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoob

Advertisement and nonencyclopedic. Earlier tag for speedy delete was removed by author. Therefore a listing here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yes, this is, of course, complete crap. --Xyzzyplugh 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been speedied, and properly so, no need for further discussion. Herostratus 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close article has been deleted. Dionyseus 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador's Ice Cream

Ten google hits on this. It is apparently an unusual looking ice cream stand. While I agree that it's a cool looking ice cream stand(see http://www.salvadorsicecream.com/ ), this doesn't make it notable by wikipedia standards Xyzzyplugh 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps there will be a day that every ice cream stand deserves its own wikipedia article, but not at the moment :) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The stand is 70 years old, is an example of
Mimetic architecture and Depression-era pop art (sort of), and may be a bit of a cultural touchstone in southeastern Massachusetts. That said, 10 Google hits is an awful low number of hits. But not everything notable is on the web. Probably it doesn't deserve to survive -- at the end of the day, it is just an ice cream stand -- but I'm not sure it's a slam-dunk either. (It does have a cow on top, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia has ever deleted an article involving a cow on top of a building, if that counts for anything.) Herostratus 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Delete I would say merge based on Herostratus' comments, but where to? Plus, without a picture it's going to need at least a thousand words. Yomangani 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there were an overall article which talked about a number of buildings which looked like shoes, ducks, snowmen, etc, then this could be merged into that one, but we don't have such an article. From doing a google search, it looks like this is indeed referred to as "mimetic architecture". I've added mimetic architecture to Wikipedia:Requested_articles, but unless anyone wants to write such an article in the next few days, I can't see how we can keep this. --Xyzzyplugh 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stubby article on
mimetic architecture, but now I've done it, I'm not sure this is worth merging. There appear to be much better examples of the type out there, with their own articles and pictures. Yomangani 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
And no sooner did I type this than I realised that it was covered in Novelty architecture, so I've now merged my stub. Yomangani 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Faith (band)

Rescued from speedy. Not really speediable, but meets

WP:MUSIC marginally if at all, having apparently just one record (I don't know how notable the label, Finger Records, is) and no assertion of major tours or venues. The one thread that suvivability of this article can hang is that one member later joined U.S. Bombs, which has an article (although I don't know how notable U.S. Bombs really is) and WP:MUSIC notes that notability can (not "must") be gained if "...Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...". WP:MUSIC goes on to say that in this case "...it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such...", but I'm not sure if a redirect is usable here since another member joined a different group (Firecracker 500) which I think has an album or albums and may also be notable. Herostratus 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Sueur-Henderson Football Team

This appears to be a non-notable high school football team. Does not appear to have made any significant impact, and doesn't register significantly on google. The page has been tagged for lack of importance since April. MLA 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nn high school football team. AdamBiswanger1 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A high school football team with no state titles, and absolutely no national recognition. Also POV. --DarkAudit 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Penalty, on the home team's article, 15 yards and Deletion for being NN. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization. There is not "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" per
    WP:CORP). --Satori Son 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sassco

Nonnotable British sports company; article created by User:Davindersangha who, oddly enough, is the sole owner of the company. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 555 google hits, many of them not relating to said sports company. AdamBiswanger1 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - worthy company organising local football leagues in the north-east. Nothing particularly notable, though. BlueValour 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Davidson (popular singer)

The same person as

John Davidson (game show host), from what I can tell. A merge or possible renaming could suffice. Kirjtc2 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Cohen

Soldier who died a few days ago in Israel. Doesn't meet

WP:BIO Xyzzyplugh 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete While a loss of a soldier (or anyone) is saddening, the Wikipedia cannot facilitate a page for everyone who dies. --Porqin
  • Delete per nom, although with some sadness. o/~"And this one's for bravery - and this one's for me - and everything's a dollar in the box...". Tevildo 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - this article is a repost. Rklawton 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclined to give the reposter the benefit of the doubt; he did respond on the talk page. Still, the article has nothing to suggest that this soldier is any more notable than any of the other thousands who have died in Israel's wars. Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad, but that's death for you. -- GWO
  • Delete While this is saddening, I can not agree with posting this article. Many thousands of soliders from many nations have died over the years, and Wiki can not list them all. If this soldier had won the contry's highest honor (like an equivilant to the United States Congressional Medal of Honor), then I would support keeping this page as the soldier would then be notable.--Bschott 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not speedy either under G4 or A7. G4 is only applicable to articles where there has been a consensus for deletion. -
    talk/email 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP is not a memorial -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ejourney

Spam. Created by User:Ejourney. -- Fan-1967 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Per talk page, author says the intention is to identify the word. Under that rationale, the article fails
WP:NEO. -- Fan-1967 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialseeker

Just an ad for the site. Author is SocialSeeker, whose only edits are to this page. --DarkAudit 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to sports club. Mangojuicetalk 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polideportivo

The word

multisports club (Spanish: Club polideportivo). It should be redirected to sports club or simply deleted. Typelighter 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Slight merge and redirect to Sports club, as a content fork. Sandstein 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sports club (to don't say delete it). Page Up 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Deletion. It is my view that Polideportivo is a perfectly legitimate word to include in the English Wikipedia and that it is an example of a Spanish language word that has crossed over into the English language. This is a natural development of languages. An example of how the word has been used is cited in the article. Requests to delete article are uncalled for. I see no reason why this article cannot co-exist along side articles about sports club. I also believe, that calls for deletion were motived by another editor who started inferior sports club article. Djln--Djln --Djln 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is the best I can do for something NN. Otherwise, delete -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Technology

Advert, Not Notable. StanMan 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not advert, information very reliable and about a well-know company in the RFID industry. Alien is one key company for the
    Fargo, ND article. Company created 300 new jobs in the city and is one of the biggest non-government employeers in the city. --Bschott 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, probably the least-adlike article on a company I have seen. Nominator has no other edits. Recury 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Alien is notable like a notable thing. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just remove extraneous info, like Board of Directors and such. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User Bschott has tried to delete the Deletion notice and there are reasons to believe that he is from the company. Also seems that Bschott is not familiar with Afd process - there is no such tag as Do Not Delete - should have been Delete or Keep The page looks like advertising and not following the Notable requirements of Wiki. Bschott - please explain your relation to the company. StanMan 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that user conduct has no bearing on the outcome of a deletion discussion. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, 1) it's my first time fighting a deletion 2) I am not going to give out personal information like that on the interwebs. There is no way to confirm where I work so what is the point? I could work for the City of Fargo, work for the company, be a proud citizen of the city, or just have an interest in RFID 3) and it seems that a majority of people disagree with your opinion Stan. In any case, as pointed out, this is a discussion on article and has no bearing on if it will be deleted or not. But if you really want to know who I am, then check out YouTube for my username. --Bschott 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please take personal conversations to StanMan's
          WP:AUTO for what it is relevant to.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • Keep but expand with
    WP:V. Zos 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The Google Test (using "alien technology corp") gives 20,000+ hits. Among them (without doing an exhaustive read), there seem to be "multiple non-trivial published works" by independant sources. Though this isn't a rigorous test of Criterion #1 for corporations, it shows that Alien Technologies at least comes pretty damn close at worst. The article should be improved per Zos above, and I do think the listing of the Board should be removed as non-notable. Additionally, the exhaustive listing of "investment partners" should be removed as non-notable (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) and replaced with a prose section on major partners of significance outside the walled garden of RFID tech. (IMNSHO.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It had been acknowledged that user Bschott is from the Company. Bschott had been warned from being biased and/or deleting Wiki Policy messages. Following the concensus here - If article cleaned up, willing to reconsider. StanMan 14:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Comment: It appears that
    WP:NEU
    . In reference, please read WP:NEU
    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
    StanMan 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. What you are commenting on has no bearing on deletion. Please restrict your discussion of issues with the article unrelated to deletion to the article's discussion page. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saxifrage, could you cite a Wiki policy regarding your note? Why does it has no bearing? Specifically: "These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." StanMan 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those policies guide what we may write, not what we may write about. I can't cite you any policy because there is nothing in the deletion policy about this. It doesn't mention bias because bias isn't relevant to the deletion policy. The closest I can find that even mentions the difference between what problems warrant deletion and what problems warrant fixing-by-editing is the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion policy:
          "Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted."
        • An article being edited by a biased editor doesn't fall under inclusion criteria, verification policy, or copyright policy. Furthermore User:Bschott is not the sole contributor to the article, only the most recent of many according to the article's edit history. Even if he was, that would not warrant deletion. Consider an example: if the sole contributor to George W. Bush was Bush himself, should we delete the article? No, because it is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Instead, it should be edited to conform to our content policies. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bodgers

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Vanity (as seen in this talk page edit[48] and page creation history[49]), Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. CovenantD 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address the vanity and notability issues. CovenantD 17:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Editted some areas that may conflict with vanity issues. User:Crablogger
    • Comment, this is the user who created the article and claims to have created the character. Recury 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did create the character, and since I have posted this article on Wikipedia, people have always been giving me a hard time. The last time, somebody wanted it deleted because it was "stupid". I have already rectified it no fewer than eight times to get it to fit Wikipedia standards, and I'd be very much obliged if I wasn't always the scapegoat in everything. User:Crablogger 6:59, 17 July 2006 (GMT)
    • No one is scapegoating you. Editing an article on a character you created is a violation of a Wikipedia standard itself (the vanity guideline mentioned above). This article also doesn't cite any outside sources other than the stories themselves. If no other sources exist, then it violates the verifiability policy mentioned above. Has it occurred to you that maybe your character just shouldn't have an article? It isn't as if Wikipedia has a ton of articles on fan fiction characters. Recury 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware that Wikipedia hasn't many fanfiction characters, but just because Chuck Bodgers exists in fanfiction does not mean that he is a fanfiction character himself. I have written other stories in which he appears solo, as well as in my own spin-off science-fiction series Dash Daring and the Starchasers. I think it unfair that I give up most of my time writing such a thing, and the largest internet encyclopedia in existence refuses to recognize the characters' existence due to a violation in its' rules and regulations. As much as I respect these rules, I think it a little unfair how my work should be put under pressure in such a situation. User:Crablogger 7:24 18 July 2006 (GMT)
    • Are you sure about "pressure"? It could just be that you didn't know a lot of Wikipedias' rules when you created the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.227.148 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. 92 distinct Ghits, which includes a few mirrors and USENET archives. This total may be somewhat fluffed since it seems there was a BBC cartoon character of the same name (which User:Crablogger seems to indicate his creation is taken from). No notability stated or implied, in particular no third-party non-trivial articles about the character. The BBC site doesn't list the cartoon at this point. Please note I do not dispute the character exists, that is not the issue. In fact, if the character is based on the BBC cartoon, there maybe copyvio issues. I request wiser heads cogitate on the last point, thanks. Tychocat 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them. Any article which starts "...particularly at the website, The Bucky O' Hare Fanfiction..." doesn't have a frog's leg to stand on. And links to its own fanfic website do not make it notable. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I give up. If we can't come to some agreement over it, then I don't see the point in carrying on this arguement. As long as we agree that the character does exist, but the information is too sketchy for an article, then I am satisfied with that. User:Crablogger 7:21, 19 July 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Welsh rabbit, which covers the "cheese on toast" variant already. Mangojuicetalk 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheese on toast

