Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< June 18 June 20 >

Purge server cache

June 19

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP as bad-faith nomination, borderline vandalism. — brighterorange (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google

Wat is so damn notable about a stupid search engine? Nothing, at least in my ernest opinion. --Ryan McGuinness 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't you see how important this search engine is to society? Aint 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: bad-faith nom. -- getcrunk ? 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Samir धर्म 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mathew

Big Brother housemate, per

9cds(talk) 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sue how to assume good faith out of someone nominating someone notable to make a point :) --
9cds(talk) 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry but I couldn't figure out what you meant to say just then. WP:POINT is not relevant to someone commenting on a discussion, particularly when you are the nominator, and the fact that you mistook the precident (sic) to be delete when infact it was merge and redirect, which is not what AfD is for. You could have had the merge discussion somewhere less disruptive, which BTW, is what WP:POINT is about. Ansell 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the precident. I put it up for AfD because I felt it needed discussion. --
9cds(talk) 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
For future reference the spelling is precedent. AfD is not the place to try out things you aren't sure about. It is for being certain of something yourself before coming here. Did you put this on the relevant Noticeboards and Wikiprojects before doing this? Did you prod any of the articles?
And your wanting everyone else to know exactly the steps you followed to nominate this, which is probably relevant since you had to fix up your RfA because it wasn't formatted correctly, is just ludicrous. Actually warning me for 3RR for removing the single-use instructions that interfere with this process shows a damn lot of immaturity. Stop being a process wonk. Ansell 11:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be
9cds(talk) 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What was the uncivil bit? Ansell 11:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; arguments raised for all of delete, keep and 2 merges, but no consensus that I can see -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Mathew

Big Brother housemate, per

9cds(talk) 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Deering

Big Brother housemate, per

9cds(talk) 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Samir धर्म 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brunero

Big Brother housemate, per

9cds(talk) 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per precedent. Nonnotable housemate. May be notable in the future based on his journalism career but does not seem so currently- Peripitus (Talk) 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as it does not say why the club is notable/important. It has a list of members which are "important" withing the club, but there is nothing that claims that they are actually notable, rubbing off onto the club.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. David Catholic Secondary School Library Club

Original research, vanity page, verifiability, unnotable and unofficial club. Evergreen98 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a followup to my original comment: I'm a former student of this school, and I have reason to believe that this page was created as a vanity page, using original research and written by the people listed in the article. I have nothing against the "club" or its members, but I don't believe Wikipedia's the place for this sort of stuff. Evergreen98 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete,

A7. —Cuiviénen 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

UH-6F

Advertisement

talk 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

433 g-hits, which by my standards, means delete. Morgan Wick 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clear ad of non notable product Rockpocket 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clearly an Ad. --WinHunter (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an ad, walks like an ad, quacks like an ad. Beaner1 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. --Coredesat 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisment. No notability established. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —
    ets501 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. --Wisden17 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I cannot overemphasise how important it is to delete this article. Well, I could say This article is the leading cause of tooth decay in Europe, and that can only be stopped by deletion or If this article isn't deleted, the Allies will retroactivily lose World War II. Nonetheless, the advertisement should be deleted. WilyD 13:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Let's get this over with. Hshhh, I´m not really here 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Ezeu 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropsychoeconomics

Non-notable journal, only one issue has appeared up to now -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's notable since it's peer-reviewed and has a respectable editorial board and is published by a learned society. TruthbringerToronto 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question So even if only the current issue would ever appear it is still a notable journal for these reasons? Personally, I doubt this less if another one or two issues would appear. -- Koffieyahoo 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As TruthbringerToronto said, peer-reviewed journals are notable. However, this article is in need of some cleanup and more content. RedRollerskate 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Academic journals are not automatically notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at which point do peer reviewed scholarly journals become notable, if not after publication of an issue? Needs more content though. Reconsider after translation of website below, sounds suspiciously unacademic to me. Neutral. Rockpocket 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not unacademic, it's just a fairly new field with few practitioners. And as such it can take off or fizzle out. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something we can't cover per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete no context. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetron

This article is pure advertising for an on-line game.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a7 club - actually a league is a club of clubs - which does not assert impoartance.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Football League

Non-notable local football league. No assertion of notability. —

Cleared as filed. 01:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wonder why no link to the alledged website (if there was we could better assess the scope)? BlueValour 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link to the web site as advertising/linkspam. It's in the article's history. —
    Cleared as filed. 02:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. After reviewing the web site, it appears that this league consisted of only 12 players on four teams, and that they cancelled the rest of their season a few weeks after starting. --Metropolitan90 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Obvious Keep -

talk/email 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

John Bowker

No vote. This was prodded for five days, but I feel it requires consensus. Prod nomination was "vanity/nn: 1) dubious references to Mr Bowker have been deleted from other articles already (see discussion page for details) 2) "Dean" of Trinity College, Cambridge: There's a master of Trinity, who may well be notable. This "dean" story seems like an attempt to trick readers into believing Mr Bowker was a leading figure at Trinity. He was obviously not. 3) As other people have pointed out, there's thousands of people who may claim to have been 'consultants for UNESCO.'". For myself, I can add that the article has been around since 2003, and that enough editors have contributed to it to make its deletion necessarily controversial. -

talk/email 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Further investigation reveals he probably offered comment, along with many many other religious experts, on some segment of the BBC’s "World of Faith Week" in October 2004. Hardly backs up claims as a "BBC broadcaster" i would have thought (otherwise i'm updating my CV). Rockpocket 03:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given all those credentials, notable person though the article needs expanding. --WinHunter (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly obviously notable person. Easily more notable than average professor. Beaner1 05:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per above. --Coredesat 06:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verifiable information about notability discussed above is added; Delete otherwise. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robertsteadman 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. I don't quite understand the comment, in the nomination, about the dean of chapel not being important. The dean of any Oxbridge college is usually notable (not by virtue of that position, but due to the sort of people who are appointed). The dean of a college is important, and the Trinity page even lists the Dean's of the College. --Wisden17 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as reposted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon the evil inside 2 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon The Evil Inside 2

Not notable fangame. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a repost of article in the same form.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomczyk

This was nominated for deletion once, got deleted, and then somebody recreated it. I request that we delete and then

Salt. RedRollerskate 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kierkegaard

WP:BIO Related to notable person, but not notable . John Nagle 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

This is the brother of Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, and the article focuses on that. There's little independent notability, although the subject of the article was a bishop. (Is being a bishop notable? That should equate to being a VP of a large corporation, which Wikipedia doesn't usually consider notable.) --John Nagle 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - if someone can find something notable that he did, like write something important, and put that in the article, that would be a big help. --John Nagle 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it is true that he is a theologian, that might be enough. In addition, his name is found in 3 sources. As petty as it sounds, I think the fact that he lived 150 or so years enough is enough. AdamBiswanger1 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found two books he wrote at the Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov/ and added them to this article. There may be more at the National Library of Denmark. TruthbringerToronto 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notability should never be enforced on figures of academic interest, unless the figure is extremely insignificant (e.g. Einstein's great-aunt). Deletion of modern-day non-notable figures makes perfect sense. However, deleting this one would be a step backward in Wikipedia's goal; It makes no sense. Sorry about my tone, but I feel really strong about that one. AdamBiswanger1 04:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Weak Keep and another Weak Keep equals a Keep overall. I slapped a fact tag on the speculation, other than that it's short, sweet, informative and sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is progress; now we have more notability. In the beginning, it was more like a "brother of notable person" article. --John Nagle 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That he was a bishop is notable enough for me. snug 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per snug hoopydinkConas tá tú? 10:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he was a bishop and notable in his own right, and has a six-page article in the old edition of the
    Dansk biografisk lexikon here. up+land 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above —
    ets501 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep per all above. He has his own article on the Swedish Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per AdamBiswanger1's persuasive argument. Interlingua talk 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He appears to meet
    WP:BIO & as a historical personage I'm willing to be lenient in application of the guidelines.--Isotope23 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per Badlydrawnjeff Hshhh, I´m not really here 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Sophy's Duckling 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bishops are undoubtedly a good deal more notable than vacuous "slebrities" :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AdamBiswanger1. But I'd disagree that bishops per se are notable, for a few bucks and a SASE, you too could be bishop. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Adventist Hospitals

This is conspiracy theory stuff - listing problems at three hospitals, when there are more than 50 of these in the US - see List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. John Broughton 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete--Ezeu 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher cup

Non-notable. There has to be a threshold for sporting events to be notable. A reasonable threshold might be a State event (USA) or a County event (UK) for example. In my view, an informal event simply within a City must fall below the threshold otherwise WP will be flooded with events of only very local significance. BlueValour 01:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as vandalism (spam,

WP:NPOV, tone, no context). Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yogavidaananda

Delete. Reprod. 1st prod was "Inappropriate title, original research, no context." 2nd prod was "spam." Both are right.-

talk/email 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Colin Farrell. --Ezeu 16:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bordenave

nn, some search results list her as a model, but only a few results come up when 'Farrell' is omitted from the search. Ckessler 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article itself asserts her lack of notability. If spouses of famous people do not deserve their own articles, then their dalliances deserve even less --Deville (Talk) 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The main Colin Farrell article already has enough info on her (i.e. a sentence or two) - Richfife 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mind pointing out the "HOTTIE" clause in
    WP:BIO? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zscout370. --W.marsh 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Connoiseur

Tagged for speedy delete as attack page, but the editor keeps removing the tags. Juvenile attacks against teacher by schoolkids. Fan1967 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Paradoxum

Probably a copyvio, and certainly a cut-and-paste of a scientific article on the web NawlinWiki 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Biblical Evidence of Jesus' Historicity

Original research, POV promotion. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hornak

non notable, unverified claims, no sources or references. by the exaggerated language, appears to be vanity, or advertisement. Contributor has also created multiple entries of the another subject (variations of name Eric Spoutz) which looks further like spam. Tychocat 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now at least. From here it seems that the subject is a moderately notable artist. The article is in bad shape, however, I'll grant you. --Deville (Talk) 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does well on the google test[3], deletion is not a substitution for cleanup, which is what this article needs. Yanksox (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but totally rewrite/cleanupBwithh 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since it passes google test, though it does requires cleanup. No sources/references/unveriified does ends up with deletion for now. --WinHunter (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per above. --Coredesat 06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and rewrite The artist is represented in many large collections; this biography doesn't do them justice.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup. As a starter: remove the italics from the names of the museums. Interlingua talk 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work. Most of those collections are buy-by-the-yard corporate collections used to decorate offices, and have no evident artistic authority. Some citations from art critics would not go amiss. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Joelito (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Aquarium

Non-notable band, fails

(talk) 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

There is also no evidence that these are just "a couple kids with a myspace site". The original music on the site proves that they created music. It is interesting though that the sales were added after you prod'd this article. Maybe it needs further looking into, but I don't believe deletion is necesary without better proof of a hoax. -Inuyasha86

Actually Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in order to remain. See
(talk) 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I see. Thank you for being so informative. -Inuyasha86

  • Speedy delete per
    CSD:A7. Sure, they kinda assert notability, but they might as well assert it by calling themselves the kings of Saturn and claim to be world-renowned for their ability to extinguish stars with whispered confessions of childhood mistakes -- this stuff is simply blatantly untrue. What, they sold almost three million CDs in Soviet Union and Japan, and a guy lit not only himself but also numerous bystanders on fire at their gig, and yet the name of their band onlu gets about 1,600 Google hits, almost none of which (except for the Myspace site) are related? Yeah, right. Accordingly, I'm tagging it with {{db-group}}, and good riddance. -- Captain Disdain 03:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speed delete per Captain Disdain. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Joelr31. Yanksox (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kane robertson

Delete. This page is clearly a hoax. Google provides no hits on Kane Robertson in the context provided in this article. --

Danielrocks123 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as vandalism (hoax); hoaxer blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Amersham