Content duplicated by article Welsh rarebit Cavie78 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Welsh rarebit. The two are _not_ the same, so the distinction should be made somewhere, but I agree that we don't need two separate articles. Tevildo 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, explaining name confusion AdamBiswanger1 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Articles for deletion.
    Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Welsh rarebit. I'm not very convinced by the unmelted version needing its own description or explanation of terms - sounds pretty much like anything-on-toast. Sources would help . Bwithh 17:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, but ONLY merge the information if sources can be cited that it is a 'common British snack'. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Griller Thriller on National Cheese on Toast Day". British Cheese Board. 2006-03-16. ? Uncle G 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately that reference doesn't help. I"m not disputing that melted/grilled cheese on toast is a specially known national snack. I am asking (and I think Nae'blis is too) for sources showing that unmelted cheese on toast is a specially known national snack. The "Griller Thriller" slogan of the British Cheese Board suggests that their cheese on toast is melted, as you don't need a grill just to make toast with non-melted cheese. (Yes, I feel daft after writing this whole comment, but I will defend it to the death) Bwithh 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC) 18:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should help. It and the further reading section of the article contradict the article's assertion that cheese on toast and Welsh rarebit are two different things. What you should be looking for are not sources showing that unmelted cheese on toast is a specially known snack, but sources showing that cheese on toast is actually in any way distinct from Welsh rarebit — as has been claimed, but for which no sources have been cited, and which is contradicted by the sources that actually are cited. Uncle G 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the welsh rarebit page please Yuckfoo 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    Welsh rabbit. Hardee67 04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Either Delete or Keep. The distinction is that Welsh Rarebit is a cheese/spices paste(made out of shredded chedder cheese that's put in a blender with butter, milk, spices, and other ingredients) that is heated into a liquid cheese sauce with a texture+taste somewhere between American white gravy and American nacho cheese, while cheese on toast is simply a slice of cheese(any type) put on a slice of bread and toasted. I don't know whether the latter is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but if it is it deserves its own page or a section under cheese or something. Lesqual 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oxford English says Welsh Rabbit is "A dish consisting of cheese and a little butter melted and mixed together, to which are added ale, cayenne pepper, and salt, the whole being stirred until it is creamy, and then poured over buttered toast: also, simply, slices of toasted cheese laid on toast". Maybe we could merge bits of the Cheese on toast page into Welsh Rabbit rather than just delete it if that's the consensus...--Cavie78 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently we have solely two Wikipedia editors' say-sos, and no cited sources to say that cheese on toast is in any way distinct from Welsh rarebit, whereas we have three sources that say (or at least imply) that they are the same. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax. --May the Force be with you!

eshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mactallica

Hoax, creator refuses to provide a source for it being real. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U | T | C | E ) 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a poorly-crafted hoax. Image on author's userpage is an obvious Photoshop-y forgery of the album cover. --DarkAudit 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, obvious hoax -- not listed in Paul McCartney discography. NawlinWiki 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy hoax. There was an internet band that covered Metallica songs in the style of the Beatles, but details elude me. Beatallica, obviously enough http://beatallica.org/beatallica.html -- GWO
  • Strong Delete as
    WP:HOAX, but I don't think hoaxes that falsely allege notability qualify for Speedy (?). --Satori Son 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in North Carolina

This is a bare list with no explanatory text. All the malls are blue links to be sure, but Category:Shopping_malls_in_North_Carolina also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support although I note the question has been raised. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Indrian 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reason to have both a list and a category Geoffrey Spear 15:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per existence of the category. Can we Redirect to the category? AdamBiswanger1 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought this didn't work, previously, but it does seem to now. Follow this link: User:Lar/testRedir... it seems to work. I could be confused though ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicates category. If someone wants to find a mall in North Carolina surely they would use the phone book not an encyclopaedia? BlueValour 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category does this already, but I'm unsure why we have the individual articles as it is...were they created from the list, perhaps? Nice Catch-22. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's redundant with the category. I'm also far from convinced that the mere existance of a mall is enough to justify it having an article, but that may be a battle that's not worth fighting. Friday (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The size/importance of a mall that determines notability on Wikipedia has been debated for quite some time on AFD. The NC list seems to be pretty fleshed out, more so than other states. I created lists for a few states (but not NC) that actually survived AFD a few months back (back then most of them were redlinked), but as most of them have articles created about them, I think they can be replaced with categories if needed. Kirjtc2 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the North Carolina Yellow Pages -- GWO
  • Delete. Per the Yellow Pages comment. The Gecko 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Hurtte Jr.

I don't see any notability in this bio. NawlinWiki 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frank Hurtte is a community leader and has noted credentials in the world of Automation Technology, and Technical Distribution. Perhaps it is a case of not taking the time to gather enough information for the Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofiowa (talk • contribs) , who is the article author. NawlinWiki 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- only 16 Google hits, with most coming from Wikipedia. --Iowahwyman 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out Frank Hurtte [50] 27,700 hits. I spoke directly with Mr Hurtte today. He said he goes professionally by Frank Hurtte. In my earlier entry I may have gotten overly fancy based on information on his business card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofiowa (talk • contribs)
    • Response -- I did check out that search. 28k Ghits, but only 29 unique Ghits (you have to go to the last page). Still nonnotable. And please sign your contributions with four tildes. (these --> ~). NawlinWiki 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. People who have encyclopedia articles generally are too notable to take phone calls from people writing their WP article. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Mr. Hurtte appears to own a relatively successful small business, I was not able to find any information published by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per
    WP:BIO. If anyone finds differently, please provide links. --Satori Son 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Leisey

Nonnotable candidate for party nomination for state house seat. NawlinWiki 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Yohji Yamamoto. Mangojuicetalk 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y-3

Mykeblack (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objected to the original speedy deletion request that was filed when the article was a few sentences longer. I still don't think a blurb on a line of designer clothing that belongs in a catalogue is remotely close to being notable in an encyclopedic sense. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Puttock

Initialized as an attack/nonsense article, now consists of claims with zero Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rudy Giuliani for President

There's no indication that this group is notable per, let's say,

WP:ORG. They do not appear to have any connection with or endorsement from Giuliani. Their claim to fame is being "a federally-filed committee with the Federal Election Commission", which I assume is a matter of filling out some forms. Sandstein 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • delete per nom. Artw 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Get a notable media outlet, like CNN, to mention it and we'll talk. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There is not "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" per
    WP:CORP). --Satori Son 20:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anyone who wants to recreate as a redirect, if they feel strongly, go ahead. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morituri te salutant

This article is only a translation of a Latin phrase. 24fan24 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gladiator. Tevildo 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tevildo. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not redirect. The phrase is wrong and the translation is wrong. The traditional gladiator salute, which translates as "We who are about to die salute you," is Morituri te salutamus. This sentence would translate as "They who are about to die salute you," an expression I have never heard. Fan-1967 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Admittedly not correct Latin, but Google, with 43,500 hits, seems to indicate it's a very common misapprehension. :) Tevildo 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • O tempera, o mores. The state of modern education. :-( -- Fan-1967 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One trusts that was deliberate. :) Tevildo 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. It is not a traditional gladiator salute. Please read http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/games/qt/morituritesalut.htm. It was supposedly used only once in Roman literature. Gnikhil
  • Redirect and keep per Tevildo. Common errors should be corrected, not redlinked. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on that one, otherwise it just will be recreated because so many people use it wrongly. There are more misspellings included as redirects on WP. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, looking around the web, I see both versions attributed to Suetonius, though it looks like a lot of entries were copied from each other. Maybe I'll see if I can track down an actual Latin text somewhere. I find it difficult to believe that Latin speakers would use the third person in referring to themselves. Fan-1967 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Not really relevant to the AfD, but the _English_ version I've most commonly seen is "Those who are about to die salute you", (rather than "We...") which would seem to make the third-person version more appropriate. Tevildo 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but it doesn't seem to fit the context, of men speaking about themselves. Fan-1967 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not saying that this version is the correct one, but that we should redirect it anyway, because its used so often, regardless which one is the correct one (although the correct one should be the one used in Gladiator). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Gladiator. Note that it appears to be correct; there are copies of the original Latin online, and it seems unlikely that anyone would take a full Latin text and replace a famous quotation in it with a popular misquotation, though it should be easy enough to track down a printed copy of the text if anyone is reluctant to trust an online source. This should probably be noted in the relevant section of Gladiator, which currently only gives the apparently incorrect "salutamus" form, regardless of the outcome of this AfD... — Haeleth Talk 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other thing that needs to be corrected on the gladiator page is the fact that this was not a common salute by the gladiators. Gnikhil
      • Also exists on the wikiquote page http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Latin_proverbs, only if wikipedia had a better search engine, I wouldnt have even added this article. Its better to use google to search wikipedia. :-) Gnikhil
        • Unfortunately, when google returns search results in both versions, no way to tell which is right. However, all the results pretty clearly indicate it's a one-time line, and not a "traditional gladiator salute." Fan-1967 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Add it to List_of_Latin_phrases and have the Gladiator movie page reference it there. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has already been added onto that page. But, the unique history of this phrase coupled with the popular misquotation suggests a case for its own page. Maybe, someone in the future can shed light on why this phrase became a misconception. Gnikhil
  • Delete, or Merge with no redirect. Wikipedia isn't a language handbook. Nandesuka 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete with particular credence given to the cogent presentations by obvious mathematical experts like Arthur Rubin and the rebuttal of the keep advoocates.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowers style acronym

WP:NOT for things made up in geometry class. Prod'd by me, deprod'd. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Delete As far as I can tell, this article describes original research by Bowers that has never appeared in print. I do think that this is worthwhile mathematical research performed by trained mathematicians, but I don't see that it fits the mission and policies of Wikipedia. Bowers' web page is an appropriate place to share this research with the world (and by setting up their own installation of mediawiki, the authors could transfer these page to UniformPolytopeWiki without much difficulty).

Here is my assessment of the literature. I was unable to find Bowers' name on mathscinet. I was able to find some papers by Norman in the 1960s on uniform polytopes. There is a vague promise at http://hometown.aol.com/polycell/uniform.html that a book by Norman on uniform polytopes will be published by Cambridge press, but Google returns no other information on the book. There is no indication that the terminology here will appear in the book. That page claims it is currently “the only place in the world where you can find this information!” which supports the claim that the work on uniform polytope classification falls into the wikipedia original research category.