Probable hoax though it doesn't look like one. No relevant Google hits. Will withdraw nom is some credible references are provided otherwise can be deleted as unverifiable. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Wikipedia editors who maintain these lists are pretty meticulous, and this one's not on the list at
    List of Earls and Countesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Only three earldoms have been created since 1960: Princess Margaret's Husband, Earl of Snowdon; Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex; and former Prime Minister Macmillan, Earl of Stockton. Fan1967 03:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Plus the Earl of Inverness, if one may pick a nit. —Tamfang 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. Guess they weren't that meticulous. They left that one off the list. (Why do the royal family need all these titles, anyway? They're princes, for heavens sake. Isn't that enough?) Fan1967 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're thinking of the future. Andrew's grandchildren won't be princes. —Tamfang 06:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There are a number of articles on noble families created by this author, Johnpallen (talk · contribs). His user page claims he's a genealogical researcher. Either he has sources for these, or they're all going to need to be looked at. If they're hoaxes, some of them (Fürsts of Schwarzenberg, for example) are awfully elaborate. Fan1967 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination), about an alleged noble with the same surname, but totally different titles. Fan1967 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comments. It looks very much as if everything ever posted by this editor is a hoax. Some of these are edits to existing articles, which were later reverted. Others were articles he created. Based on the enries, we can make some guesses about his name and age:
Heir Presumptive: Durchlaucht und Fürstliche Gnaden Fürst Stefan-Karel Roberts-Schwarzenberg (1992-)
The heir Apparent is
Baron Ashley
The
Baron Ashley
.
The
Baron Ashley
.
  • From
    Viscount Villiers
Stefan David Andrew Roberts, 11th Viscount Villiers. (b.1992)
Note also that the article deleted twice was Stefan Roberts. Looks like all these articles need serious review. A few of them are his name inserted into articles on real titles. The Fürsts and Villiers articles look like total fakes. (The Villiers article has since been restored to its original state as a redirect.) Fan1967 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense - this was a fragment of fiction not an article, and the names didn't even match. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldner

The title of this article is 'Samuel Goldner', when it in fact refers to Stephan Goldner. Further, the article is largely plagiarised from Scott Cookman's book Ice Blink. It is inaccurate (Cookman's conclusions are very much disputable, many bordering on fiction) and clearly not NPOV. Fipe 03:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by

WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Schmizmo

Delete. Schmizmo is a neologism. This page was previously de-prodded with the comment "Google never lies." This is very correct, there is nothing there. --

Danielrocks123 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, a link to the "proper" use of the word in context is now on the page. This link leads to an amazon.com review of a kitchen appliance written by some random guy. The attempt to prove that the word exists only hurts this word's credibility. --
Danielrocks123 03:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, I felt that my link to the word being used in its proper context by a fellow human being was adequate proof that this word is indeed in common usage Jamface 04:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Tapes of The Beatles

  • Finishing AfD listing and fixing formatting. No opinion. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even the most obscure Beatles compilation is probably notable. --djrobgordon 03:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a load of bollocks for this over-inflated band.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Petros471 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book)

Speedy DeleteToo short, no info, if it's going to get expanded, do so quickly, because a thtis point it is a waste of space.--AeomMai 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another Islam related targetted by Qadianis for deletion. Siddiqui 19:38, 15 June 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. TigerShark 09:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Values

List of different properties for CSS, but

Wikipedia is not a web development reference manual. Possibly transwiki to wikibooks? -- Where 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko sales

More corporate self-promotion NawlinWiki 03:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

79-tone tuning

Original research (only major contributor is Ozan Yarman, who created the system), no verifiable sources, organized as step-by-step instructions and tables of data rather than an encyclopedia article. —Keenan Pepper 03:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can work out the frequencies for any number of tones on a scale myself. But why bother? - Richfife 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not 79 equally spaced tones in an octave, if that's what you're thinking. —Keenan Pepper 04:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire vs. Republic

nn game with <600 google hits. One would expect that a computer game would show up more on the internet -- Where 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was disambiguated and dehoaxed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Shark

It's an obvious hoax. The prod was contested. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delete the redirects this article has attached to it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JzG as vandalism and hoax. Kimchi.sg 10:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fürsts of Schwarzenberg

Hoax. Fails google search in any language. (edit: For some reason Google finds "furst" but not "fürst", even though the results have the umlaut.) See more info on hoaxer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Amersham. (Note to closing admin: there are a ton of redirects, as well as a category. There are also links from all over.) Fan1967 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note It appears that this edit of
    Karl Philipp Fürst zu Schwarzenberg may actually be valid, before this editor started messing with it. Unable to determine what is true in the present article. Fan1967 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And this article, House of Schwarzenberg, has a totally different list of princes in the family. Anyone have any idea how to sort these out? Fan1967 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look for information, the more confused I get on this. Clearly there is such a house, with at least one prominent member in history. If anyone can figure out how to clean this up (and hopefully also resolve the differences with House of Schwarzenberg), I'll gladly withdraw the nom. Fan1967 04:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The German article de:Haus Schwarzenberg and the external link [7] seem to be solid, on the face of it. In any case, the title "Fürsts of" seems weird, and whatever can be confirmed should be merged with House of Schwarzenberg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair (singer)

non-notable, probable vanity, no WP:MUSIC Tempshill 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muie Maneliştilor

Unremarkable music group. Although a contemporary group, it doesn't show up in Google search results, unlike other similar groups. There is no evidence they ever released a single or an album. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know—do you read Romanian? Apparently most information (on the Web, anyhow) on this group is in that language. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops—guess you do (the "Japan" threw me). So what do all those web sites say, anyhow? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "muie maneliştilor" means "suck it up, you manele lovers". My best guess is that the article is a hoax, since it's hard to believe a manele group would denigrate its own genre. The 1500 or so hits on Google are only such vulgar invectives on discussion forums, not the name of a group. The few hits that do talk about a music group are Wikipedia and one website that copied our article word for word. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, those hits have nothing to do with the band. The band name just happens to be a widespread vulgarity. — AdiJapan ☎ 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I trust the native Romanian nom on this one.
    masterka 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete & redirect. Sango123 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Olympics

Originally tagged by Kershner as CSD G1 nonsense, but Google has a few references to it. Still, only 448 unique Googles, so delete (not speedy). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the search for [Beerlympics] which has 82 more results... Any hard partying college student will know what these are, as will most members of the Greek community. Jrtf83 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete--Ezeu 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiceChat

This article is self-promotional and linking to a discussion forum, much less having an encyclopedia entry dedicated about a forum (such as this one) is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the Wikipedia. Toring 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulseware

Fails

WP:CORP, also Vanity, Advertising and to top it off, I can't find a google hit for it. Kershner 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under A3 - the website doesn't even exist yet —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19 05:48Z

WorldGreeting.net

Delete. Almost nonsensical article about a website that is about as far from meeting

WP:WEB as you can get. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Blue Apocalypse

Delete Per

WP:NOT. This is a non notable unsourced article Aeon 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The article has been blanked....can we just delete this now? Aeon 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 09:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHINGA CHANG RECORDS

Was speedy tagged, but I disagree with the tag saying that no notability was asserted in the article. I don't think the case was made particularly well by the author of the article, but one notable and one semi-notable rapper signed to the label might be a case for notability. No Vote for me, but I thought this deserved a vote generally

Irongargoyle 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Closed as a merge doesn't require an AfD nomination.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal I Have Become

This is pointless. And it has no new information. Merge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman8088 (talk • contribs)

  • Note: merging can be done without going through the AFD process. Mering this article to
    One X looks reasonable to me; you're welcome to do it yourself. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-19
    05:43Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy

Apparently there was a dispute on the article's talk page about a former speedy deletion of this article, so I took it to AfD instead of the prod I originally put on it. Anyways, the text already resides on Wikisource now and can be removed from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a repository of source texts. TheProject 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not necessary for Wikipedia. Yanksox (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If extant on Wikisource then it is not required on Wikipedia.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to article on Wikisource. --Coredesat 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article looks like it was made with a little copying and pasting. --
    Danielrocks123 07:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to buck the trend on this one, since there's a summary in the intro. Delete the full text, but since this article is linked from the first (?) paragraph of the Salvador Allende article, the summary should be kept around. Bear in mind that a rather large number of articles link directly to this text. Alternatively, change the Salvador Allende article so the link points to wikisource. Let's not leave loose ends hanging around. Captainktainer * Talk 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been to the Wiki source page? It's the exact same. Yanksox (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A split "vote" from me, if someone can write a proper article on it; Keep per Captainktainer, if not; Delete as redundant to wikisource. Would prefer the first though. --
    t@c 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and whoever oversees the wikisource should review the text. Has Chile published an official English translation, has the UN or some reliable source? I just read the 1st paragraph and the English is a rather loosey-goosey translation of the Spanish (which I assume would be the official version upon which the parliament voted). A bad translation in wikisource is a quality control issue, may be misleading and may reflect some POV. Carlossuarez46 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun I put the first paragraph in babelfish to see what an NPOV but not fluent translator would come up with:

That it is essential condition for the existence of a State of Right that the Powers Public, with total respect at the beginning of reciprocal independence that governs them, they fit his action and they exert his attributions within the marks that the Constitution and the laws indicate to them, and that all the inhabitants of the country can enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights that she assures the Political Constitution to them the State;

versus, the article's translation.

That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

I would like to see whether other Spanish and English bilinguals would really translate "un Estado de Derecho" -- in capitals in original -- as "Rule of Law" as opposed to a "State of Law" with a clear focus on the State rather than the legalities of the situation. It changes the whole meaning of para. 1 and there may be other issues in the remaining paragraphs, too. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Virtually within minutes of the article being created, it was the target of, first, attempts by vandals to delete it entirely, then to "bury it under rug" via other means (such as moving the text of the Resolution, stripped of all context whatsoever, to Wikisource). 35 years after his denoument, Saint Allende's followers are still "cleansing" the history of Chile...at least in English, at any rate.--Mike18xx 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as {{db-empty}}.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odysy

Non-notable band. Attempts to establish notability by saying that they've been "asked" to open for various bands, but no good proof of any of this, or any reason why they're notable is given. So on and so forth. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article has been blanked by the lone contributor. It's now speedy tagged. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep; apparent bad-faith nomination. DS 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies_For_Freedom

This is a puzzle that I'm struggling to understand. What is Aspies For Freedom? A forum or an organisation? Does it have forum users or members? Leaders or owners? When its only visible activist Joe Mele was removed from the group, all that happened, as far as I can tell, is his account was banned from the forum.

My instinct says that the entire Template:Autism_rights_movement is a fiction, documenting nothing more than a clever manipulation of Google and Wikipedia. All the Amy Nelson-created autism sites and domains are virtually contentless, with extensive links to each other. At dmoz they would mostly be rejected as linkfarms. This is not dmoz - a directory of websites - but an encyclopedia of things that exist whether or not websites about them also exist. Discussssssss. CalG 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, well, the website says the organization was featured in New Scientist, MSNBC, and other places, and sure enough, some Googling turns up those results. But I'm not sure whether this should be kept or not. --Coredesat 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wow only 14 unique for "Aspies For Freedom" on Google with 72,800 non-unique links. Serious link farming there... Wickethewok 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok and inability to find any real notability beyond what is mentioned on the website, which isn't enough. --Coredesat 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Prominent advocacy group, as indicated by mainstream media coverage, representing a significant stakeholder community. Joe Mele may have left, but Gareth is a relatively well known figure in his community. Ombudsman 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The advocacy group and/or its members has been cited by New Scientist, MSNBC, and the New York Times. IMO that is enough to keep.
    Q0 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, nn org and cruft. Somebody needs to look at the rest of the "autism rights movement" related articles too as they look to be somebody's attempt to use Wikipedia to push their OR, push anti-cure POV and/or create a "movement" out of thin air. KleenupKrew 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a personal attempt by CalG to cause some problems for me personally by placing irrelevant disparaging comments on the aspies for freedom talk page, as he has done on the
    AmyNelson
    23:24, 22 June 2006 (BST)
  • Keep: I agree, since it meets
    notibility criteria, then keep it. Although I do not know what to make of likely harrassment, but by my understanding, CalG may have some grudge against Amy (Although I have no clear evidence ATM). -- Masterjamie 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Response: I have a strong personal dislike of Amy Nelson. My editing of pages concerning her is primarily motivated by a desire to upset Amy, and secondarily to improve Wikipedia. It seems the largely fictitious autism rights movement allows significant overlap in these aims. Assume good faith. CalG 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Amy, I also don't see why the Aspies For Freedom page should be deleted, seeing how important the group is. As I am a member myself I know that the group is an important part of the autism rights movement. I find the page very informative and useful even though I haven't read it in a long time. Pika Pikachu2005 00:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  • Keep: I have to agree that it is note worthy by the fact that it has been covered by several mainstream media outlets, some of which someone else here meantioned so I will not list them again, also it is a significant autism rights movement project, and known for being the driving force of Autistic Pride Day which also has generated some media coverage for the cause MttJocy 09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The aspies for freedom group has shedloads of useful, hard to find information. It's a valuable commodity in the aspergers and autism community. Pauric 09:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not "fiction" - the autism rights movement and Aspies For Freedom is very real, as evidenced by the activity on their community forum and IRC network. Plus, VfD author just admitted having an irrelevant agenda. -- intgr 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reason why so many non-unique links show up in Google is not because of link farming, but because AFF is a very active civil rights forum with almost 50,000 articles posted. Almost all of the duplicate results in Google are articles on the AFF forum. I just googled "Aspies for Freedom" and found 84 unique links; in past searches I have found more than one hundred unique links, depending on how recently AFF received media coverage.Bonnie Ventura 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Aspies for Freedom is a notable organization within the autistic community. While the article needs editing, it should not be deleted. p.s. I like and respect Amy Nelson and I believe she is pushing a good cause. Andrea Parton 16:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But we need to investigate other similar organisations with the view of creating a page with all of them on it S.Skinner 13:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. This sounds familiar to me as well but no article at this location has been deleted until now. If you discover a recreation, please add {{

db-repost}} to the article and, if it's at a different location than before, say where it was in the edit summary. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Found the old title - it was Big Hands For Little Hearts. I note that I actually closed this article two days early, but there seems little point in reverting myself since it's a speedy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hands for Little Hearts

Nn organization, no assertions of notability. MaxSem 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Material covered elsewhere, concensus, agreement from only author (apart from tagger). - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orks (spelled with a "k")

I think the title sums it up. This is the craziest bunch of fancruft I have ever seen. This is even my area of fandom too (8 years as a player of Warhammer 40,000). All the important information on this page is contained on

Irongargoyle 06:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator.

DVERS 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bruce Reitz

nn, per

WP:BIO, part of a series of articles about non-notable people and articles previously deleted per AFD by this editor. Ckessler 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

You're right, he did perform the first heart-lung transplant with Norman Shumway in 1981. I withdraw the AFD nomination. Ckessler 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep, Keep, Keep Eluchil404 01:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à trois

This page consists of a dictionary definition; some inane statistics which could be added to any dictionary definition about sex acts, or many other things; and a list of movies and television programs with menages—which at most could go in a List. Wikipedia is

not a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. —Centrx→talk 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. The article is not particularly deep, but it fits into Wikipedia's sections on sex. I don't see any reason to delete it. Fipe 08:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, notable topic, serious article. (Comment: the fictitious ménages section needs drastic trimming, and the factual part of the article needs further expansion.) -- The Anome 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep notable topic and a fictional genre all of its own. Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid subject and although not feature worthy certainly passable as a stub. Besides, any good article begins with a dictionary definition. One should just include more than just the definition, which is done here. Did Kinsey do any research in threesomes? - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been merely a dictionary definition for over three years. The only expansion has been to add more movies. —Centrx→talk 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It does seem rather silly to just delete the article when it will simply be added again in the future. Surely it is better to place the standard declaration at the top to say that Wikipedia is not happy with the article and that it needs expanding and leave it at that until there is a consensus that it has reached an appropriate level of depth? I have attempted to expand it but an antivandalism police man (sorry, forgotten your name) felt that my contrabution on threesomes was not appropriate. Perhaps threesomes should be split from this article?

Further it would be very silly to remove this article when (working from the framework that has been established) there is so much more to say on the subject. There must be surveys and articles written on households with 3 partners? It is far more common that people realise. Perhaps more work could be done to also include famous people who have lived in menange a trois such as Alan Moore (considered to be the greatest comicbook writer in the world) who lived with two ladies.

There are many areas in which this article needs improvement and a wide range of information that could easily be inserted to do so.

Like I said mark up clearly that it needs expanding but please don't delete as that would be wasteful and short-sighted.AWD--84.92.120.61 00:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cherries

Non-notable band; does not seem to be meet

WP:MUSIC. google:"Krome+Plated+Yabbie" concerns me. ~ PseudoSudo 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

hey! there is a band called wild cherry. Or anyway, there WAS, their greatest hit- play that funky music was an one-hit-wonder in the sixties. not at "big" band, but not "local" either. I, for one, think that the Cherry deserves a little space of its own in wikipedia. [9]

  • Keep, These are not Wild Cherry who had a hit with play that funky music white boy. They are an Aussie band who had a following in the Melbourne scene. In particular, Lobby Loyde is quite notable. He was briefly a member of Rose Tattoo according to the Encyclopedia of Australia produced by Webster Publishing. He was also a member of Billy Thorpe and the Aztecs [10] a very notable Australian band and the Purple Hearts. He would later go on and form the Coloured Balls. The ABC television series Long Way to the Top refers to this band and features an interview with Loyde see [11] They are a notable Australian band and Loyde is a notable Australian musician. Capitalistroadster 13:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added references to the article. Capitalistroadster 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lobby Loyde and his bands are ridiculously notable in Australian music. Same for the other musicians - no reason to delete. Note that
    WP:MUSIC is guidelines not to delete rather than guidelines to keep, because of its US-centricity. Note also the 'what links here' for Lobby Loyde. This nomination is a classic "delete because I've never heard of it" - David Gerard 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Your response seems to
    assume bad faith on the part of the nominator, who made reference to the appropriate guideline. That guideline, btw, says in the second full paragraph that it is a rule-of-thumb that can be ignored in favor of keeps or deletes as desired. I'm not sure what you mean that it's only a guideline "not to delete". I, for one, will await more evidence and arguments, but if the band is kept, I think all the bio's (except Lobby Loyde's) ought to be merged and redirected.--Chaser T 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It does not assume bad faith - it assumes bad judgement. Great big obviously bad judgement, with the shiniest of intentions. It appears you don't know the history of or controversy over WP:MUSIC either - David Gerard 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept the assuming bad judgment bit. My mistake. You're also right that I'm not aware of the history or controversy over
    WP:MUSIC. As to your earlier assertion, I believe you're referencing the catchall exception implied when it says notability is proven by meeting any one of the following criteria, but we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the article asserts enough notability to qualify as a catch-all keep.--Chaser T 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Excuse me. This nomination is a classic "delete because their most notable release got three hits on google." I don't know how much clearer my nom could have been. I take offense to being stereotyped; please try to take this into account in the future when making such statements. ~ PseudoSudo 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be shocked to hear that prior to 1995, information was stored on stuff called "paper" rather than on Google. Pre-1995 information not being on Google is not a sensible reason for a deletion nomination. I'm afraid the stereotype stands and has been reinforced - David Gerard 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your qualms with WP:MUSIC are quite clear but you don't address where I went wrong in judging notability. The article spoke for me: a band with no album releases to their name, article without a single reference; I don't understand where you can blame my impaired judgement, especially considering you're aware of my ignorance on the subject matter. By nominating this article with a particularly concise opening statement I acknowledged my ignorance and let the discussion take the course it needed to. A statement about my character in this AfD was just the last thing I expected. ~ PseudoSudo 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Well known band in Melbourne if not Australia; Ditto for Lobby Loyde. -- Synapse 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, though based on the lack of information out there as well as the interesting hits produced by googling "Wild Cherries", I can see why this got nominated. Great example of why a worldwide userbase is so important to Wikipedia.--Isotope23 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets
    WP:BAND, well-known in Australia. --Coredesat 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep perfectly good stub--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in particular Lobby Loyde - see ref now attached to his article. His article still needs adding to so as to explain notability.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on it. He's splattered across the length and breadth of Australian rock music history; deleting his article would be stupid - David Gerard 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never heard of them, and that fact is, naturally, irrelevant to this AfD discussion. Many others have heard of them, and they've got notability in a country of 20 million people. Interlingua talk 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Announcement: I have removed Lobby Loyde from this nomination given new information on notability; article's keep is currently uncontested. ~ PseudoSudo 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster --
    talk 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC CLINIC Computer Service Center

(and also redirect at PC CLINIC.) Blatant advertising. The current version is after multiple attempts to help the author to tone it down, and to merge and redirect the two identical versions they created at different names: see some of the earler versions [13] for the full, flashing-GIF-ad-banner-packed, version. Their attention has been drawn to the WP policy on advertising, to little avail. In spite of this, the PR language in the article has not been removed. Delete as an attempt at advertising. -- The Anome 08:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete nn-group. A comprehensively worthless article, POV, unverifiable, vain and in the end making no credible assertion of importance. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Goatse Party

Forum cruft Surachit 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Tripoli (Star Trek)

Lifted straight from the article - "The USS Tripoli is a fictional starship from the Star Trek universe, which although never actually seen even once on screen, was mentioned in dialogue a couple of times." Everything mentioned a couple of times in Star Trek is notable? No it isn't. -

n 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. We're not Memory Alpha. RedRollerskate 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per nom. It's already at memory alpha where it belongs. - Motor (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Memory Alpha article on the ship is more than adequate and probably the best place to go in order to research this sort of information.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. -- GWO
  • Delete. If it hasn't been seen onscreen, then it shouldn't be here. Perhaps it belongs in a list article, but not on its own. Gamaliel 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Memory Alpha is more suitable for this. Extraordinary Machine 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - takes longer to read the article than the amount of combined screen time mentions Tripoli got on the show. MDonfield 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete As per Gamaliel, I think the info might work in another article but not as a stand-alone. Interlingua talk 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to an appropriate list article, assuming one exists. Otherwise delete, non-notable on its own. BryanG(talk) 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mentioned, but not seen on screen? That pretty much puts the stake in the body there. This is a minor, incidental, name used for coherience in a plot line so something can be named. The star trek wiki can have it, that's what its for, little stuff from star trek.
    Kevin_b_er 06:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. 23skidoo 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- MrDolomite 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --HResearcher 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as cleanup work has been done.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Harm (disambiguation)

Disambiguation page no longer required due to changes made at Do No Harm. Tomcage9Talk Contribs 10:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reason why this can't be a housekeeping speedy. I doubt anyone would object. Speedy delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macarthur Square

Local shopping mall Skysmith 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable local mall.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Campbelltown, New South Wales mall operating since 1979. Article reads like an ad at the moment. 40 references in an Australia New Zealand database so some potential for rewrite. Capitalistroadster 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless... the authors find some way to make this more than just a grab bag of facts. The problem here is notability. Too much of the article is just information. The authors need to give some organization to the article and some background: when was it built, what was there before, what is there besides stores, any public institutions there (lawyers, government)? I don't like malls in general but realize that in many places, especially the US, but maybe also Australia, urban growth the past half century has not favored traditional, mixed-use commercial/public/residential neighborhoods. Such traditional neighborhoods certainly have sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia: I think of Uptown, Chicago where I live. However, these newer communities often find it difficult get covered here. I don't want to have a blanket rule that says "no malls can be featured here unless they meet stringent criteria." The criteria should be no more restrictive than those that allow, for example, Uptown, Chicago to be on here. Otherwise, most people who live in new communities will find that their commercial life will be excluded, by fiat, from Wikipedia. Interlingua talk 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable shopping centre. --Roisterer 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no conceptual difference to railway stations or other geographical features. We keep other large shopping centres (see List of shopping centres in Australia, nobody can tell me these should all go). But, this one doesn't need this much information and needs a rewrite (to remove crap like 'Parents pushing baby carriages are also a common sight' and near-advertising throughout). Jammo (SM247) 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as many other similar sized malls have articles. Though it obviously needs a rewrite, and isn't notable enough to derserve an article more than one or two paragraphs. Mako 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --
    talk 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Rebecca 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Barely. Needs massive rewrite. "A parking lot surrounds the mall, with painted lines dividing parking spaces." Some of this has got to be a joke. --Satori Son 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dreadful article, but notable enough. --Canley 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable shopping centre. For a shopping centre to be notable it needs a special feature like largest in Australia, architecturally notable or something! This has nothing special to distiguish it from thousands of malls and arcades arounf the world. BlueValour 21:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. --JJay 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At best, this should be merged into the Campbelltown, New South Wales article as a reference that it is there. A transient list of stores (mostly closed) in a small shopping mall has no place in a serious encyclopaedia. BlueValour 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7: no assertion of notability.

User:Angr 14:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David Jason Silver

Appears to be non-notable to me. Is part of a major flurry of edits about this person that has the looks of spamming. None of the text really states any enecyclopedic accomplishments. I say delete per

WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the quicker the better as the AfD notice has been removed about five or six times now. I'd say this might have even qualified for CSD A7, given the complete and total lack of asserted notability. Seb Patrick 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Seb Patrick. The user who created it and keeps removing the AFD notice is User:Harvardlaw, while googling for "David Jason Silver", I found this (bottom) "QMSN David Jason Silver (Phoenix, AZ ) [email protected]". So I'd guess that Userfy is also an option. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a bio that does not stress importance. I rv the removal of an AfD tag, as well. Yanksox (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Quova

Spam Mion 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company --Zandarx talk 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete.