CMummert 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson book is: Johnson, N. W. Uniform Polytopes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000.--Salix alba (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request I can't find that book in Mathscinet, or Amazon.com, or a interlibrary database named Worldcat, or on the Cambridge Press website. Maybe I am not looking for the right book. Do you happen to know the ISBN? CMummert 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No book by that title on Cambridge University Press web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On May 9, Norman Johnson responded to a question of mine about hyperbolic tilings, ending with: "These data will also appear in my book Uniform Polytopes." From the horse's mouth, then, it ain't published yet. Alas he didn't say when! —Tamfang 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth the book ref came from Mathworld [51]. --Salix alba (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this stuff was apparantly not made up by the creators of the article in geometry class, but by Jonathan Bowers. I doubt User:Salix alba is Jonathan Bowers, so it's not vanity. Voortle 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone responding should read
WP:OR to familiarize themselves with the applicable policies, which say that unpublished research is not in the scope of wikipedia regardless of its correctness. The reason for deletion at the top of this page is not accurate in describing why the page should be deleted. It should be deleted because it is not in accordance with the applicable policies. Anyone who wants to keep the page must explain why the page can be fixed to respect the prohibition against unpublished research. CMummert 17:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. We don't know it wasn't made up by Bowers in geometry class. We know it was made up by Bowers, and I see no evidence it's used in
WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Citations

A bit of digging using search term Jonathan Bowers polyhedra finds a host of links some of which include

  • I don't know what to make of this debate. The acronyms are ACTIVELY used verbally as much as in writing by members of a (nonpublic access) polyhedron email list started by Magnus Wenninger to promote collaboration in polytope research.
  • Bowers "invented" the names for the purpose of faster communication and a critical mass of active researchers, amateur and professional have supported the clarity of the notation. Certainly it would be good for a print published source for these abbreviations, and it ought not to be the place of Wikipedia to defend or promote these names any more than any others.
  • Myself I find them a little cryptic, and for polyhedra, prefer a numeric vertex configuration, and I wrote up an article on this notation, taken from a singular book "Geometric Foundations of Nature". It could be equally questionable to defend any specific notation over any other.
  • Others support the Wythoff symbol which demonstrates the symmetry and truncation form of a polyhedron. They're ALL helpful in different contexts.
  • For ME, my purpose is to be HELPFUL and do my best to cross-reference names, notations, indices, so these beautiful shapes can be appreciated (As I tried to do in the table list of uniform polyhedra.) Someone like Bowers, who has spend YEARS of his life carefully documenting these uniform polytopes, deserves recognition, even if a book is never published.
  • Keep - This notation is as valid as any other used to describe polyhedra, whether in a printed book or not. Tom Ruen 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop this debate dead in its tracks instantly by citing reliable published sources. The
verifiability in particular is a core policy and is non-negotiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
But consider for an instance, subject to
WP:IAR, that the whole world of polyhedra is not one where a lot of traditional publication goes on. People write software to visulise the polyhedra, distrubute the code and maybe write a manual, people write copious webpages on the subject, Hart mentioned in citations for one. People exhibit the polyhedra at various colaqula. They make a lot of discoveries and the word gets out. Probably the most extensivce bibliography is at [54] much of the published work is old, or rehashing old material. Anyway Bowers does have one publication is a so called relaible source: Bridges Conference: Mathematical Connections in Art, Music, and Science Bowers presents a paper. Uniform Polychora, Year: 2000, Page Number: 239, Author(s): Jonathan Bowers. --Salix alba (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the criteria that many would apply to these articles is that of mathematics, where publication ususally does occur. This criteria improves wikipedia's quality, especially in mathematics. The charter of wikipedia does not include publicizing new research. I cannot see why some believe that wikipedia is the correct forum to share the research on polytopes, rather than an independent wiki or a journal. CMummert 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion I apply is the
verifiability
policy that makes exceptions for such topic areas. If I'm wrong, please point me to the place that says this.
In effect, Salix alba is saying that this material should not be subject to the verifiability policity because it is unverifiable (using the word "verifiable" in the Wikipedian sense) Dpbsmith (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:V (cf CMummert and Dpbsmith's comments). Keep votes do not attempt to refute that the article violates these policies. --C S (Talk) 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete and restub. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Fiesta Bowl

Another copyvio. Compare 'After taking a 7-0 lead on a Ken Dorsey strike to Roscoe Parrish, it appeared that Miami was on its way to an easy win as the Buckeyes didn't get a first down until late in the first quarter. The Buckeyes finally got moving midway through the second quarter. After OSU quarterback Craig Krenzel was stuffed on third down on the goal line, head coach Jim Tressel made his first really big decision of the game. He went for it and Krenzel was barely able to get in to tie it at seven.' with 'After taking a 7-0 lead on a Ken Dorsey strike to Roscoe Parrish, it appeared that Miami was on its way to an easy win as the Buckeyes didn't get a first down until late in the first quarter. The Buckeyes finally got moving midway through the second quarter. After OSU quarterback Craig Krenzel was stuffed on third down on the goal line, head coach Jim Tressel had his first really big decision of the game. He went for it and Krenzel was barely able to get in to tie it at seven.' from here. Delete or reduce to a stub and start again. It would be helpful if User:Summonmaster13 could let us know how many more of these there are (or even better fix them) rather than us finding them one by one. BlueValour 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Everyman type fictional characters

too broad of a description, choices are based on vague impressions rather than sources, list will never be complete JianLi 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the reason stated, I feel that there would be some value in providing examples of Everyman characters with which readers are likely to be familiar. The article on the subject provides a good overview, but examples are also helpful. --69.24.180.217 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then there should be a few examples in the article. However, putting examples in list form, and even more so putting the list in an article by itself, is misleadingly authoritative, as if it were a complete list (which, in my opinion, it will never be). By the way, why hasn't this article been deleted yet? It seems like there is a consensus, and it has been more than five days already.JianLi 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everything happens immediately -- the AFD backlog is usually longer (a week or more), but it seems were on the ball this week. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fire drill regulations

Not encyclopedic. This stuff belongs in a legal textbook, not an encyclopedia. Voortle 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Georgia

This is a bare list. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. There is already a category: Category:Shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) ... see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina. No talk page, no support for existance. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bonus characters in Soul Calibur III

WP:COPYVIO violation hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep Helicoptor 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Drew

unclear notoreity/legitimacy, was tagged CSD but seems to make seevral several claims. No opinion myself. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs cleanup, but there is a general consensus that anyone who played any games in the top level of any sport (which means the major leagues in baseball) is notable. (Look at Stubby Clapp, for example.) Even though his major league career was limited to seven games he meets the standard. Fan-1967 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He played in the major leagues. Maybe we should go through Nae'blis articles since he/she obviously can't spell or follow basic grammar. Aaronproot
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on Jonathan Bowers, delete on the rest. Mangojuicetalk 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note this was muddled b/c arguments about the bajillion number redirects and his work don't translate to criticisms of the biography itself; many arguing for deletion made no comment on that issue, many who commented on it wanted the bio kept. Mangojuicetalk 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bowers

I believe he is a non-notable math and numbers fan with a big imagination. I suggest his page be deleted, together with

Googolplexian -- Googolquadriplex -- Googolquinplex -- Googolsexplex -- Googolseptaplex -- Googoloctaplex -- Googolnonaplex -- Googoldecaplex -- Octacontillion -- Ennacontillion -- Hectillion -- Killillion -- Megillion -- Gigillion -- Terillion -- Petillion -- Exillion -- Zettillion -- Yottillion -- Xennillion -- Vekillion -- Duekillion -- Trekillion -- Tetrekillion -- Pentekillion -- Hexekillion -- Heptekillion -- Octekillion -- Ennekillion -- Twentillion -- Triatwentillion -- Icterillion -- Thirtillion -- Fortillion -- Fiftillion -- Sixtillion -- Seventillion -- Eightillion -- Nintillion -- Hundrillion -- Thousillion -- Lakhillion -- Crorillion -- Awkillion -- Bentrizillion -- Botillion -- Trotillion -- Icpetillion -- Ikectillion -- Iczetillion -- Ikyotillion -- Icxenillion -- Multillion -- Versillion -- Supillion -- Gaxillion -- Mejillion -- Gijillion -- Astillion -- Lunillion -- Fermillion -- Jovillion -- Solillion -- Betillion -- Glocillion -- Notillion -- Yootillion -- Zotillion -- Exotillion -- Potillion -- Totillion -- Dalillion -- Tralillion -- Talillion -- Palillion -- Exalillion -- Zalillion -- Yalillion -- Nalillion . So, Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This user is the creator of, or contributor to, many related articles. BlueValour 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Huh? We all know who Salix Alba is; he's a regular on
WP:WPM, and is usually considered trustworthy. linas 04:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah you see you could only create a bigger number by reference to a notation system which allowed you to do such. Without Bowers notation your stuck with the limited Conway notation. --Salix alba (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I could diagonalize Conway's notation multiple times, and would probably catch up to Bowers. If you'll pay me (I am a professional mathematician, after all :) , I'll investigate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe Bowers meets the notability criteria. The array notation and large number names are neologisms, original research with no reliable sources. CMummert 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
A bit of digging using search term Jonathan Bowers polyhedra finds a host of links some of which include
  • Comment Your comment shows a serious misunderstanding of original research, as opposed to established research/theories/naming conventions. There is wonderful original research going on all the time but only after a certain amount of peer review, general acceptence with the scientific community and wider impact does this sort of thing go in an encyclopedia.--Nick Y. 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Original research" is (for Wikipedia purposes) research not documented by a reliable source. So, OK, I concede the point: Newton does not count as an OR purveyor because his research is (now) documented by a reliable source (maybe a couple ;) ). I still don't think "purveyors of OR don't get in" is a sensible position. If a purveyor of OR is verifiable and notable and meets our other policies and guidelines, who cares about whether any research he's done is documented by a reliable source? But I guess this is probably not what GWO meant (although I don't understand what he did mean), and I feel like I'm derailing this thread, so I'm going to shut up now. —Caesura(t) 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is : if you want to get in wikipedia as a mathematician, a prerequisite is to have your work published in a major peer-reviewed journal, or be frequently referenced by articles in such journals. That's where real mathematicians establish their credentials. Everything else is self-promotion. -- GWO
Scientific/Mathematical OR means research unpublished in reputable scientific journals. Which describes Bowers work. For 17th century mathematicians, the criterion is relaxed a little. -- GWO
Comment - have you seen
Talk Contrib Reverts 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Hang on, thats taken out of context its individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, the section refers to predictions not an exisiting objects. --Salix alba (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least the large numbers page (retract vote, see below). (no opinion on the rest). I cleaned up the large numbers page so that it actually looks marginally presentable to someone seriously interested in large numbers. It may not seem to be all that interesting, until it is reviewed in the context of Robert Munafo's work (see the url in the article Jonathan Bowers' large numbers). The Munafo page is a legitimate and mathematically interesting page, at least to anyone who's read through Conway's On Numbers and Games, which is a rather amazing book. Insofar as Jonathan Bowers' large numbers appears to be a refinement, it seems notable enough to me. linas 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. those of you who voted to delete, I suggest taking another look at
Steinhaus-Moser notation or more abstractly, surreal numbers or star (game). I hope you'll see that its not outrageous, and that it fits into the scheme of things. linas 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Retract my vote. On closer inspection, the first section describes the
Conway chained-arrow notation, and as such, is not novel. linas 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. All those comparisons were written up into journal articles. Bowers didn't, so it's OR from the perspective of Wikipedia. Publish or perish. -- GWO
Most recreational mathematics never gets published in a journal. Most things that we like to slap the "OR" label on and delete have the additional property of being wrong. linas 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the error would be This is a standard notation. That may yet be true, but on the evidence now seen, this has been squeezed out between Knuth's and Ackerman's. Septentrionalis 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. Hoxxy 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bio and number pages. Hardee67 04:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half-and-half': keep the
    Talk to me! 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep number pages and bio per above. The Gecko 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is a suspected sockpuppet created within a day of this vote. - Bobet 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with prejudice. There are no reliable references for any of it. They can be created later as articles if some references turn up and enough that demonstrate importance. As it is it's all OR and needs to be deleted. - Taxman Talk 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nandesuka 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul Calibur characters