Petros471 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Möbius resistor

Non-notable patent. Obviously trying to get coverage via Wikipedia, an amazing 80% of all Google hits are on Wikipedia and mirrors! The remaining ones are USENET archives or http://www.rexresearch.com (the home of "unconventional", suppressed, dormant, or emerging sciences, technologies, inventions, theories, therapies, and miscellaneous alternatives that offer real hope of liberating humanity). Please delete as

WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, because it is only an unusually wound
wire resistors. But nobody bothered to actually construct the Möbius geometry. --Pjacobi 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment This seems sort of the best way to go, but I would assume better to proceed the other way around: Expand the two sentences about power resistors at resistor into an article, note the dominance of the wire-wound type mention the induction problem and bifilar winding. Then, as a historical curiosity, the Möbius resistor may be mentioned (to keep the nice drawing). But the current state is totally out of proportion (I know, that this isn't a deletion criterium). --Pjacobi 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed Jumbo Snails 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Once we do have a good article on non-inductive resistors, this probably ought to be merged there. Someone who understands the subject will first have to write that article, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need better link that rexresearch.com, a website which promotes "suppressed/dormant/emerging science, inventions, technologies, experiments", including a lot of wacky stuff which can only be called pseudoscience in the most literal sense ---CH 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rexresearch page is just a concatenation of a bunch of articles from other sources. Unfortunately those other sources are in print, and not particularly new, so there are probably no official versions online. Thus, the rexresearch link serves a useful purpose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at the moment NN and its had since 1966!. BlueValour 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem Pahalwan

Not a notable person. Google search only brings up this article. Zandarx talk 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No sources provided or found. Unverifiable it seems. Wickethewok 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above.
    Skinnyweed 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Give editor who originated article a chance to cite sources, and to make article a stub for expansion by other editors with knowledge in this area. Parsssseltongue 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps the first rule of WP: If it can't be verified, it can't be on the site. -- Kicking222 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I feel there are some hardliners who don't realize that not every editor is clear about verifiability guidenlines, and that a notice about "citation needed" or other friendly reminder would be a lot more civil than marking an article for deletion. This article was tagged a mere hour after its creation. Parsssseltongue 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. So far, I've seen no evidence that this cannot be verified, only that it hasn't yet been verified. Given that Aleem Pahalwan is said to have been active in India in the 1940s, it doesn't surprise me that a Google search turns up few, or no, hits. Verification can be done in other ways: references to books, newspapers, etc. I think there's little doubt that this is verifiable, ie it can in, principle, be verified. As such, it should be kept and we should give editors the chance to find and post sources. Wrestling is a big Indian sport but unlike football, field hockey or cricket, it hasn't been covered as much by urban media. Interlingua talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An issue I have with this is that this guy could very well be made up. It may be theoretically verifiable if someone happens to have an Indian newspaper from the '40s, but for all we know now and most likely will know in the future, its made up. Also, if you read #2 under the official verifiability policy, it states "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." Thus, we are requesting it be removed. Wickethewok 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to a cited re-creation. I have tried several combinations on google with different spellings and yet I've not got more than 5 google hits for each of them (excl. WP & mirrors), and most of them irrelevant. I've done a benchmarking with another Indian body-builder and wresler of that time (who doesn't have a WP article yet) and I got close to 500 google hits. --Gurubrahma 04:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely unknown outside Wikipedia. Also, does not really assert notability for the person, only for his ancestors (that also of dubious notability). ImpuMozhi 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no evidence of notability. Unsourced. BlueValour 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlueValour. Inner Earth 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.--Ezeu 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambient artists

Would be better served by a category. As is often the case for this kind of article, it's full of dubious entries, redlinked bands I've never heard of, and even several entries which are external links only. I see nothing here which can't be done better in a category. Delete. kingboyk 12:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems very hard to maintain and a complete version of this list would be absurdly huge. Category would be better. Wickethewok 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Originally delete, but after having a look around and realising there's actually many of these articles of the form 'List of <genre> artists', I can't see what makes this one so exceptional. Iae 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand what the point of these genre artist lists is. The lists are so long that they don't really seem that usable. I can understand for more obscure genres where there would only be a couple dozen stand out artists, but at least there isn't like a List of rock artists. Wickethewok 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - For now I have cleaned up the list by removing spammy links, etc... Wickethewok 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this one so exceptional is that I found it. I don't patrol Wikipedia looking for garbage to delete, but when I find it (in this case whilst looking at "what links here" for a Featured Article I've been working on), I nominate it. If there are other useless lists that should be nominated for deletion, please go right ahead and nominate or drop me a line with the titles on my talk page. A bad article should never be kept just because other bad articles exist. --kingboyk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm quite new here, but I was presuming looking at the sheer number of articles of this form that there has been some kind of discussion on whether they should be allowed at some point before. This article could be genuinely useful to a reader (admittedly not in its current state). Eventually this article can be put into some kind of chronological order, like other genre articles, and be annotated, which is impossible with categories. Iae 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - That sounds like a different kind of article. Lists (at least the ones I've seen) are just typically an alphabetic ordering of articles. I'm not quite sure what to call the type of thing you are describing, but I wouldn't use the term "list". Wickethewok 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By annotations, I just mean small comments alongside the entries. Most lists have these. In the case of this article it would be beneficial to have the years the artists was active, or, in the case of confusing entries such as
    here, very very few are good enough to not be replaced by an equivalent category so I can't even give an example of what I'm describing. Basically, I'm coming round to agreeing with you, but I can see potential usefulness for an article like this. I still think a proper discussion should be conducted somewhere relevent to all the genre list articles beforehand though (if that's possible). Iae 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Kingboyk and Wickethewok. Use a category instead. -- Slowmover
    • Comment. If the list is modified to an annotated list per Iae, then I would change my vote to keep. -- Slowmover 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'd like to see this just as a category, there are numerous List of <genre> artists as pointed out by Iae. Personally, I think they are utter junk... but this would be better discussed as an across the board process discussion about all of these lists rather than in individual (or mass) AfDs. No compelling reason to simply delete this one list.--Isotope23 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please explain what is useful for an unanotated list that could as well be a category. BlueValour 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful list, annotations are possible (and a very good idea) raising this beyond category-fodder. As for "it's full of ... redlinked bands I've never heard of", there are few if any red-links, and AFAIK the nominator not having heard of something in an article isn't in itself reason for deletion (otherwise I could find plenty of things to AFD!) Grutness...wha? 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that I removed the dozens of red-linked artists no one has ever heard of and got several of the articles linked to previously deleted. So, yeah, this is the de-spammed version. Wickethewok 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong delete It is a list that is just a list. For a list to be merited it needs added value; something that a category cannot do. This List fails all tests. BlueValour 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Capitalistroadster. Useful for people interested in this music. --JJay 02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a useful list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.207.216 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A1.

DVERS 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mo v t

This could be a dicdef at best if it was remotely notable. The speedy tag was removed, hence the listing here. Kevin 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Under which
    DVERS 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD A1, lack of context. Xoloz 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Waste Marketing

First revision looked like spam for a marketing company (and was prodded as such), but has since been deprodded by author and had the company name removed. It remains a non-notable phrase (0 Ghits). Matt Eason 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Virospack

More corporate spam from author whose only edits have been corporate spam NawlinWiki 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. Recury 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Espanian

Seems to be a hoax. No Google results related to this (for example, see [14] which is a refined search to show only the most relevant results - and even those don't contain any references to this "language".

PeepP 13:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keighley and district service 760

This seems a pointless and hardly useful page, why is this single bus service given its own entry out of the thousands operated through the

Keighley & District. Achmelvic 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (band)

Not particularly notable band. Also vanity. Delete. Am nominating other related articles:

Wickethewok 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, all three of these are CSD a7 candidates (no assertion of notability) and given the user who created them... vanity. - Motor (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bands all. Tagged as such now.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Petros471 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Junior sports teams are rarely notable and do not meet any of the notability criteria for inclusion on WP. There is no reason why this page is any different - only notable teams should be included - so I would like to see the removal of ALL Junior/Juvenile and Children's teams that do not have genuine notability. How can any team in a Junior B/Juvenile/AAA Hockey League be notable? These teams do not compete in significant tournaments (though I'm sure their Moms and Dads and very proud) and are not professional. WP is not intended to be used as a catalogue of things that exist but an encyclopedia of things which are notable. This, and all the other Junior teams, are not notable and should be removed on mass. At best they could be mentioned on the article about the league - if the league is genuinely notable enough to warrant its own page - most will not. Robertsteadman 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For information - the first nomination was closed early due to too many comments, spamming by someone trying to protect the page and personal abuse being meted out at those wanting the page deleted. Robertsteadman 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ... exactly. Let's leave it at generalised "personal abuse", without pointing fingers anywhere, huh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse was in one direction only. Robertsteadman 14:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete - utterly pointless and has no place on WP. Robertsteadman 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. You wrote the nomination — why are you adding a "vote" as well? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realised I couldn't. Many oters AfDs have votes by the nominator - I though that was what was needed. Robertsteadman 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was something started not so long ago by people concerned that their "votes" wouldn't count. Since votes aren't counted here, full stop, it's a rather useless effort, but it hasn't died out yet. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep.
    WP:POINT. BoojiBoy 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please
    assume good faith. Your "questioning" helps nothing here, and actively hinders the possibility of a civil discussion. Don't throw gratuitous nastiness. And you don't cast a KEEP vote, because AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep. Every professional sports team is notable, no matter the level: see
    WP:HOCKEY would've sufficed. That said, though he did spam, he didn't say "come and vote keep." Verbatim, from my Talk page: "Hello, a user has decided that he does not want us placing hockey stubs on Wikipedia to expand later into teams. In particular he doesn't like Junior teams... I was wondering if you could please voice your opinion." What's more, this professional hockey team is no less notable than many of the high schools we have on Wikipedia, and every one of those are kept. This has been copied and pasted from the previous AfD.  RasputinAXP  c 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I agree that professinal sports teams might warrant an article - but Jun ior B teams are not professional teams - they are below college level ice hockey - they are not notable. On the basis of your own comments you should have voted delete.Robertsteadman 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJunior hockey is not a true amateur (the opposite of professional) system. Hence the name change of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to Canadian Hockey Association to Hockey Canada (Hockeys ruling body in Canada). There are basic regulated salary systems and contract signings and contractual agreements in all levels of Junior hockey. DMighton 04:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a junior B hockey team. There a 20 Junior B hockey leagues (each with about 10-15 teams) in Canada alone. That's so far below the level of notability requirement for sports team as to be not even funny. That's way below Rookie League baseball, of
    af2. -- GWO
  • Keep per my reasons in the original AfD nom for this article. Agent 86 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:Notability is not policy; it is not even a guideline. It is an essay. That is the only reason given for this article not to exist. A number of Ice Hockey contributors have voiced their opinion on this and the previous AFD. Although some ice hockey project members think it might make more sense to just have the information on the league page instead, none have expressed an opinion that the information should be deleted. The article does meet the policies of Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research, so I don't see what the big deal is in letting it stay. -- JamesTeterenko 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into a single league article gets my vote. 20 league articles seems proportionate, 300 individual team articles, not so much. When we write an article about the army, we but don't break it down to platoon level. --- GWO
      • Comment - a sensible comprimise. And vbery well expressed. As long as the leagues ARE notable. Robertsteadman 06:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - that was our original decision, but we had an admin a couple months ago tell us to create individual articles for each of the teams because we couldn't use team logos and such in league pages. DMighton has put several hundred hours of work into carrying this out. I personally wouldn't have a HUGE problem with keeping it at league level only, but the only reason
        WP:FUP. Several hundred hours of work later, those same articles are up for deletion. It's not fair to DMighton's work to delete it all, especially considering that the creation of all the team articles was essentially imposed upon the project from above (and, as I mentioned, I still believe the article is notable and should be kept). BoojiBoy 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Strong Keep: Akin to the Rookie leagues - each and every team of which has an article - and the numerous amateur leagues in baseball (the
    RGTraynor 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep : There is clear intent to flesh this out into a more complete article. Apart from that, I happen to think that Junior B teams are notable enough for inclusion. -- ArglebargleIV 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all above. Expandable stub that will be expanded. BryanG(talk) 23:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things - first: Keep as per my arguments from the first AfD. If DMighton's research yeilds a quality article, then Wikipedia is all the better for it. Let him finish his work.
  • Second: Comment - Robertsteadman: Please stop commenting on every vote. You have made your position abundantly clear, and there is nothing to be gained by arguing with every person who disagrees with you. I would suggest that you take a step back and let the AfD process run its course. Resolute 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sports bore me to death. I've only watched 2 sports contests in my entire 45 years although I've unwillingly attended dozens. I have no interest in any sport league, minor major junior senior whatever. Nonetheless, Wikipedia isn't written to please me. It's an encyclopedia that aims to have a great breadth and depth of knowledge from all over the world. If there's room for Ollie, Iowa, a town of 240 people, I think there's room for this article and also for the other teams in all the junior leagues in Canada. For those who insist that this team has no notability, perhaps you were thinking of me, and thank you kindly because, yes, for me, it is absolutely non-notable. But as others on here have pointed out, the team has real notability for, at the very least, the 100,000 people in Thunder Bay. Interlingua talk 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well said. Were I to be given complete control over what Wikipedia was allowed to include, there's no way I'd allow articles on every single damn Pokemon creature every created or every single walk-on character in some Star Wars quasi-canon fictional writeup. That being said, there seem to be a lot of folks who disagree with me. "Wikipedia isn't written to please me" is an aphorism that deserves to be set in granite.
    RGTraynor 06:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: In which case you should deal with the various Wikiprojects and WP policy and guideline pages to change consensus to explicitly reflect your views, and failing that, accept the prevailing consensus and move on.
    RGTraynor 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: As several editors now have commented, junior leagues are (1) not "juvenile," (2) the highest level of amateur hockey competition in Canada, (3) at the least comparable to American college hockey, since around five times as many NHL players are alumni of junior league teams than are alumni of college squads, and (4) at roughly the same age range as college players, which are explicitly notable per
    RGTraynor 01:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: The way you bolded Juvenile makes me wonder if you knew what juvenile was at the time of writing it. So I will fill in the blanks... Junior is 16-20 year old players... Juvenile is 18-20 year olds... and Midget is 16-18 year olds. You've failed to mention that the league is a Junior "B" league with a multi-tiered regular season and only the games played by the 4 Junior teams mean anything. Also, you've failed to mention that the midget and juvy teams are only mentioned in passing in an article that is not in question here. But, just for the sake of remaining civil... I'll assume that you just haven't read anyone else's keep/delete reasons or the comments left on this AfD. DMighton 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is apparent you didn't read into it or didn't research it on any of the google hits you found last time you AfD'd this article. It is not a problem, I will explain. This JUNIOR league is multi-tiered during the regular season. As I can see, you seem to like euro football, so you might be able to understand this system. 3 different levels of hockey compete in interleague action... Junior "B", Juvenile, and Midget AAA... at the end of a roughly 40 game season... the 4 Junior "B" teams are the only ones allowed to compete in the playoffs... the playoff champion competes out west for the Keystone Cup. The Minor level teams compete in their perspective All-Ontario playdowns and no longer have anything to do with the TBJBHL... their results in the league do not enhance or disrupt their seeding in the Ontario minor playoff systems and are only used as "filler" for the Junior teams and as a way to warm up for the playoffs for the Minor teams. The Juvenile and Midget teams have not been included in the TBJBHL article other than in passing and have little to do with the Northern Hawks and therefore have nothing to do with this AfD. Hopefully this helps you. DMighton 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC) -- Also, Junior A, B, and C classifications are only partially based off of skill level... in fact, they are based mostly off size of the centre they play out of and what league is closest to their town. As well, Junior B teams could be competative in Junior A or Junior C, as Junior C could be competative in Junior B and even a few could survive in Junior A... examples of successful league switching is all over the hockey world... the Barrie Colts, Markham Waxers, Orangeville Crushers, and Listowel Cyclones just to name few involved in an uncountable amount of league moves. Even the Bradford Rattlers just jumped directly from Junior C to Junior A. DMighton 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As virtually everyone else has observed, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I do not feel that an article about a famous person's cat, or some piece of art commissioned by a theatre in Nottingham are notable either. However, I accept that there are others who may believe differently, no matter how small a percentage of users may ever find such articles useful. Resolute 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability is NOT in the eye of the beholder - that is a nonsense. The examples you gace are very poor - the cat is refered to in probbaly the most famous book of the 20th century, it is, quite probably, the most famous cat of the 20th century (certainly top 5). The artwork was commissioned from one of the UK's leading contemporary artists - not a 16-20 year kid learning the ropes. Notability is notability - kiddie sport is kiddie sport. Robertsteadman 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, kiddie sport is kiddie sport -- and this, given that it involves mostly people over the age of 18, is in no way kiddie sport. I don't want to become yet another person to comment that you obviously did no research before nominating this, so I won't. BoojiBoy 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cat is only famous because of its owner. Anne Frank is notable, her cat is not, as it never did anything other than simply exist as Anne Frank's pet. By this argument, is the pet of any famous person notable? Maybe I will litter Wikipedia with articles about atheletes pets. Similaraly, the Sky Mirror itself is not notable. The artist may be, but at best, this piece of art belongs in that artist's article. What historical significance does it have? As I said, notability is in the eye of the beholder. I can accept that what you believe is notable is. All everyone here is asking is that you respect our beliefs. Resolute 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clearly notable. Needs expansion. -- Samir धर्म 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly agree with Boojiboy and ccwaters... as well I agree with Rasputin... and I thank Interlingua for valuable insight. DMighton 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, but needs expansion. No less notable than the
    SPHL. --FrankCostanza 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The current guidline for living athletes is as follows:
"Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." These are paid athletes, and they play at a level equivalent to U.S. college teams. It makes sense then, that their teams would be notable too.
That's the current policy.
There is discussion about changing the athletes' notability policy to make it more restrictive, Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), if anyone is interested in commenting. ColtsScore 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not a current policy. That is a current proposal. If accepted, I suspect it would only be a guideline, not a policy. -- JamesTeterenko 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: We just decided that this article should be keept[18]. It is a notable hockey team on the junior level. It doesn't violate any rules on content, so let it stay. Briememory 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with you, but that first AFD wasn't a keep argument, it closed with no consensus. BoojiBoy 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep in some form. Merge doesn't need AFD to decide.

Petros471 12:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Weathervane effect

Seems like a

WP:NEO based on this paragraph: "This question is not usually discussed in texts, FAA documents, or by most flight instructors. It seems obvious when explained, but unfortunately most resources just state that a banked airplane turns." About 800 Google hits but very few seem relevant to this article. Metros232 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was

DVERS 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Brandt

Speedy delete. The person clearly does not want an article. Don't vote keep, because you think the subject is notable, because that has nothing to do with it. Vote keep for a better reason than that. I will remove any keep votes that give notability as a reason. Gorsh 14:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject of an article gets 1 vote in an AFD just like everyone else. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE AN ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA. The editors as a group do, not Bill Clinton, not Daniel Brandt. Brandt is notable enough to warrant inclusion. His opinion has no more weight than mine or yours or NawlinWikis. - Richfife 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep.

Petros471 12:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Skepta

Prod removed as "a poor quality article does not mean artists is non-notable". That aside I do not think this person meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (music). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tim Glanfield

Notability...reads like a vanity page...no sources KsprayDad 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=tim+glanfield&meta= there do seem to be quite a lot of varied entries for this author, especially in USA. Perhaps someone should add some links. (Unsigned comment by IP 87.74.71.64 -- this is also the IP which edits Tim Glanfield page)

  • Comment Actually there are fewer than 250 google hits for this journalist/wannbe sitcom writer (not really an author) (you need to do the search with quotation marks).Bwithh 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- seems like vanity page -- [User:Timdosser] has a number of edits over the last 24 hours most of which look like vanity attempts to insert Tim Glanfield into Wikipedia. Google (not that it is everything) returns nothing much on him apart from two references to the band "Circumspect" and some journalistic pieces. --Richard Clegg 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment subject would appear to meet the
    WP:BIO criteria... but article and related contributions should be monitored if this is kept because mine nose detects an element of vanity here.--Isotope23 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or Userfy Vanity article for non-notable minor journalist. Bwithh 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least it is confusing with a more famous "Class Act Records" Google returns nothing relevant for "Class Act Records" Saffron. --Richard Clegg 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page NawlinWiki 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity page and non-notable. Helicoptor 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable band, non-notable student radio and non-notable journalism -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedman

One person's invented martial art, no evidence of notability, seems like self-promotion -- listing the person as well NawlinWiki 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax, please do better research. --Masssiveego 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note (1) The above "Keep" vote is by the author of the article. (2) I searched the website of Black Belt magazine [19] and got no results for "Speedman" or "La Tourrette". NawlinWiki 11:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above made no attempt to email [email protected] or [email protected] and ask which black belt magazine speedman was featured in, and disregarded the sale of speedman books in Amazon.com. It is recommand if the above would like to know, they should at try email, and assume "good faith". Which the email was listed on http://www.thespeedman.com/ --Masssiveego 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Um, no. The article itself should be verifiable without an editor having to email someone (at an email address not listed in the article). And it's reasonable to assume that if you say something is "featured in black belt magazine", that one doesn't have to look beyond a magazine called "Black Belt magazine". If you have verifiable secondary sources proving this person's notability, post them -- don't make us play treasure hunt. NawlinWiki 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And how would you know that no one made an attempt to contact that email address? In any case, there seems to be little trace of speedman being featured in black-belt magazine but a lot of google hits mention his repetitive advertising in that same magazine. Quite a different perspective. Pascal.Tesson 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--NawlinWiki is continuing the pattern petty bothersome vandalism of in asking to delete articles with no assumption of good faith, and with no attempt to verify a website by asking it's author. This lack of valid research by Nawlinwiki shows that this article was put up for deletion in bad faith.

Pascal.tesson is equally wrong as if a email was attempted, they would have learned there was an article written about Speedman, as well as adversting, and posted such attempts for such information here as proof that the person was invalid. Google is not the only source of research that will verify articles that exist from a publication. As it's clearly obvious not everything is on the internet. Pascal.tesson should clearly have known that there are other valid sources then the internet itself. --Masssiveego 06:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This martial art style is not a hoax, it is valid, notable and it is real. Please do better research before making false accusations. As it's clear most who have voted here have done little to research the article other then using google. --Masssiveego 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact information for speedman.

Telephone 

   541-535-3188

FAX 

   (541)-535-8038

Postal address 

   6252 Dark Hollow Way
   Medford, OR  97501

Electronic mail 

   General Information: [email protected]
   Sales: [email protected]
   Customer Support: [email protected]
   Webmaster: [email protected]

Doctor La Tourrette can be contacted at: [email protected] 

--Masssiveego 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no
    reliable sources. The guy who invented it does not qualify. I would like to see some mainstream media coverage, at least. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

As stated before the above style was covered by an article in "Black Belt Magazine." If you wish to know which article, please contact above. --Masssiveego 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be commercial advertising for a non-notable subject. Dabbler 11:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbler could have made the effort to wikify the article and is welcome to edit it at any time. The subject it self is notable as more then 10,000 have heard or seen about speedman in blackbelt magazine. --Masssiveego 18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Ezeu 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John La Tourrette

Inventor of Speedman, see above listing; no other claims to notability NawlinWiki 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Let me refute that. John La Tourrette is famous for the hundreds of books, videos and other media. A small sample includes..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000718VW6/sr=8-1/qid=1150884164/ref=sr_1_1/104-9786587-7481568?%5Fencoding=UTF8 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0933764006/sr=1-4/qid=1150884257/ref=sr_1_4/104-9786587-7481568?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books http://www.thespeedman.com/text/credentials.htm Please do some research before listing anymore articles in the future. --Masssiveego 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note (1) The above vote is by the author of the article in question; (2) The two Amazon listings show sales rankings of below 960,000. Still doesn't establish notability in my opinion. NawlinWiki 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Speedman. Delete, even Speedman should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, apparently[20] amazon rankings around a million indicate that "total sales will most likely be under 40". Some notability. Pascal.Tesson 06:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contact information.


Please email the http://www.thespeedman.com/ or

Telephone 

   541-535-3188

FAX 

   (541)-535-8038

Postal address 

   6252 Dark Hollow Way
   Medford, OR  97501

Electronic mail 

   General Information: [email protected]
   Sales: [email protected]
   Customer Support: [email protected]
   Webmaster: [email protected]

Doctor La Tourrette can be contacted at: [email protected] 

--Masssiveego 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More research links. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_La_Tourrette http://www.masterworksinternational.com/BBarchive/messages/549.htm http://www.avlispub.com/john_la_tourrette.htm

With all due respect, how can you hope to garner support by quoting (a) the very Wikipedia article you created and is up for deletion, (b) a single post on a message board that claims to be a phone interview with the guy but is absolutely impossible to verify and (c) the promotional page of one of his publishers? Pascal.Tesson 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is a wikiquote not wikipedia.

2. If you wish to verify it, please contact the above email addresses.

3. It lists some reason why he is notable quote from the webpage.

"Grand Master Dr. John M. La Tourrette is recognized as the nation's leading expert on Mind Training and Speed Hitting for martial arts athletes. In addition to his hit book, Mental Training of a Warrior, he has written for Soldier of Fortune, Black Belt, Kick Illustrated, Warrior, and Inside Kung-fu magazines.

He has written 17 other books in the fields of martial arts and Sports Psychology. He has also produced 247 videos in his field.

His BA is in Secondary Education and he is a certified High School Spanish teacher. He has a Master's degree in Business Management and his Ph.D. was earned in Sports Psychology.

He attended his first Silva course in 1980 and became a certified instructor in 1985.

He has been writing world class advertising copy for his own company, Warrior Publications Inc., since 1978, when he wrote his first best selling book.