original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Soul Cailbur characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tekken characters

original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Tekken characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, manga or movie only characters

original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Yu-Gi-Oh! characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment The article is linked from the main Yugioh article, it's not really meant to be found on its own. The contributor decided to break up the character list like this because there are too many for 'list of Yugioh characters'. - Wickning1 05:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this list is the best place for these characters Yuckfoo 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep ,this article is a very useful resource I have come to time and time again. It not only provides one of the best lists out there but has recently had me look at it to solve out a delema I had over one of the characters listed.—The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by 68.32.154.200 (talk • contribs
    ) 11:21, 19 July 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 was delete all (including the ones listed below). Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1 (disambiguation) and January 2 (disambiguation)

Needless disambiguation pageless. No one's going to search for January in the year 1. The user that created this is probably a sock of User:Jose and Ricardo. Voortle 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Calton | Talk 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as pointless. --DarkAudit 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and block Joseandricardo (at least block all the socks) for continuing to waste time. Kusma (討論) 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP as a notable failed game. Ryanjunk 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasto (video game)

None notable game that failed. Trunk 18:40, 14 July 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 was Keep Eluchil404 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of large numbers

We already have an article on large numbers. This is mainly a redundant article as the names and values of large numbers can already be explained in the large numbers article. Voortle 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to large numbers, will improve our search engine's results and do no harm. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large numbers does not explain what this page does, the content is too vast to merge. Important article which has been directly usefull to me when searching for the names of large numbers. HighInBC 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to large numbers. Michael 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect — The articles are not identical, and I'd like to see the useful information preserved. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I seem to recal that Names of large numbers was created to try to keep large numbers farily clean. p.s. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bowers where another set of large number names is up for deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A merge is possible, but Large numbers may be too large :-P. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the way it is. This will prevent a large number of individual large numbers articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a merge would be messy. 132.205.45.148 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mathematics distinct from etymology. Spacepotato 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous remark: the names article is unique to English history but the other article is suitable for translation into other languages. CMummert 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found it useful to have two article differentiating between the concept of large numbers in conjunction with an article that actually names / describes them. At best, merge these articles but do not delete this one. --Japauley3 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think a merge would be nice. -- Patricknoddy 2:54pm July 17, 2006 (EDT)
  • Speedy keep -- surely this must qualify for some speedy-keep criterion? linas 15:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, mathematical nomenclature is surely important and encyclopedic. --Cyde↔Weys 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, without actually deleting any of the information. However, I'd prefer simply to keep the article for aesthetic reasons. Your one true god is
    Talk to me! 07:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -AMK152 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "NN" doesn't convince me of anything, but the verifiability concerns do. Mangojuicetalk 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Craig Schoonmaker

Nonnotable person, as is

gay pride. This doesn't make the guy notable. Oh Crap 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment For having an innappropriate user name! This seems like a disingenuous comment to me ment to somehow affect this AfD with unrelated material.--Nick Y. 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that I posted this comment, there was no indication why Oh Crap had been suspended indefinitely. See [57]. If I had known it was only for the inappropriate user name, I would not have posted the comment. Ground Zero | t 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The leader of a one-man party? --Richhoncho 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Michael 18:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the first two AfDs, both of which failed to get consensus for deletion:

  1. First nomination - February 10, 2006
  2. Second nomination - June 26, 2006
  • Strong keep. Here is an article about a colorful figure in US politics, whose activities have been as diverse as they are bizarre. This the sort of article that makes Wikipedia a joy to read. Would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? No. Would it be diminished? I think so. Schoonmaker filed to run for President of the US in 2005, and announced in March 2006 that he is running for mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This doesn't make him famous, or important, but given his colorful background, it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. What value is there having a third AfD just a couple of weeks after the second? If you have nothing to do, you could try creating some articles, or adding content, instead of wasting time trying yet again to delete an interesting article. Ground Zero | t 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN, only good claim of notability is unverifiable--Nick Y. 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oh come on! The article was on AfD only a couple of weeks ago. bbx 19:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - "There's no harm" is not a valid arguement. He (unverifyably) claims to have invented a well used term, and other than that, is a random attempted politician. Tha last AfD ended in no consensus, so relisting it isn't a bad thing. --PresN 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this is the third time. It is too bad that some much energy is put into trying to remove content and defend articles. This diverts attention away from trying to create content. Ground Zero | t 03:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Coining "Gay Pride" appears to be his only claim to fame - not enough to be encyclopedically notable beyond a mention and an external link to his claims in the Gay Pride article. The other stuff is just crazy crank one man party politics. I'm sure most crank political parties have pretty interesting manifestos - it doesnt automatically make them encyclopedic enough for their own article though. (yeah, yeah, its a copy and paste job...) Bwithh 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The last AfD's lack of consensus seemed to hinge on whether deletion based on notability was consistent with WP's deletion policy. Personally, I'm not opposed to using notability in such a way, as I see it as an extension of
    WP:BIO--even his major contribution, if he made it, isn't "widely recognized" and in fact isn't yet verifiable. -- H·G (words/works) 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. Schoonmaker is notable as the originator of the phrase "gay pride". His spelling reform and political activities may not be sufficiently notable on their own, but they are unquestionably of interest and deserve to be included in the article. CJCurrie 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the "gay pride" claim ever gets some evidence to back it up, very very very very weak keep --- GWO
  • Delete Unverifiable BigE1977 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and no proof to the claims doktorb wordsdeeds 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure about the non-verifiable claims. Capitalistroadster provided this source in the first AFD nomination: [58] (scroll down) Yamaguchi先生 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please gay pride claim has been verified Yuckfoo 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NN. -- Dcflyer 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. TigerShark 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Daks and his White Plastic Soul

Doesn't seem notable, except possibly by association. Found it by accident. All edits four months ago by 2000 Flushes (talk · contribs). — Jul. 14, '06 [18:33] <freak|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 was delete. - brenneman {L} 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NowPublic

Short article with 2 links to themselves. If that's not enough you can click "Corporate Blog" external link and see what they say about WP. --Richhoncho 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment You shouldn't delete an article just because it's about people who don't like Wikipedia!--Runcorn 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair comment, Runcorn, but it is empty and fails
      WP:SPAM as it stands. --Richhoncho 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete per nom, nearly qualifies for {{db-empty}}.--Andeh 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve upon and expand this article if you have a problem with it's brevity. Most Wikipedia articles start out with only a few sentences, and an increasingly popular service like NowPublic will certainly generate a more extensive article. NowPublic founder Michael Tippett's dialogue with GraemeL is in no way indicative of his or NowPublic's opinion of wikipedia, and should for no reason influence the fate of this article. I hope we can take this notice down and get on to something more constructive... Xichael 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andy. Mangojuicetalk 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brooks (UK Politician)

Non notable local politician. I declare an interest insofar as Steve's colleague in Preston Town Hall is someone who beat me in an election a few years ago, but I have nominated for deletion LibDem and Green candidates on the basis of

WP:BIO which I believe this article fails too. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders

article itself states that they only exist in one media, Pokecruft without encyclopedic value -- nae'blis (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skunkboy.net

Reads completely like an advert and, not surprisingly, was written by User:Skunkboy. A search for skunkboy is problematic since it seems to be a very popular Internet handle. Alexa gives it a ranking of almost 4.5 million. Delete as unverifiable, advert. Metros232 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was del-eat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ham

Looks like a hoax or something made up in school one day. I can't find the reference anywhere and I severely doubt Longman published it (Longman is part of Pearson Education and only publishes education-related materials). Metros232 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settlers of Ganareth

Article about a game that didn't work. Either this is a joke or it's a failure on

WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Shrine

A web forum - the most visited FF forum on the web! According to the webmaster, anyway, and surely she would have no reason to exaggerate? Apparently "Because it was not recorded as it happened, the history of Final Fantasy Shrine is convoluted and difficult to accurately report". So we can't. Oh, but we do! Btw, I have an unsatisfactory life and dress up as a little girl to pleasure myself with my wand of justice. Just with speculation instead of fact. And that sets the theme for the whole article, I'm afraid. It is possible that an article on this web forum might be worth having, not that it matters at all to anyone, but then again I seem to have an inferiority complex, due to my lack of female attention and outbreak of acne. (although a para in the FF article is almost certianly sufficient). Almost all of this, though, is

original research. Who defines what is notable? What constitutes an in-joke? Why should anyone outside the forums care about that anyway? So: I say delete this, redirect to FF and then keep an encyclopaedic para on the forum in that article. Just zis Guy you know? 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

How about no. This is a 100% informative article on probably one of the most active FF Fansites on the web. While a fair few of the general regulars share less interest in the series, there are still very high amount of interest expressed in the Final Fantasy forums. The writer of the article was explaining that the people that post for General Chat have already aired their views on the Final Fantasy series.

The reason the forum has in jokes, is because a lot of the General Discussion based members are a closely knit community.

I say leave this alone and stop complaining when there is no reason to.