In addition to his other achievements Dr. La Tourrette is a certified Trainer of Neuro-Linguistics Programming and is a certified Huna Kumu trainer." --Masssiveego 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how your rewriting does anything to support the notability of the guy. Still fails
WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Santa Claus.--Ezeu 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Helicoptor 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Please do not list articles for deletion that have been kept solidly within the last 6 months. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Helicoptor 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School prank

A whole bunch of original research. Also, we don't want to encourage the pranks by having an article on them, thus delete. Helicoptor 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • B y damaged do you mean the removal of all the utterly unverifiable cruft and leaving only the unverified but probably verifiable if anybody could be bothered cruft? Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Major edits done by FlareNUKE - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_prank&diff=60073775&oldid=60059005 Andymc 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like a significant improvement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better! But expect them back... Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The page in its current state belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. --Andymc 17:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to nomination: If wikipedia is truly neutral, then they would report this article, because reporting is not condoning. Agree with
    Bowling For Columbine
    article, half of it is unsourced. Why isn't anyone nominating it for deletion? However, this article needs severe secondary sources input, and a phrasing clean-up.

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 26:48 24th June 2006 (Non-UTC)

  • Moderately strong delete I don't think there's any point in this article. As a list, it's just a mixture of original research and things made up at school in one day, as well as being completely irresponsible as it allows bullies to publish their methods for other morons to copy. Without the list, it's not really of any interest to anyone, because it's too short. I think the best thing would be to delete the list, move the rest of the info onto the pranks article, and delete the page. I know it's extreme, but I can't see any way around it. RobbieG 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is Wikipedia for goodness sakes: the website with information on anything and everything. To say it should be deleted just because someone doesn't like the topic is ludicrous. Some people don't like
    Spinich, but there's an article on that. If you don't think the information on this page is accurate, then you can edit it if you wish. Don't delete the page just because it's a touchy topic. Kevin 02:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Seems just fine to me. --Alphachimp talk 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reinstate examples. We don't want to encourage terrorism or herpes, but we have articles on those. Grant 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see your point, but few mentally stable people on Wikipedia are likely to attempt terrorism, and people who do most likely don't have the technology. Spinach doesn't have a negative physical impact on people (you can joke, but it's true), and as for herpes, you can't really encourage a disease in that way, as nobody wants to catch it. Bullying, on the other hand, is probably practiced by hundreds of kids who may come looking to this page for ideas. Like I said on the talk page, I don't object to the encyclopaedic treatment of the topic, but I do think listing different pranks, complete with instuctions, is a bit much. Besides, the morality of an article is immaterial when most of the content is non-notable original research anyway. RobbieG 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have articles on terrorism. Does that mean we encourage terrorism? Hell no. WhisperToMe 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skahead

No citations on this term. Checked various online search engines, haven't located a single hit on this term, aside from a username on various internet forums. Suspect

(t) (m) 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-1000

The information in this article seems to be unverifiable. It is assembled from four different web sites which contradict each other in various ways and have various factual inaccuracies. None of the web sites cite reliable sources. I went to the nearby university library today and can find no reliable sources about it. I was reluctant to list this at first, since I've heard of this tank, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that I've only ever heard about it from Internet tank fan sites, never a reliable source. Without a reliable source, the article must go, based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. My guess is that virtually no hard information exists on this design and everyone just keeps building on the story. TomTheHand 21:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Delete per nominator, who seems to have done his homework on this one. Agent 86 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate that, Agent 86, but I worry that I simply didn't find the right books and I'm doing the article an injustice. I'd be happier if a reliable source were found, the contradictions were cleared up, and the article got to stay with all the inaccuracies trimmed out. However, I did look through every possible source at the NCSU library and didn't find anything... as you can see, I'm torn. TomTheHand 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe the more prudent course of action would be to tag it with the {{
        WP:V, I'll have to say delete, but out of deference to your comments I'll soften my position to weak delete. Agent 86 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Comment: Would it be acceptable for now to trim or qualify portions where the sources are in disagreement? I too respect and appreciate the legwork contributed by the nominator, but I'm unconvinced that AFD isn't premature. Two apparently-independent web pages predate the wp article: Achtung Panzer[21] and Panzershreck[22] (other web sites that appeared since then look like they may be sourced from the wp article itself). Neither site provides reliable sources, but both sites agree that a project with the name existed, and roughly agree about the intended size and armament. Achtung Panzer, at least, appears to be fairly reputable as far as such enthusiast sites go, and presuming good faith on their part I'm willing to provisionally allow that the whole thing isn't just a hoax. On the other hand it does seem to be disturbingly hard to find information about the Ratte compared to the Maus and E-100. --Saucepan 05:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, my initial intention when I found the article was to simply trim portions that seemed to be original research and sections where the sources were in disagreement, but I ran into resistance there. When I tried to verify information about the subject, I couldn't find anything. For a short time I thought it would be a good idea to simply trim the page down to what everyone agrees on, but it seems to me that a source is either reliable (or based on reliable sources) or it isn't, and four web sites that don't cite sources don't add up to one reliable source. While I generally consider Achtung Panzer to be reputable, their P-1000 page has at least one factual inaccuracy (discussed on Talk:P-1000, and their illustration looks nothing like Panzershreck's, which casts some doubt on the reliability of one or the other. TomTheHand 06:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think information reliability is much more probabilistic than it is black and white, although it does seem to be true that hobbyist sites might have trouble reaching the minimum standards currently called for by
        WP:V -- in the case of Achtung Panzer, it would seem to hinge on George Parada's reputation as an amateur historian. Someone should probably ask Mr. Parada where he got his info and diagrams. --Saucepan 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Strong Keep the information present in this article comes from a reliable source, Achtung Panzer!, which User:TomTheHand has attempted to discredit using a fallacious argument based on a strawman distortion of a single sentence in one article: namely, he claims that a statement that a mock-up turret was moved to a location must mean it was installed at that location. This is not only ludicrous, but original research aimed at making the article appear to have no reliable source when in fact it does have at least one such source. Hrimfaxi 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add also as sources demonstrating the thing's existence this, and if anyone can get hold of this it could presumably be used as a source. The book Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 would also presumably include something on P1000, since (apparently) it even includes details of the Midgard-Schlange project to build a 60,000 ton burrowing train.Hrimfaxi 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to use a "strawman distortion" to discredit Achtung Panzer. It is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read it.
I'll see if I can find German Secret Panzer Projects. Until I do, I stand by my position to delete the article as it is based entirely on unreliable sources. If, in the future, someone gets their hands on a reliable sources, they can recreate the article based only on information found in those sources. Again, for goodness sake, read the verifiability policy. There's nothing to argue about here, no room for interpretation. None of the sources used to make the article are reliable according to Wikipedia policy. TomTheHand 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have, thanks. It says nothing that would disqualify a respected website with numerous awards as a reliable source. Hrimfaxi 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. Achtung Panzer! is a personal web site, not a published source.
Also see here. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Again, Achtung Panzer is a personal web site and is not acceptable as a source. TomTheHand 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this: Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. It seems like a long shot but it's just possible that Mr. Parada migh turn out to qualify. --Saucepan 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how "acknowledged expert" is meant to be interpreted. Is it enough that assorted other amateur web sites consider his to be good, or are we talking about a higher standard of acknowledgement? Does he have to be generally acknowledged to be an expert by professional historians? I did some Googling, and George Parada seems to be well-respected on various web forums and stuff, but his presence seems to be limited to the amateur military history community on the web. I wish he had a bio or something on achtungpanzer. I'll try to look and see if he's written any books or anything. TomTheHand 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see him credited as co-author on a couple of books. I'll look into that further. TomTheHand 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The books in question seem to be ~50 page light reading picture books. I don't think they establish expert status in any way. TomTheHand 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This tripod site, http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/superheavy/p1500.html, at least points to a book in reference to the P-1500, so we could see if it mentions the P-1000, too. The book in question is, I think, Tanks; the Axis powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan, by Eric Grove. Libraries that have it are: NORTHLAND PIONEER COL (AZ), LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUB LIB (CA), PLACER CNTY LIBR (CA), MIAMI-DADE PUB LIBR SYST (FL), PRITZKER MILITARY LIBR (IL), ALLEN CNTY PUB LIBR (IN), KOKOMO-HOWARD CNTY PUB LIBR (IN), KENTUCKY HIST SOC LIBR (KY), NICHOLLS STATE UNIV ELLENDER MEM LIBR (LA), SAILS, INC (MA), SAGINAW PUB LIBR (MI), UNIV OF NEBRASKA OMAHA (NE), MOHAWK VALLEY COMM COLL (NY), CUYAHOGA CNTY PUB LIBR (OH), EASTERN OREGON UNIV ((OR), US ARMY, MIL HIST INST (PA), NAVAL WAR COLL (RI), BLUE RIDGE REG LIBR (VA), MILWAUKEE CNTY FEDERATED LIBR (WI), and SAINT NORBERT COL LIBR (WI). So, I'd say, have someone who lives nearby check that book, see if it seems scholarly or has references. This thing was supposedly cancelled by Speer in '43, so I'll check my copy of Inside the Third Reich, but it wouldn't hurt to check The Spandau Diaries and Infiltration, too (I don't have those). If no luck there, then I'll say strong delete. Sacxpert 10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live near a copy of Tanks; the Axis powers, but my nearby university library has The Spandau Diaries and Infiltration so I'll have a look at them either today or early this week. I hope this AfD will still be open; there have been very few participants. TomTheHand 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of
    reliable sources. Willing to reconsider if better sourcing is provided.--Isotope23 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep Reason to believe the information is verifiable even if we do not have the reference in hand. I hope we do find a reference (or expose it as a hoax) but until then, readers will have no trouble interpreting the unverified tags and links to tripod websites. — brighterorange (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete if it stays in its current state. However, I recommend a {{
    verify}} tag to see if it gets any better, since this is an important topic. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. I just spent two hours at the NCSU library looking at Spandau: The Secret Diaries, Infiltration, and Inside the Third Reich. This is in addition to the time I spent last week checking NCSU's resources on tanks and armored vehicles. I was not able to read anything cover to cover, obviously, but I scanned probable sections and checked indexes and I found no mention of the P-1000. In addition, George Parada of AchtungPanzer did not respond to my queries. I believe that if I spend several hours at a major university library, and I cannot find reliable sources on a topic, and none of the contributors of an article are able to present reliable sources, that information should be considered unverifiable and removed. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, any editor can remove unsourced material, and the obligation to provide a reliable source belongs to the contributor(s), not those seeking to remove it. I understand that realistically, not every article contains reliable sources, and I wouldn't suggest that all of those articles be deleted. However, if an article cites no reliable sources, a source is requested, nobody is able to provide one, and several hours of research fail to turn up a reliable source, the article should be deleted. TomTheHand 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Tom, and I've checked my copy of Inside the Third Reich as well, without success. I've also gone back through my Panzer Tracts and other German tank history works, and find no references there, either. I don't see any documented evidence anywhere to support the claims of this vehicle's existence, and without either a detailed reference from Mr. Parada, or somebody producing direct quotes from the Grove book (which I listed above along with every library in the country that owns it), I see no reason to believe that this vehicle had any basis in fact. I am therefore changing my vote to strong delete. If anyone ever produces a copy of the Grove book, I might change my mind, if it seems verifiable and scholarly. Sacxpert 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable tankcruft which wouldn't merit an article even if it could be shown that a sketch on a napkin or wooden scale model actually existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm persuaded by TomTheHand's argument that it shouldn't be this difficult to find reliable sources for a notable project, and Wikipedia's current editorial stance appears to be that unreliable information is worse than no information. (But "tankcruft"? Ouch!) --Saucepan 18:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -

talk/email 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oneselfism

Delete per

talk/email 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete "This is my first trial towards theorizing collection of my thoughts on which I dig hardly to read up for validity reasons and I named it "Oneself-ism" ". NawlinWiki 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - personal essay. FreplySpang 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic. -999 (Talk) 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR all over the place.
    Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Point it to Masturbation. Brjatlick 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the epitomy of
    WP:OR. Eluchil404 03:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parents for the Online Safety for Children

This organisation does not actually seem to exist. The only thing other than references to the "press release" accusing Wikipedia of being run by paedophiles that Google finds is an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, their homepage (http://www.theposc.com) does not seem to exist anymore, and the article was started (and pretty much completely written) by a user called PFTOSOC who does not have any other contributions. In short, the whole organisation probably does not exist at all and certainly does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You are correct. And looking at the cached entries on google from the site, their main target seems to be Wikipedia. It seems that we are rampant with pedophiles fishing for kids in a way that I can't figure out. Here is the cached site, seems to be linked with Wikipedophilia. Interesting stuff. Teke 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of", not "for", yes. Mea culpa. Errr, scratch that. I should drink some more coffee before responding so I actually understand what people are saying. ;) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Although this needn't have been be brought to AfD, the discussion below supports deletion. --Ezeu 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero and First Order Holds

Zero-order hold and First-order hold should have their own separate articles. possibly linking to each other. both titles should have a hyphen in them. the information given for the FOH is technically inaccurate. someone soon can create a correct First-order hold article. r b-j 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initially closed this article as a keep, since it sounded like a move was going to be done, which is something that does not need to be brought to AfD. Also, if any content is used in a new article, the old one must redirect to the new one to preserve attribution. I think that it has been cleared up that content from the article will not be used in any new articles. Also, keeping the article as a redirect is seen as confusing, since it would have to link to one of the pages but its title suggests that it has content on both topics. -- Kjkolb 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do not plan to keep or use any content from the article in question. it will be about approximately the same topic, but when i create First-order hold (as soon as i get certain drawings to start it), it will not resemble the section of the same title of the article of issue now. i wish the original editor of this article would pipe in. i found his web page and sent him an email. maybe he will soon, but i do not know and i want to correct some of this soon. r b-j 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old article should be a disambig page, linking to both articles. I think this AfD can be closed as Keep. --Tango
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you think it's good to keep. the article is not used by or linked by any other article. the content of the article should have been separated in the first place. the writing in the article leaves a lot to be desired. the original author (who would be the only person with an interest since no one else seems to even know it's here) is nowhere to be found (and i have e-mailed him directly). the "first-order hold" that he describes is about the most academic and worthless version of the FOH (i didn't even recognize the impulse response, but i did eventually find a MATLAB simulink reference to such an animal) and that FOH is incompatible with the piecewise linear drawing of an FOH output in the top graph. there was never a need for this combined article, it's mistitled (there are hyphens missing), it's poorly written, has technical error, i've already written the separate articles of the two different ZOH and FOH with accurate equations and illustrative drawings, also pointing out the differences between the different versions of FOH, no one has come to defend the combined article, it's not referred to by any article, and there is no stated reason for a disambig.. tell me, Tango, what is there to keep? and how did you draw any conclusion that there is a consensus to keep, thus closing as "keep"?
recently i was disappointed to see an article
proof by verbosity delected. that article had more accurate content and reason to exist than this one. r b-j 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
one last note (for comparison): as i mentioned to Kjkolb, this is akin to an article titled William and Hillary Clinton. that should be a red link. it is about two different but related topics. they deserve their own separate articles. because they are related, it is appropriate to have each point to the other, perhaps in the ==See also== section. but it should be a red link as shold Zero and First Order Holds . if William and Hillary Clinton were to redirect, who should it redirect to? if it's a disambig that simply lists Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, it offers nothing. it has no reason to exist. r b-j 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested keeping any of the content - I suggested turning it into a disambig. I don't know the topic, but if they're never refered to as one thing, then the page can be deleted. Is there any chance of people linking to or searching for them as one thing? If not, then delete. --Tango 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do know the topic, and my guess is that for every 99 times that someone, anyone is looking up zero-order hold, there will be 1 time that someone will look up first-order hold. i don't know of a single device that does the latter, but i will not say definitively that no commercial implementation of a DAC with first-order hold exists. i think they are generally unnecessary but make for interesting textbook material. i think there is no chance of someone looking up "zero and first order holds" without first looking up "zero-order hold" or "first-order hold". there are 75 hits on Google of "zero and first order holds", mostly WP and mirrors or of a single IEEE paper with that phrase in the title. the concepts are different but related enough that there should be links cross-referencing it. but, like Bill and Hillary, they're not the same thing. r b-j 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i have today received email from the original author (below). i think he means to agree or defer to my judgement when he says "Please go ahead ". can we delete this thing now? r b-j 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


----------
From: Arash Abadpour <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:59:31 -0500
To: robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Abadpour, i've been trying to get your attention at your	Wikipedia talk page.

Robert,
 Thanks for correcting it.
Arash
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> on 06/20/2006 13:10, Arash Abadpour at [email protected] wrote:
>
>   
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> Will you go there and look?  There are problems with some pages you have
>>> created and I didn't want to go there and lay waste without contacting you.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Robert
>> I saw your modifications. You are indeed a knowledgeable person in the
>> field. Please go ahead and thanks for your email.
>> Regards, Arash
>>     
>
> we might delete the "Zero and First Order Holds" page in favor of the
> separate pages.
>
> actually, i never heard of or known of the "predictive" FOH (you didn't use
> the term "predictive") until i started investigating the strange looking (at
> least to me at the time) impulse response you had for the FOH.  your top
> graph with linear interpolation was for a "regular" FOH that i previously
> knew about and i could tell that you would *not* get that nice linear
> interpolation with the FOH impulse response you had shown.  so, at first, i
> just thought your FOH section was simply wrong.  but it had the effect of
> forcing me to research the web and i *did* come up with some reference to a
> predictive FOH that had that weird impulse response, so i included that in
> the final section of First-order hold.
>
> thanks for getting back to me.
>
>
>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Perry

Non-notable local politician

talk 21:01, 13 June 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, W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If membership to the city council is the item that makes this person notable, then the city council should rate an article. This article would include each member's biography. Only when a biography within the council article grows beyond the scope of the council should the person have his or her own biography article. In this case, we seem to have skipped a step by creating a bio for someone who amounts to a one-hit wonder. Rklawton 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say a current member of the City Council of one of the largest cities in the world is notable. NawlinWiki 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto. Aint 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LA councilpeople are generally notable enough. Xoloz 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an article at Los Angeles City Council. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs a link to Los Angeles City Council among other things but she represents more people than a typical state/provincal legislator. Eluchil404 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has a link but still could be better. Eluchil404 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I can't believe this article has even been nominated for deletion. Her constituency is roughly 245,000 people, which is about a third of that of a member of the House of Representatives. --Asbl 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Trainer

Simply being a one-term mayor does not justify a biography. I posted this for SD, but an editor removed the tag without substantially changing the article. Rklawton 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (speedy) keep. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics (disambiguation)

There is no need for this page. I have put a disambiguation notice at the top of the mathematics article that says

For the hip-hop producer, see mathematics (producer). "Math" redirects here. For the monastic order, see Ramakrishna Math.

I think that is enough. "Math", in this case, is not the word "mathematics", nor an abbreviation for it. Michael Hardy 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • opposekeep - Math, Maths and Mathematics all should direct to Mathematics, clearly the most used meanings of those words. If this is the case, then having a single disambiguation page for those three words makes sense. It makes the Mathematics article cleaner and we may well get further entries on the dab page (I would expect an article describing the Hindu meaning of Math, for example). John (Jwy) 23:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just going to nominate this for deletion but then I discovered it was already nominated (same reasons as above). —
    ets501 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep now is linked to again and has 6 entries. —
ets501 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make it so long. I suggest:
For other uses of mathematics and math, see mathematics (disambiguation).
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me, though I would italicize mathematics and math. BigDT 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
add maths for the
Commonwealth English-speaking world. John (Jwy) 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. A dab page is needed. Paul August ☎ 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dwy has explained what dab pages are for. Septentrionalis 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there is a lot of potential for confusion with these articles, especially since there are regional differences in the usage for math/maths/mathematics; a little explanation goes a long way. (Personally, I like BigDT's otheruses phrasing.)  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Math" and related terms can have many meanings, and it would be helpful to have a disambiguation page to help sort things out. Chris53516 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However the article
    Mathematics major looks rather weak. I agree with the approach of Oleg Alexandrov. The other uses are of marginal significance. Peterkingiron 23:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extenprise

5 billion nonnotable companies in the world, and they all want Wikipedia pages NawlinWiki 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as CSD G4 and protected. Xoloz 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle boys

Recreation of a previously deleted page. Delete and protect from recreation

Wildthing61476 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks aeropagitica, I was getting ready to post the link to that discussion.

Wildthing61476 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kline

Probable non-existent person, or article created of themselves. Google turns up only 32 items

Skinnyweed 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason (WAD)

Non-notable game mod; prod and prod2 tags were removed without comment. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we don't need an article for everybody's custom map. BigDT 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JPD (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think there's a single assertion of notability, and if there is, it's not enough. -- Kicking222 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doobstar

Advertisement, prod removed without comment. There needs to be a speedy delete criterion for things like this ... BigDT 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Bear in mind that it isn't simply this young lady's finish that makes her notable, but also the controversy regarding her reinstatement. This latter point is largely unrebutted in the debate by those who favor deletion, and influences my reading of the consensus AfDs have next-to-no precedential value anyway, but this consensus emphatically says nothing about the general notability of non-controversial high-place spelling bee finishers. Xoloz 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saryn Hooks

This article was speedy deleted during an earlier AfD. A DRV consensus judged this deletion premature, and instructed that the article be relisted at AfD for a full debate. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Open International University for Alternative Medicine

Non-accredited school with 85 Google hits, probably an advertisement. Erik the Rude 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't assert notability. --Tango 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Seems to be a real school [26]. --JJay 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advert for its website. No worthwhile encyclopaedic information. BlueValour 03:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Non-accredited "school"s, even if real, are worth almost as much as their diplomas. I could print diplomas. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if expanded. We have
    Patriot University, presumably because of Kent Hovind. I think we're justified in keeping this article - if it's expanded - because of Masaru Emoto. Tevildo 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to The Keys to the Kingdom Thryduulf 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nithlings

Non-notable outside a 3 year old fantasy series. Should be merged or deleted if the information is already contained in the main article.

Crossmr 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge Definately nn on its own. Question for more experienced AfDers: Could I just boldly merge the article and then close this AfD myself? --Tango 23:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not at all familiar with The Keys to the Kingdom, so I'm not going to comment on whether the article should go, but yes, of course you can (and probably should!) be bold and do the merge, as far as adding the information to The Keys to the Kingdom goes. However, you can't really put a redirect in on the old article, as that would screw up the AfD template. It's also probably best if only admins close AfDs (if only because they can delete articles if need be) -- I mean, let's assume that Nithlings are widely considered a topic that deserves its own article. You're the first person after the nominator to voice an opinion on this one, so if you were to close it, you wouldn't be acting on consensus, but on your personal opinion. A situation like that could very well lead to a lot of unnecessary friction between you and other editors. (Lots of precedents for that kind of stuff, let me tell you.) -- Captain Disdain 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you leave the redirect below the AfD template, (and leave a note in italics btween the AfD and the #redirect), it should be OK. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. NawlinWiki 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. (I finally read the article. There's no "there" there.). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but if the article starts getting long, make a mention of that fact in the Keys to the Kingdom talk page and separate it out again. Captainktainer * Talk 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danbooru

Non-notable online community? Jonny-mt 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Possible counterarguments exist, hence the (admittedly strange step) of nominating your own article that has been marked for deletion...and then commenting on it. I originally went fact-finding in an effort to build a defense for the article, but after reading the appropriate guidelines as to what is and isn't note-worthy, I found myself a bit lost. So if you'd indulge me, I'd like to post what would have originally been the defense here.

STATS:

[DANBOORU STATISTICS]:

  • May 2005 (last complete month)
    • Unique Visitors: 71,365
    • Number of Visits: 193,804 (approx. 2.7 times per visitor)
    • Hits: 23,137,934
    • Total Bandwidth: 138,32 GB

The above are valid as of 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OTHER NOTABLES:

  • Open-source, constantly evolving software
  • Tags allow for invisible, automatic child tag creation, synonym/misspelling resolution, and so on--such changes are based on user input and consensus
  • One IP-One Vote system allows for the rating of posts and attached comments, which affects whether or not they show up in default view based on individual user settings.