- Lewis, or Rapture.

  • Like Rapture has said before me, the article is highly informative. The information contained within it can be used by almost anyone, be it a new member to the site looking to find out some history, someone considering joining the site and wanting to have some knowledge of the place to help them decide or even a long-time regular member wanting to reminisce.

First off, I don't really see how this point: "I have been a fan for many years and read many fansites, I have never come across this one", can really be seen as vindication for the deletion of the entire article. By that logic almost every article on Wikipedia ought to be deleted because I haven't come across their source topic before. Pretty ridiculous.

The next point made for deletion refers to a nonexistent contradiction. Whilst it is true that much of the regular members hold no desire to stage discussions about the Final Fantasy franchise, an awful lot still do and with a steady flow of around 40 members joining everyday, almost without exception to discuss Final Fantasy, the Final Fantasy forums remain a hive of activity.

As for the "who defines what is fact" argument, surely this applicable to absolutely every piece of information on the planet. What is a fact to one person is a lie to the next, and it's just a matter of perspective. And while it's undeniable that there is an amount speculation within the article, everything written has been thoroughly researched, and how is the researched-as-far-as-possible speculation in this article any different from say, the speculation in the Bible entry, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that that be deleted as the information contained in that entry is, like this one, as accurate is can possibly be.

"Almost everything from the Jargon section is part of normal web/game lingo and not unique or especially prominent to FFShrine." This is of course true, but just because there is an overlap between the Jargon section and any sort of web lingo dictionary does not make its documentation any less relevant. These are the most commonly used pieces of jargon on the site and that was what the author was drawing the readers' attention to, and not trying to suggest that there were FFShrine originals, unique to the site or anything remotely like that.

The suggestion that the article is "spam" is clearly incorrect in my opinion. It would be spam if upon opening the article you were greeted with "LOL, JOIN US ON FFSHRINE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!1", or something along those lines. However, the article is presenting the history of the site in an informative manner with there clearly being a lot of effort on the part of the author(s) to keep the article as respectable as possible and totally avoid straying into spam. Or maybe my definition of spam is incorrect?

In all, I see no real reason for the deletion of the FFShrine article, at least not more than I can see real reason for the deletion of almost every article on here.

-- Mossy


I don't really give two fucks, tbh. But the fact that you made the effort just to put some tiny article up for deletion and have a bunch of cretins vote on it should give us some indication of how small your penis is. And how often I have to rip into your wife just to keep her satisfied. Leave the fucking page alone, you touchy, over sensitive fuckrag.


WIKIPEDIA, MORE LIKE, WANK MY PEDIA!

LOL

(_ _")

No, you should not delete this very interesting and imformative article. Why? Because: Final Fantasy Forums is fastly becoming one of the world's biggest forums based one of the world's biggest thing. With nearly 24,000 signed up members, and a fascinating history that spans for 5 years, people are bound to want to know more about the history of FFShrine Forums.

Anyway Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are only a few lines short! Search Sumatra for example. With an interesting, informative and humourous article, I see no point in deleting this one. A lot of eventful things have happened to Final Fantasy Forums, though I have not been here to see all of them happen. And everyone one of those events brought FFShrine Forums to a closer relationship. We are a very tight community, and if you want to bring us down, we will hold our ground!

What is fact? Well almost everything you hear could be a lie, well at least not the whole truth. People exaggerating to make themselves better, stories or information being passed down and leaving out small bits, non accurate calculations etc etc etc. Not you hear is 100% true. Sit an apple infront of you and say its just an apple is lying to yourself because there is much more than just an apple. There is living bacteria and a whole lot of other stuff there as well. Why i'm talking about apples i do not know. They are healthy ^^ Remember guys 5 serves of veges and 2 serves of fruit a day!!!

P.S Rezo is such a good drawer. Go to www.kiwisbybeat.com The only place you can see his amazing Minus Strips ^^ It is very, very, very very very, very ,very worth your time and effort.

- Alvinz

  • Delete I am unconvinced by the above comments. Runcorn 21:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to

WP:RFD as a redirect for deletion; closed there too. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirection

I don't see why this redirects to Nicolaus Copernicus --PhiJ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's now been changed to a Redirects for deletion --PhiJ 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCSSM MPC

If this has any notability, then it is totally lost in the translation, "Peters and their shadows." What does that mean? --Richhoncho 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTF? Speedy delete as patent nonsense. "Random/organized ideas" indeed. —Caesura(t) 22:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is using this as a personal website, not as an encyclopedia.

  • Speedy delete "Someone is using this as a personal website" agreed--Nick Y. 23:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not your personal webpage. --DarkAudit 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. A1 or G2, perhaps? Tevildo 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete
    Patent Nonsense Resolute 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary advertising

Contested prod. It looks like an idea somebody has for revolutionizing advertising that they decided to publish at Wikipedia. (The original version said the term was "coined by me".) Whether or not it's a good idea, it's not ready for an article. The external link isn't really a source, and also claims coinage... Relevant policies and guidelines would be

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Wikipedia:No original research. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as neologism, original research, and crystal ball gazing. Note Google hits. The first links to a blog that belongs to the original author of the article. Subsequent hits use the term in a variety of different ways (sometimes, but not consistently, as a synonym for contextual advertising). —Caesura(t) 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:NOT hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Skinmeister 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though the article prose reminds me of the old joke about the woman who confessed to her doctor that despite being married three times she was still a virgin. The doctor, amazed, asks how this is possible, and she tells the doctor that her first husband was a gay man who came out of the closet on their wedding night, her second husband was a soldier who was killed in battle before they could consummate their marriage, and her third and current husband is in the advertising business, and all he'll do is sit at the foot of the bed and keep telling her how good it's going to be. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research.--Runcorn 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Crew of Richard III (1955 film)

Delete - Most of the crew would not be deemed notable (if they are, they can be mentioned in the main article). Links to IMDb pages were long ago deemed sufficient for this type of thing. MisfitToys 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not even worth a redirect. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even all the bluelinks go to the right person. --Richhoncho 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not imdb. -- GWO
  • Delete GWO put it well. Don't even merge- the other article's an FA, so it doesn't need this list in it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not redirect material, since anyone looking for the cast of this film would surely look at the film's article first. The notable cast and crew should be listed there, but if not smerge. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steuart Campbell

Suspected breach of

Guinnog 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple digits

Originally prod'd as "Nearly a dictionary definition, cannot be significantly expanded beyond that definition." Prod removed by an anon adding an {{

dict}} tags. I still say delete, but it might be transwikied to Wiktionary, if someone there wants it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Edwards (detective)

Delete per

talk/email 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete - no salvageable content, although the page should not be subject to CSD G4 deletions if recreated with more encyclopedic content, per Drenched. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Jews

Thinly veiled attack page; if I'm unitentionally assuming bad faith, I apologise; the article is also grounds for deletion as a blatant violation of

WP:NOR hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Seems like there is a whole category for it Category:Pejorative terms for people. Jon513 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as OR abakharev 08:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already voted delete above, but perhaps we could also userfy this to Drench so he can hunt for sources.--Chaser T 08:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against a sourced, neutral article. Good idea, poor execution this time around. Usually I'd say just to stub it and take out all the problem material, but that might just encourage malicious reverts. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What does it mean to userfy an article? I think stubbing it and removing the current contents minus the intro explanation & links might be a good idea. Of course, people might vandalize the article or just add their own POV/OR content to it (which will always be a problem for any article about a topic of this nature), but it would also give actual scholars a place to add valid researched content as well. I don't think there would be any malicious reverts though; I certainly wouldn't revert it (and at the moment it looks like no one else has contributed to actual content of this article), and the original authors of this content from the mother page are probably fully aware of OR/citing sources problems. Also, if you look at the original page
      Ethnic stereotypes in American media, you'll see in the introduction paragraph that people were writing about stereotypes with a tone of exposing racial stereotyping in the media, rather than one of maliciously attacking each of the ethnicities, so I doubt anyone would revert an article that sounds racist out of context. --Drenched 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Userfying just means that the artcle's contens were transferred to your userspace, as they will likely be deleted from mainspace. I userfied the contents as a good faith effort that you'll try to address the issue from a scholarly and NPOV perspective. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Thanks for the good faith effort, but there's no need to keep this page in my userspace if you all want to delete it. I am not very invested in this page; like I said before, I have nothing to do with the contents; I just happen to be the person moving preexisting content, and I have no intention of personally researching this topic further to create scholarly content. I do think that the topic itself is valid and researchable and should have its own article, but I have no interest in writing it. So if you all want to delete it and not have an article until someone comes up with scholarly content, that's fine with me. That being said, can someone please tell me how to delete things from my userspace? --Drenched 22:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can just put the db-owner tag on the top of the page and an administrator will delete it for you. I've already gone ahead and placed the tag on the user page. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotes anti-semitism in current form. DaturaS 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thinly veiled poison. What's the point of it? Byrgenwulf 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Drenched. The intent of the article is valid (documenting stereotypes of Jews in media, literature, etc.). However, the current content is absolutely unacceptable as it stands. Clean it up and quickly. --Richard 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unredeemably silly.--Runcorn 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete pending Phaedriel's research. Contact me (or any admin) if you would like the contents of the old article. This deletion should not be subject to CSD G4 in the event that notability can be established. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Phaedriel has contacted me and has come to the judgment that this musician fails
    WP:MUSIC at this time. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Buggin Malone

No vote, procedural nom. This was twice speedy deleted, and tagged for repost again, for which it's ineligible, see

talk/email 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Anybody who mails their CDs to CDBaby can put them up for sale. So anybody who wants to spend up to $1,500 to have a pressing is in business. Of course every gigging act has a pressing these days. I understand that actual sales are very low at CDBaby. --Richhoncho 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep According to
    WP:MUSIC, "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award." The NAMMY is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, also has a Minnesota Tribune blurb on front page and has been covered in another article[63]. But considering the list of people whom have won a NAMMY and it's own notability, it seems this musician is notable, and the article needs to be expanded. Yanksox 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment, my vote hinges on the whether the NAMMY is considered a "major music award." Right now I'm leaning towards delete; the notability of an awards' recipients does not necessarily make it a "major" award. Considering how little has been written in the NAMMY article in the year since it was created, I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be considered a major award. -- H·G (words/works) 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question relies on the defintion of defining on what makes an award a major one. Yanksox 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*I believe He should stay as an article because he is very popular among the native american community and even though he may not be very popular outside that community there are still people who may want to know more about him.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 04:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for Remember Wounded Knee!!!, then go and work on the article, list references and make it count. At the moment it doesn't even say what award the subject has won! --Richhoncho 12:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*If you care so much about it then why don't you edit it you british @$$HOLE!--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please, try to show some
      Personal attacks hardly help your cause. And, while we're on topic, why aren't you fixing the article instead of slinging mud at a fellow editor? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

*Because this is america and none of you foreigners are going to tell me what to do, okay FELLOW!--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time you relax, spend a little while from Wiki, and calm down. Yanksox 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that Wikipedia is not America (whether it be North, South, or the United States of). English-speaking editors from all over the world contribute to en.wikipedia.org. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*I think its time for you to go back to your own country.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, now... I think I did warn you once already. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*The Wu Tang Clan ain't nuttin' ta f*ck with. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs
) . *If you can have an article on wikipedia about oral sex and a list of sex positions then you should be able to have an article on buggin malone.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 16:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We regrettably have notability criteria for people, and only a gut-feeling-based notability criteria for sex positions (and, if I may add, obscure and completely unheard of sex-related topics have been deleted). In either case, their relevance is not in question here. If you find such topics inappropriate, please AfD them separately. We're discussing this article here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you people delete this article, Im just going to put it back up so just forget about it. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs
) .

And in that case it will be deleted as a substantially same, previously deleted content; if sufficiently different, it may still meet quick death in another deletion debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to upload pictures into articles? I tried it and it was too confusing. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs
) .

Please consult the help pages. Deletion debate is regrettably not a good place to find help requests. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al yoo verjinz kneed too get of thee cumputur and gow get layd. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs
) .

As much as Soaring Eagle is testing our limits, I don't think that is enough for deletion. Deletion of an article shouldn't be used as somesort of punishment towards a user. I have added the info of the NAMMY, prehaps Soaring Eagle could help add context since s/he knows about the subject. Yanksox 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but is are the Native American Music Awards notable for inclusion per
WP:MUSIC? They just seem to be an esoteric award for musicians of Native American heritage. Especially when this artist is in the (to the best of my knowledge) small group of Native American hip-hop artists (first ghit is his own webpage, followed by 920 other pages[64]). Ryulong 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
For this issue we need clarification of what makes an award "major," In
WP:MUSIC, a band is notable if one of it's members is a notable musician by Wikipedia's standards. This award appears to be notable with a notable list, and should be enough to carry this subject. Yanksox 20:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE. This artist apparently has become increasingly popular among several Native American communities, specially the Winnebago and Potawatomi of Wisconsin. I promise, right here and now, that I'll try my very best in the next days to research on the subject and provide every bit of info I can dig, as well as researching on its alleged notability, for which I cannot vouch now. Should this article become deleted in the meantime (I'm going out on vacation for a day or two tomorrow), and if I reach a favorable conclusion re. its notability, I'll contact the involved users and administrators to consider it submitting to Deletion review. In the meantime, on behalf of those Native Americans wikipedians that try and help to improve this project everyday, I wish to tell you that I'm embarrased and saddened by the judgements made by this particular user, which in no way represent the feelings of the vast majority of Native Americans nor those of us involved in Wikipedia. Warm regards to all of you, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thanks Phædriel ♥ tell me for the apology. It wasn't necessary, all humans have the ability to be offensive from time to time! As for me, if it was the brevity of my comment, which was intended as well meaning, that started this I will apologise for my own actions. --Richhoncho 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the article, but as always, if Phaedriel (or anyone else in good standing) wants an article userified in order to work on it after it's been deleted, with the goal of getting it to a place where it would stand scrutiny, I and many other editors would be happy to undelete and userify it on request. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinales

Someone put an AFD on this page on the 20th of last month, but never completed the process, and the tag is still around. Completing this nom. No opinion from me.-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig C. Ryder

Prodded as self-published author of God Found which was recently AfD'd. Deprodded without comment.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True dat

Neologism that should stay in Urban Dictionary (delete) or weak redirect to Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik. --feydey 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it stays, "true that" should probably redirect to it. There are about as many entries at urban dictionary for it. What's the reason for redirecting to the OutKast album?because it's a track, of course. anyway...--Chaser T 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)--Chaser T 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nick Y. 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; a redirect probably isn't necessary. -- H·G (words/works) 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't bother with redirect (it appears to be a 1 1/4 minute interlude in the album). -- Mithent 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many, older affirmation phrases remain un-documented no lie, totally, yes indeed, I mean really. Don't let wikipedia become the expression of the ego-centrism of one period in time. That would be totally bogus to the max, if we were like, judged by posterity on the basis of 80's fad phrases for example. --Xrblsnggt 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus, I'm a little offended by the implication of the article that a phrase established in hip-hop for years isn't popularized until its used by white hipsters in Williamsburg. hateless 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to elision. Elide can be one form of the word elision, and the redirect will help people find our article on elision. Kimchi.sg 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elide

This is advertising and/or self-promotion for an unknown band Daniel Quinlan 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Epsilon Sigma Iota

A student organisation with tenuous claims to notability. Those are in the 'Awards and Achievements' section, and a Google searched for the name of the organisation coupled with the concrete awards, as well as a general Factiva search, turned up no

verification the claims to notability can be ignored completely. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseSpace

Seems like a promotional advertisement to me. PhaseSpace is the name of the company. Article describes the product. Link at bottom of page goes to company website. KarenAnn 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, close to a speedy delete per CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User cast two votes. —Caesura(t) 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The way I read this, then, is that this article has three different subjects: 1) a blurb on the physics concept, which is better explained at
    WP:CORP; and 3) a paragraph on an Australian company that doesn't even go by the name PhaseSpace, but has it as part of their company website's URL. Assuming all three were valid encyclopedic topics, each would deserve its own article to be noted on a disambiguation page (which already exists. But really, the only element of the page that apparently is a valid entry on WP already has its own page. I'm not seeing why this one should stay. -- H·G (words/works) 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept already has an article at Phase space (not worth a redirect, since no one would search for it as PhaseSpace). Both companies appear non-notable ([65] [66]). —Caesura(t) 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:CORP, and most Ghits for "'phasespace' optical motion" linked to unrelated pages on the concept anyway. Several of these pages seemed to refer to "phasespace" as shorthand for the physics concept, so a redirect isn't unwarranted. -- H·G (words/works) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom no opposition ot redirect.--Nick Y. 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, do not keep as a separate article. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You keep saying WE which seems to exclude ME. I'm busy looking up the rules that apparently are too difficult to just reference with a [[ or something. Tmcsheery 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Sorry, it's been mentioned a couple of times, but here it is again:
        WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN may be applicable. And I don't mean to exclude you; I do appreciate the contributions you've made to other Wikipedia articles. —Caesura(t) 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Interesting. I note that there was no discussion about the modifications I made to keep it within the criteria set forth. Then when I recreated the article, there was no discussion at all.Tmcsheery 23:16, 27 July 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 was keep. Mangojuicetalk 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Area Transit (Raleigh)

When we discussed the Sidney bus routes the concensus was that bus timetables are not appropriate for WP. The CAT system is already covered in the Raleigh, North Carolina article and I have added the few additional facts. All that is left is timetables and fares. Delete. BlueValour 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article meets the

notability guidelines, then I would recommend that it be kept and expanded. 68.50.203.109 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A regional transit system serving a moderately large city seems notable enough. Major improvement needed. NO objection to BlueValor's suggestion below.--Nick Y. 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having reflected upon this I now suggest a Delete and redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina. At the moment nearly the entire content would be deleted as non-encyclopaedic (we don't do timetables, fares etc). If someone is moved to write a substantial article it can be broken out again. BlueValour 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --DarkAudit 23:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I created the article, and I just made major improvements to it. I basicaly deleted the whole thing and made a new one. I have just added resources to the bottom of the page. Sorry for the trouble. -- User:Mywebsite123400015:41, 18 July 2006
  • Weak Keep More than a bus timetable.--Runcorn 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acecomp plus

Ad for company that fails

Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Alexa ranking of 653,958. —Caesura(t) 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Response: Please read the standards at
    Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Microsoft is a famous, newsmaking company. Acecomp is not. Fan-1967 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOMS SHOES

Nothing but advertising. Even if their hearts are pure, this is still pure spam. My vote is Delete Dipics 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, there are certain notability and verifiability guidelines (see links provided earlier) that Wikipedia articles should follow. The nomination for article deletion is no reflection on the value or work of the subject, but rather a discussion as to whether the article is appropriate for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines. -- H·G (words/works) 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billion dollar mark up have you seen how cheap thes shoes are. TOMS is world renound phenomenon have you seen its recent press i truly think this is something people should be able to find more out about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.120.121 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment That's billion percent, not dollar. And, I have seen the shoes. He is selling a pair of shoes for $38 that would wholesale for about $2 if that much. I have seen similar shoes RETAILING for under $5. The company BRAGS about the fact that these shoes are based on the type of shoe that dirt-poor farmers wear in South America. Just how much do you really think that they wholesale for? Plus, the important part, there is no part of
    WP:CORP that this company comes even close to meeting. Beaner1 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibeem

Ad for software that fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). See also my nomination for the company that developed it. —Caesura(t) 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What can I do to revised this article, This is along the same type of article as MYSQL, MS SQL and Others. And includes History, information, about, details and more. I do not understand.

What is incorrect about the article and why would it be deleted. I really want to know what I need to do to re-submit it. I have spend two weeks on it. I followed the guidelines and researched other software related articles on this site prior to submitting.

  • Delete. Advertisement, also, article gives only a vague notion of what the software is for. Further, the article lacks sources. Gerry Ashton 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above statement. KarenAnn 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gerry Ashton. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert.--Runcorn 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While counting votes gives a 75% delete count, there were several opinions expressed that this could be a valid topic, and the article has also changed significantly since the AfD so that it is not an advertisement and demonstrates notability (as mentioned as reasons for deletion by some voters). It may be best to give the article some time, and renominate later if it can be shown that it can't cut it in Wikipedia. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlateSpin

It's just advertisement. The page's creator has not only removed the tag from the page but also blanked this page and removed the listing from Afd. My vote is an obvious Strong Delete Dipics 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. I wasn't previously familiar with them, but they appear to be a legitimate player in the virtualization market. Looks like there are plenty of sources for this. Friday (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (potentially speedy) Delete per nom. No encyclopedic value. Pure spam. No claim of notability, NN --Nick Y. 22:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just wanted to ask those participating to judge the subject, not neccessarily the current content. I realize this article is in an immature state, but this can be fixed by editing. Friday (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that I am a bit prejudiced against the author of this article for the reasons stated above. I can imagine changing my vote to a keep if the article is substantially (as in totally) rewritten. As it stands though, it is just an advertisement. Dipics 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, the article makes some small claim of notability, and a lot of Ghits for the company ("platespin vmware"). However, I'm reluctant to vote "keep" without confirmation from someone familiar with the industry who can state whether or not the company and/or its product is well-known in that field. If this is kept, a rewrite is certainly required. -- H·G (words/works) 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an IT professional who uses
    VMWare, altho I'm far from expert in virtualization, only having become familiar with it somewhat recently (however it's a hugely important subject in IT management right now). I must admit I had never heard of these guys til now, but a quick google seems to show plenty of people in the tech industry talking about them. I threw some sources onto the talk page, and I'll try working them into the article as time permits. Friday (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not saying the companies have a close business relationship, or that any of the products involved share a common lineage, but they're both in the virtualization field. Anyway, my main argument for keeping is that people in the tech industry are writing about their products. Also, for what it's worth, they won something called a "Stevie Award" [67] - however I admit I'm not familiar enough with this to say whether it's a legit award or merely the equivalent of being listed in a "Who's Who". I've tweaked the article a bit and thrown some sources onto the talk page. Friday (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert.--Runcorn 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've radically stubbed the article (moving some content to the talk page) so that it doesn't read like an advert any more. Friday (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Patti "Diamondlady" Diamond, DD

Where to start on this one? The article appears to be self-written, and is indescribable; you have to read it. (One of the section headings is: "The Wisdom From the Infinitely Spiritual Light BEing Channeled Through Dr. Patti "Diamondlady" Diamond, DD.") Generates 79 unique GHits, just about all of of which appear to be self-generated, mainly press-release sites and forums. Her books are published by Lulu, a print-on-demand operation; one has an Amazon sales rank of "None", the other about 1.9 million. Her "doctorate" (every single mention of her contains the "DD") is from Universal Ministries, the people who will ordain anyone for a couple bucks. I see no evidence of any genuine notability, and this looks like advertising. Fan-1967 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Author just vandalized this AFD in this edit. I think that gives a pretty good indication. Fan-1967 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete as advertising. I just reverted an attempt by the author and subject to vandalize this AfD. Please watch for this sort of thing. And don't close this as speedy; lets get a nicely documented explanation here of exactly why this person is non-notable and pure self-promotion.
JesseW, the juggling janitor
21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Not a vandalizing, simply feel it is unnecessary for you to slander a person such as myself for attempting to assist people on this earth. I am sharing my thoughts here on this deletion nothing more. Wayne Dyer, Esther Hick, and many others on here all get to have their works listed to assist all souls here. And while my docorate is with Universal Ministries, if you actually take the time to read my sites in their entirety you will see that I am free from being just about this doctorate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.202.194 (talk • contribs)
  • If you change my words, which are above my signature, you identify yourself as a liar and a vandal. No excuses can change that. Fan-1967 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou may be free to call me as you wish however, I will say again, this is free from being a consituted reason for this page to be deleted. I will say yet again, * Note: Not a vandalizing, simply feel it is unnecessary for you to slander a person such as myself for attempting to assist people on this earth. I am sharing my thoughts here on this deletion nothing more. Wayne Dyer, Esther Hick, and many others on here all get to have their works listed to assist all souls here. And while my docorate is with Universal Ministries, if you actually take the time to read my sites in their entirety you will see that I am free from being just about this doctorate. It is about helping souls not about self promotion. Wayne Dyer and others are not considered self promoters are they? No, they are considered to be respected members of the world helping others, which is all I am attempting to do. Read my websites in their entirety and you will come to understand this. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondlady1025 (talk • contribs)
  • Anyone reading this can see your edit, and use it to judge what kind of person you are. I believe the facts speak for themselves. Fan-1967 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion review is not meant to imply a judgement of accomplishments by an article's subject. Rather, Wikipedia has certain notability guidelines that subjects would hopefully meet. The one that best applies for this particular topic is
    citations. If this is done to the satisfaction of a consensus of WP editors, articles that are nominated for deletion survive the process. -- H·G (words/works) 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Be that as it may, Wikipedia guidelines require that content not violate copyright laws and guidelines. Additionally, the use of materials from press releases is usually viewed as violating WP policies on
    neutral point of view. -- H·G (words/works) 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fahrenheit 451, nothing to merge by now. Kimchi.sg 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Hound

minor character; little useful content (direct quotes from book); should be merged with main article? Nyvhek 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also are the quotes are long enough that we should worry about a possible copy vio? Artw 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep very minor character in an extraordinarly notable book. I say weak keep only because of precedent of keeping extraordinarly minor characters in extraordinarly unimportant and non-notable videogames etc. Otherwise I would vote delete. I strongly feel that precedent requires that we vote keep. I will work to change that precedent but not on one of the greatest pieces of english literature. --Nick Y. 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Quotes seem to be gone (They are still there, but I missed them owing to not using block quotation. They should be shortened.), and the article can be expanded into the personification of the forces of opression and distrust embodied in the hounds. More so then a charecter the hounds represent a great example of making intangible forces into charecters in fiction. -
    Mask 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to
    WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to F451. Not much need to merge information. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect to
    WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per Metropolitan90. Scoo 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not a significant character.--Runcorn 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it's meaningless to have an article about the Hound without the context of a description of the rest of the book. There's no content here to merge elsewhere. Worldtraveller 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete OR, no sources. Merge is not an option because we would simply be adding more unsourced material to the main article. BlueValour 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the moment I have removed the text that concerns me, pending sourcing. BlueValour 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E. B. Mud

Prod'd several days ago, anonymous user removed it so sending it to AfD. This article is almost certainly a hoax (an American with background in Cubo-Futurism helped Saddam Hussein pen an illicit novel and now lives on a boat in California). Of course Google revealed nothing backing anything in this article up. -- H·G (words/works) 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax (evidenced by nomintator's administering Google test) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. —Caesura(t) 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax--Nick Y. 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Provides no references stating the importance of this person. Also looks like a hoax. Jesse Viviano 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft Cincinnati

NN local club - fewer members than my local social club. Hardly any independent Google hits here. BlueValour 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thanks. I have put a speedy tag on it now. BlueValour 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parson's closet

No sourcing and no Google hits here that indicates that this is a generally used term. Delete BlueValour 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, at best needs a rewrite with sources, but indeed there's nothing yet to indicate that the term is a familiar one in society. Willing to change my vote if sources can be found, but right now this doesn't look likely. -- H·G (words/works) 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Its articles are about people/concepts/places/events/things, not about terms. This article purports to be about a thing: a type of closet known as a "parson's closet". It cites no sources and I can find no sources. It is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources found. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe move to Wiktionary.--Runcorn 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Tire Modeling Program

No sourcing. Not verifiable. Insufficient Google hits to underpin significance here. BlueValour 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a PDF in Ghits indicates this was probably a known program of some sort within government/military organizations, but nothing else even mentions it. Even if print sources could be found, without expansion of this article there's little to indicate that this is any more notable than thousands of small-scale government policies and programs. -- H·G (words/works) 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial.--Runcorn 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, I've added some sourcing that should help address verification. The project had an important impact on modeling software used widely today in the tire industry. Hope this helps. Liammars 19 July 2006
  • Delete as per User:HumbleGod. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (repost of copyvio). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Arts Fitness

Non-notable instruction method (zero Google hits). Prod tag was removed by author without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastland Mall (Tulsa, Oklahoma)

May have been notable once but no longer. Delete. BlueValour 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not the
    Yellow Pages Bwithh 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom --Nick Y. 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDIT Although the mall reads to be in disrepair, it was a destination in Tulsa, and should be kept. However, the article needs to be cleaned, as it has to have a biased tone. --Mrath 05:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable.--Runcorn 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Mall

No notability asserted. Nothing to distinguish this from thousands of other malls. Delete BlueValour 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Nanoscopes

Unsourced personal pseudoscience. Author disputes prod. Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the pseudoscience comment not the author. To consider either claim requires verification, not opinion? I have several websites with observed cellular structures that could not be otherwise seen without nm magnification. www.microscience2006.org.uk/cgi-bin/press_view_details.cgi?press_id=erg49719053 which is the press release at the Royal Microscopical Show at Excel London 2006. www.grayfieldoptical.com - a company who sell the nanoscope and have video records. www.improvision.com/products/rtm/ - who sell the Richardson version of the nanoscope with resolutions down to under 100nm. Yes, as a Graduate Physicist, I was more than sceptical of the claims knowing of the 300nm wavelength resolution limit of light. But there are references from the 1940's where respected institutions (articles available if required) considered there might be ways around them. When my son was diagnosed with Diabetes last month I began to search for causes and a cure. This led to the Rife claims which were initially preposterous. However digging up all the literature (I do mean all including Court Cases!) led to a simple premise. How could he have obtained his images? How could his frequency methods work on Lymes disease where antibiotics fail? ("When antibiotics fail--Lyme disease and rife machines" by Bryan Rosner). There are numerous unsupported claims for his machines but surely the real proof would be to reproduce his high powered microscope? To this end I decided to view the Rife #5 microscope (Ex Dr Gonin of University College, London) to try to understand it better. Hours of research on the internet led to the Erganom microscope of Kurt Olbrich which was synchronistically on show in London the following week! You can see 30nm data spacings on the new DVD discs live. Astonishing! So I think the evidence for optical nanoscopes is very strong. It is also very important that the data on Wikipedia is accurate. Let me know what more evidence is required? If you just think about it for a moment the medical possibilities are revolutionary. At the moment the electron microscope sample has to be dead and in a vacuum. The optical nanoscope allows one to see live cellular phenomena down to viral sizes. I have not put it in this article but you can see the action of cancer causing particles as described by rife. How slightly alkaline blood reduces their mobility. You can also see the destruction of pathogenic cells. Even more importantly you can see where Rife was wrong! With modern equipment you can see viruses evading frequencies and needing multiples, so all in all a remarkable discovery that the world needs to know about. There is even perhaps some mileage in a possible cure for type 1 diabetes. Two patients have been cured using retrodifferentiated stem cells with ongoing research at Cambridge University. I cannot be bothered with the hassle of placing a challenged article but I am following the research closely. There is currently one (yes one!) nanoscope in use in the UK which to my mind could actually show how the body destroys pancreatic beta cells? Is this sort of work important? Of course it is and accurate articles on Wikipedia will help the process. Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris500 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Those press releases are interesting but not sufficient. Every reference to "nanoscope" that I can find in the scientific literature refers to Atomic force microscopy. I also noted that none of the press releases contained the phrase "optical nanoscope". For a new scientific instument I think we need a peer reviewed article. I would suggest pubmed, sciencedirect, scirus etc. for your searches.--Nick Y. 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this relates to
    Confocal laser scanning microscopy but it is hard to tell from the marketing mumbojumbo. Which you may have been taken in by. It seems like this stuff is real but perhaps by another name. We can;t call the personal computer a "Dell" and say it is real, look at all the press releases. Remember it is up to you chris to give sufficient support.--Nick Y. 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

There seems to be genuine confusion over this new topic. A microscope magnifies to micrometers with a max effective resolution of x2000 limited by wavelength optics. A nanoscope magnifies to nanometers. Most nanoscopes use smaller wavelengths to achieve this (X rays, etc) but this destroys live cells. An electron microscope also shows nanometric sizes but has it's own category. An optical nanoscope breaks the conventional light wavelength barrier and allows the observation of live cells. (At nm levels viruses can be seen). The literature on this subject is sparse (but I will find some) because it is considered impossible in Physics Books. Now you have the logical description of the products? This is not how they are described! The high resolution optical microscopes that show nanometric sizes should then be called nanoscopes. They are not. They are still called microscopes due to their historical method. Confusing or what! The Erganom 500, used at University College, is still called a microscope when surely the correct term is a nanoscope? I take your reasonable point that hard evidence is required before insertion. This will be provided. Thanks

The concept for this nanoscope (which is called a microscope) was developed in the 1970's. Perhaps understandably, but regrettably, it was decided by users that secrecy outweighed scientific knowledge. However letters confirming it's qualities are as below: Institute for Immunology, Witten University, Germany . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/expertise.pdf . Dr Greenberg, University College, London . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/greenberg.gif . Professor Gerd Binning, Nobel Prize winner 1986 for electron microscope . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/Binning.pdf . This is quite good verification but presumably not enough! Let me know what else is required! I will obtain originals if that is what is required.


  • Delete. Also continue reverting the efforts to support this in the Royal Rife article, and the one on Erganom. A paper in Nature would produce a different response, and if the claims made appraoched performance a paper in Nature would be the least I'd expect out of it. Resolution is a size not a multiplication, there isn't a barrier to "break" and this 2004 discussion is relevant to the devices and individuals involved. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.techniques.microscopy/2005-01/0003.html It doesn't look to me like ignorance or confusion, it looks to me like an effort to use WP to support a scam for commercial gain. Of course since Chris500 has not disclosed any indication of his affiliations or background I am only in a position to speculate. Midgley 10:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Please check the latest updates including a verified article from Science 2004 on the work of Dr Brinkmann of the Max Planck Institute on Neurophils. Also there is a letter from a Nobel Winning physicist Professor Binnig. It doesn't come any better than that!? Yes, you are correct there is some laxity in the use of terms for microscopes (or nanoscopes and whatever else they might be called). There is resolution and magnification and how the human eye detects these. Magnification is the multiplication of the original objects size and is often referred to lenses. You can magnify an image on a photocopier but you don't increase the definition, or resolution. The key measure, as you say, is the resolution or the size of the smallest two points that can be distinguished. This is defined in the classic Richard Feynmann Physics text (Lectures on Physics Vol 1:27-8) as distance "d = lambda(wavelength of light)/nxsin(theta). The smallest things that we can see are therefore approximately the wavelength of light", or 400nm. If you can see objects smaller than this then that theory must be wrong? That is the method of science. This wavelength 'barrier' is the limit that has been broken and now allows the observation of live cellular phenomena. Coincidentally it also opens up the new field of electromagnetic medicine to scientific experiments. To me it is more than strange that human and animal electrowhatever phenomena have not been clinically examined. They exist. They are powerful. They are a part of what makes us think.

Quite correctly you question my motives. It's simply the only one you can ever have. Truth.

Is there a real result in these new optical nanoscopes? I think so and appreciate your questions to show evidence. It is not even clear at the moment what they are called!

You might sense that I am pretty well pissed off with the Medical Establishment. My son was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes just before his A levels. This marvellous and costly Health Service of ours didn't know what caused it and considered it incurable. Bollocks! Get off your overpaid complacent fat arses and find out why. Do I really need to do it!!!????

I am a trained Theoretical Physicist from Imperial College and have spent my lifetime solving problems that were considered impossible by those too feeble to look. I know the limits of science and nature. You don't get any more fundamental than the observational limits of Quantum Mechanics. Everthing else is just detail, including the human body. I look, and I mean really look with a passion that brooks no obstacle, and I find that a Drugs Based medical establishment oversees most research and is not looking for cures but ways to make billions of dirty dollars. Disgusting. Tell that to a 5 year old with daily injections. Tell that to a Food Industry that knowingly sells products containing damaging cheap products to children. I hope to see the day when it is considered a crime.

I find that a billion sheep with two legs blitley believe the pseudoscience tag of rife WITHOUT the brains to examine it. EXAMINE IT STUPID!!! Simple logic indicates a measurable phenomena. Have a look. Prove or disprove the results. It couldn't be simpler really. As Jeremy Clarkson so aptly says "why are people so stupid and slow!".

You look and find that you can see these phenomena, and it has been known for 30 BLOODY YEARS! F***ing ridiculous!!

Next time you are in hospital just think how many illnesses could be solved by such technology. Then ask yourself what you are doing about it.

SOD ALL.

"a trained Theoretical Physicist from Imperial College". Not a lawyer and correspondent in the BMJ's rapid response columns as well by any chance? Physicists were well ahead in moving their references on to the Web, and it would not be surprising to see even a BSc easily giving precise references to Science articles and letters. I'm unconvinced. I'm also unimpressed with either the invective, or the discussion of a child with type 1 diabetes, which as is comonly known was rapidly fatal until Banting and Best sorted out the durg that provides extra decades of life, and is a classic piece of "drug based" medicine now. Midgley 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lyme disease is anmed after Lyme County in New England, not after a person - Lyme, not Lyme's - and the Borrelia SPirochaetes are treatable effectively with antibiotics. There is a considerable overlay of rubbish on Lyme disease, and I don't doubt a fertile overlap with Rife apologists. Midgley 19:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Also check out Erganom Nanoscope. There are indeed new microscopic techniques that break the wavelength/resolution constraint: for instance, SNOM (aka NSOM) and the JPL's FANSOM. The generic term optical nanoscope is used for these. But this article looks like an attempt to retrofit the concept to the Rife mythos. Tearlach 12:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It may not be obvious from the article or this discussion, but the "microscope" in question is of the same design as that proposed by Royal Rife in the 1930's. I would advise anyone interested in contributing here to read the Rife article beforehand. Tevildo 12:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. Mostly Rainy 10:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall_A._Smith

NN, should be moved to use space. Sanbeg 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Rickert

Not played for a NBA team and no outstanding college notability. BlueValour 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google search verifies he was Big Ten Freshman of the Year and a real star with the Gophers. -- Mwalcoff 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep NBA draft pick is inherent notability as is winning the Big Ten award hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't necessarily agree that a draft pick is inherently notable, but his other accomplishments clinch it for him. -- H·G (words/works) 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per above. Agne27 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Hardee67 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus), recommend merge to Lindsay Lohan per Deletion policy and arguments below. The nominator's point about the other articles not having a discography page is well taken, but that is an argument for merge, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan discography

2 albums don't need a discography page VivianDarkbloom 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

P.J._Harvey doesn't have a discography page. Bette Midler doesn't have a discography page. Dolly Parton doesn't have a discography page. Linda Ronstadt doesn't have a discography page. Alison Krauss doesn't have a discography page. Lucinda Williams doesn't have a discography page. I don't what the cutoff point shou'd be, but it's higher than 2 albums. VivianDarkbloom 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Followup: the discography section of the subject's article is a more complete listing than on this page, each of the albums has an article featuring all of the info here, and the sales information for the singles are listed on their album's respective articles. This one can go without merging. -- H·G (words/works) 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lindsay Lohan DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge as discography pages become more common here, someone might search for it. Do not keep separately. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lindsay Lohan. Ss112 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The cut-off is where an artist has recorded so much material that you can't list it all on the main page without the discog list overwhelming the prose (i.e. Stevie Wonder). Lindsay Lohan hasn't gone far enough to see that yet. --FuriousFreddy 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It should be featured on her page, but she definitely doesn't deserve her own discography page. Anthony Hit me up... 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with her main article please but do not erase Yuckfoo 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Relevant info but not worth its own article. Agne27 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate article. Hardee67 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Pointless to have a separate page.--Runcorn 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

masterka 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jump (Madonna song)

crystal-balling VivianDarkbloom 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This might be Madonna's next single and might come out in the Fall, only evidence is a junior writer at Billboard's blog and that's not a

reliable source. It might deserve an article if that happens, right now it's like somebody who might be elected to Congress. VivianDarkbloom 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

So add these references to the article. --Richard 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to prove that "Jump" will NOT be released as a single. You cannot prove that it will be. What you can prove is that it is rumored or expected to be released as a single. The Billboard reference does not say when. Provide a reference that predicts when and you can include that in the article. --Richard 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! "Jump" is scheduled for release as the fourth single. Do you not see the reference? 64.231.66.47 03:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not crystal ballism. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as requested by other people. Ramseystreet 12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crystal ballism as-is; redirect to the album until the single is released. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain how it is "crystal ballism as-is?" It has sourcing, and meets the requirements at WP:NOT, #1 in the relevant section of future events. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:YankSox assuming that it really was in the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" which is being released like now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so I have removed text that indicates future release. --Richard 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further research and reflection, I agree with badlydrawnjeff on this basis: The song is on the album and assuming that it was in the movie as reported, then it is arguably notable. What needs to be addressed is the "crystal ball" nature of the prediction that it will be released in Autumn 2006. The website reference to "Ask Billboard" does NOT say that. It simply says that "Jump" will be the fourth single released from the CD. Find another reference that says that it is rumored or expected to be released in Autumn 2006.
  • Strong Keep Billboard has announced it as the fourth single off her latest album. It was in the hit movie 'The Devil Wears Prada,' why delete it now, only to re-write it in a few months? AceofHearts 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Put back when and if it becomes notable.--Runcorn 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete per A7 and below. — Deckiller 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Araullo

Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages Beyholm 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazz

Not Worthy of an entry, as the site is not noteworthy enough in either the limitted context of Australia, or in wider Internet culture. projectphp 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence needs to be shown in the article that it passes this test. A couple of links to forums doesn't make up a
reliable source in my opinion. Kevin 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you miss the APC Article?, And also MX has mentioned them. Feedyourfeet 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a scan of the MX article here Evilgrug 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I came up with a quick google.

The 1st one looks passable, the 2nd one looks iffy. Anything else? I agree forum posts aren't reliable sources. As someone who's never heard of Zazz before (or Woot), I'm neutral, though the store concept is definitely interesting. If it doesn't survive the AfD, perhaps a small portion can be added to a section in

Woot (retailer), and Zazz can become a redirect to there. TransUtopian 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Woot & Zazz are two different companys mate. Feedyourfeet 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they look at the Woot article first? I hadn't heard of Woot until I read about them in the Zazz article -- Chuq 23:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_14&oldid=1081095706"