Of course, this all may be moot with the site owner posting about the possible closure in the last 24 hours, but I'd rather hear the thoughts of those better-versed than I in the workings of Wiki. Jonny-mt 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete; mediocre alexa rank of 72,000, site now closed. — brighterorange (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither the site or the software is notable, although the software is pretty nice. No
    reliable third-party sources. Kotepho 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Boys (demogroup)

Relist per discussion on

WP:DRV. Abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of cities outside Europe in different languages

I noticed the redlinked AFD - another user had listed it, but had not completed the process. This is thus a procedural nomination. That said, I can't see any use of this thing for the life of me, so delete but it if there is some compelling reason for this article that I'm missing, I would not oppose a speedy keep. BigDT 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke D. Moore

Delete as NN bio/vanity/autobiography. The article makes no substantial assertion of notability with the exception of an unsourced receipt of a collegiate award. The article was created by

List of 21st century classical composers and Postminimalism. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete I am the user who tried to add the first speedy deletion tag to this article as soon as it was written. I believe that Tuesday 1pm Series and Trio Sarabanda are the same person and are socket puppets for Luke D. Moore. I think the article should be deleted as it is a vanity page. --IslaySolomon 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Guys- is this your job? How cool! Anyway, a few questions from the (admittedly carbon-based) composer himself: -what distinguishes between notable and undeserving of credit? -I make a potentially false assumption that none of you have produced a musical or literary work, but if this is true, what makes you qualified to assess the validity of entries such as this? -Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia, so on that principle would it not be beneficial to all to be as comprehensive as possible? Would anything other than that effectively be censorship and where is the line drawn? -How can the concise nature of the article be expanded to become more notable? NB. Tuesday 1pm Series and Trio Sarabanda are my successor in the role of Montford Scholar and an acclaimed violinist who will be performing the Violin I part of 'Moments' when it premieres later this year. In addition to this, Glass, Reich et al are not considered contemporaries- they were writing music when I was still in diapers! Thanks in advance, I find this all very interesting! Luke

  • Comment The article is not up for speedy deletion, this is the discussion regarding whether or not it meets requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Speedy deletions would have no such discussion. Failing notability standards does qualify the article for this process. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, come back again when you're better known to the public. NawlinWiki 17:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in the relatively limited context of modern British composers. TruthbringerToronto 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Note that the supposed "composer himself" admits that the article is constructed by his friends. Moreover, he does not try to assert his notability in any way, shape or form, prefering to dismiss Wikipedia editors as people who know nothing about how hard is work is. Can anyone spell vanity? Pascal.Tesson 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pascal.Tesson- do you have any ideas as to the extent of the limited context of contemporary UK composers? NawlinWiki's point is semi-valid though notability can not always be defined by how many google search entries a name returns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trio Sarabanda (talk • contribs)
    • A look at the contributions of contributions or contributions do not seem to indicate a concern for the "limited context of contemporary UK composers" but rather a strong concern for Luke D. Moore. Add on top of that the previous claim made that these two users are acquaintances of Luke D. Moore and you have a clear case of vanity edits. If you want to prove your point, why not provide third-party references establishing the importance of this composer? Do you consider yourself as a neutral observer of the importance of Luke D. Moore as a composer? Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no basis to delete.

DVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Butters

Just an unimportant character from some crappy TV show. Newspaper99 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per baseless, bad faith nomination. (User's edits are all listing articles for deletion using this (and similar) rationale). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, notable character NawlinWiki 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, close all of thse AfD discussions, and give a stern warning to User:Newspaper99. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's undeserving of an article. -- Kicking222 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no basis to delete.

DVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Billy (Billy and Mandy)

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per baseless, bad faith nomination. (Users edits are all listing articles for deletion using this rationale). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, title character in popular show NawlinWiki 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no basis to delete.

DVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Mandy (Billy and Mandy)

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per baseless, bad faith nomination. (User's edits are all listing articles for deletion using this rationale). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, title character in popular show NawlinWiki 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no basis to delete.

DVERS 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bellsprout

Just a character from a crappy kid show that nobody cares about Newspaper99 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per baseless, bad faith nomination. (User's edits are all listing articles for deletion using this rationale). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. All Pokemon have articles, so no need to get rid of just one. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whil

Prod contested. Appears to be pure original research. Google produces no hits, there's no listing at wookiepedia. Additionally, the users involved in creating and editing this page appear to be inserting fiction about their upcoming fanfilm. Note the similiarity between User:Joriv Aneri Génnesar and User:Rod-Wan Déattrod and names on the list. Deleuze 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as
    WP:OR or merge to whatever work of Star Wars fiction they're supposed to be in. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoo

Cites no sources, seems to consist mainly of original research. Even if it was true, it would pretty clearly fail

WP:FICT - does every planet in the Star Wars universe get a page? Also, it looks like the users involved in creating this page are trying to insert information from their proposed fanfilm into wikipedia as fact. Deleuze 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Nguyan

Although it has {{context}} and {{verify}}, I can't find any information on "Juneland" - I think that it is a hoax and complete rubbish but do correct me and accept a humble apology if I am wrong, but I think that as it cannot be verified, it should be on AFD.

Benjaminstewart05 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity plays favorites

Sure sounds like a cut and paste copyvio, though I can't find the source article NawlinWiki 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fang Aili.

DVERS 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

What Drives The Weak

Delete as NN band. The article makes claims that they have played shows with various headliner acts, but without citations, I have serious doubts, especially considering that they claim to have formed in 2005 and to have performed with Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996. (P.S. What are Dolphin Cruises?) Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - besides the hoax about who they played with, it's not a notable band if the members' last names aren't even posted. NawlinWiki 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Per nom, non notable advert. --++Lar: t/c 01:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia falls

Doesn't assert notability

Benjaminstewart05 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mochila

And more corporate spam. Can we get a speedy tag for corporate spam? NawlinWiki 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and that's a good idea for a speedy tag Deleuze 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By leveraging the power of the internet!!!!!! Wickethewok 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the news coverage listed under external links, and take a look at their owners[28] and list of customers[29]. This is exactly why there should not be a speedy tag for perceived spam. This company is notable, but its article might have been deleted if I hadn't found links for some press coverage. TruthbringerToronto 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Speedy Delete as corporate spam after reading TruthbringerToronto's backup evidence. Speedy Tag for Corporate Spam is an excellent idea - isn't there one already Bwithh 02:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and full of unsourced corporate spiel. BlueValour 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Rising Bounty Hunter

Contested prod. NN song, most of the article deals with the lyrics. By the way, I'm quite sure it's "resurget ex favilla" and not "resurget et favilla". No reference or claim of notability. Zoz (t) 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be the definition of a nn song. Deleuze 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quantus tremor est futurus delete Aside from the song being non-notable and the article having no content... that's an amazing (read: absolutely terrible) butchering of some amazing musical compositions. -- Kicking222 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Requiem aeternam dona eis domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. On the plus side, the lyrics are out of copyright so not actually a copyvio... Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need some help I've searched the internet and those lyrics are the best that I could find; if you more exact lyrics then post them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SplinterMetroid (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 June, 2006
    Comment: Please check Wikipedia:Notability (music). The problem is not with the lyrics, but the fact that the article hardly contains anything else, does not cite references from reliable sources, and does not assert notability.
  • Delete - Junk. BlueValour 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. --Ixfd64 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Rephann

unnotable ackoz 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Surely we cannot keep on tha basis that it may be sourced in the future; since this AfD has not provoked sourcing how can we assume it ever will be? BlueValour 23:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since it is unsourced we cannot assume that anything in it is true. It is for the creator and subsequent editors to source claims and they have conspcicuously failed so to do. BlueValour 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough, and unverifiable.--
    Konstable 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied after author's blanking of article. BrokenSegue 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanabi (The Lion King)

Not notable fanmade character from The Lion King. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article Kopa already mentions Tanabi at the end under trivia. Starionwolf 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey

A previous AfD on this subject, closed as a keep, met with some controversy and was reviewed by DRV. A DRV consensus determined that relisting should occur for a variety of reasons, including a rewrite of the content. A second AfD also took place during the DRV, but was closed as being out-of-process, and should be ignored here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain less than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms. For example, from the about 742 million pages related to "Microsoft", Google presently returns 552 "unique" results (as of Jan 9, 2006). Because of this, caution must be used in judging the relative importance of websites having well over 1000 hits. " (emphasis mine) --LeflymanTalk 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, and I'll strike through that response. Nevertheless, I still don't think a clip show's notable. I wouldn't run a normal Lost episode article through AfD, or a character article (unless it was something like "Unnamed Extra #5 in Pilot"), but yeah, this at least merits community review. And the "Google test" is a little overused, in my opinion. But whatever. — Mike • 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that doesn't exactly answer the question that a Google search, irrespective of "unique hits," for "Lost: The Journey" and "ABC" yields 517 hits — and a high Google count isn't unsurprising given that "lost" and "journey" are commonplace English words. Any poem that has something like "Lost, the journey ended" or "Picard said, 'We're lost.' 'The journey's not yet over,' Troi replied." is going to yield one of the 27,000 hits your search produced. The ABC limiter yields a far more accurate representation of how many Google hits the program owns. — Mike • 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, with regards to the material quoted, I note the same page states, "More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show." Furthermore, I see no header identifying whether the quoted material has the strength of an essay (no strength), guideline (medium strength), or policy (full strength). — Mike • 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable episode of notable show. Plenty of verifiable sources for it. Capitalistroadster 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand on what metric you measure its notability? — Mike • 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has been rewritten to be useful and is now a part of the series of Lost articles. The version that was considered by the previous AFD - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost:_The_Journey&oldid=51191217 - was pretty much worthless. This version is for all practical purposes a new article. BigDT 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it useful? And usefulness is not really a criteria for keeping an article, frankly. The AfD on Enterprise's canonicity problems is a very useful article. But it's all original research, and as much as my personal taste would prefer to have it around, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's qualifications. It was rewritten and looks better — admittedly — but it still doesn't seem to be a notable subject. Again, it's a clip show, for Pete's sake. — Mike • 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Individually, a heckuva lot of what's on Wikipedia is not notable. Think
        WP:PTEST. Those little individual Pokemons that nobody has ever heard of would never survive on WP in isolation. But together, they are a part of a series of co-equal articles that would be incomplete if one were missing. It's the same thing here. This show is not notable in and of itself, but as a part of a series of articles on shows from that season, it belongs with the rest of them. BigDT 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The
          WP:PTEST essay doesn't seem to be making the point you're suggesting, e.g., that non-notable articles when looked at in an aggregate sense can be considered notable. It instead seems to be noting that non-notable Pokemon articles are used to justify keeping other non-notable subjects — as the page itself says, "Keep. Clearly, [the article in question] is more notable than Nidorino [or any other random Pokémon], so if Nidorino gets its own page, why the heck can't [the article in question]?" — Mike • 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • Obviously, keep.
    T 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This is no longer the same article I originally wanted deleted. It now explains why this is a significant clip show, explaining the purpose behind it, and has references. I wouldn't say I'd keep all articles about clip shows, but this one does a good job of defending its existence here. BryanG(talk) 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep episodes of television shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mind expanding on this? Every single episode of a television show should have its own article? — Mike • 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete episodes of televisions, ESPECIALLY clip shows. Slathering on some OR to try and confer some importance on an hour-long "Previously on..." doesn't help it. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps elucidate what is meant by "slathering on some OR"? --LeflymanTalk 04:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the closing admin on the first AfD, and as I said during the deletion review, I would have commented delete on the article as it was then, were I commenting, instead of closing, and would have closed delete, were it not for the mediation action that was ongoing. This article is substantially better than it was then, but I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic... THAT said, in view of Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes, specifically "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.).", for which there appears to be consensus, I am going to overlook my personal distaste for individual episode articles, note that the OR has been removed, verification has been added, and comment Keep. I further note that it's not necessary or appropriate for WCityMike to comment on just about every comment. For the record, I will not be closing this one. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly knock off the hyperbole, sir — you're an admin and you should know better. I've not commented on just about every comment. I've tried to clarify areas where I didn't think justifiable reasons were cited for comment. As you've pointed out, quality of reasoning behind votes are counted moreso than headcount itself, and it seems to me that many of the votes here aren't properly supported by policy. — Mike • 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you view as hyperbole is what I view as calling attention to the fact that you're citing things out of context (for instance, citing one line from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes while skipping the very next line that completely undercuts your argument, for another instance, doing the same thing with the google test text) in what I view is a strenous effort to get this article deleted, no matter what the actual policy is, no matter what tactics you need to employ. I detest this article, I detest the entire Lost show, and I think it's silly to have individual television episodes carry articles except in very limited cases where they were culturally significant in a larger context, but the group that works on these articles has arrived at a consensus that clearly says individual episodes should not be deleted except in certain cases, which this episode (and if it's branded with the Lost episode badging, it's an episode, clip show or not) no longer, in my judgement, meets. Instead of fighting so hard this way, instead of doing out of process things (that second AfD you started WHILE the DRV was running, was way out of process, picking and choosing from guidelines as you have apparently done more than once here, is a bit out of process, policy wonking like you did in the DrV to try to get people's views discounted is out of process) to get this article to go away, why not work to get the guideline changed. I'd support that. But I find your contributions to this process not nearly as helpful or collegiate (you are quick to charge others are not assuming good faith while giving the appearance that you yourself are not assuming good faith, for example) as they could be, in my view. Your opinion may differ, of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have anything further to say to each other, Lar. I could, of course, claim that this entire long rant is one big personal attack, but then I'm sure you'd accuse me of citing that policy out of context, policy wonking, making unhelpful contributions, being a bad Wikipedia editor, and raping kittens. — Mike • 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, hyperbole is "extravagant exaggeration," and exaggeration is "to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth" or "to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal." Given that I'm not responding to every individual in here, yes, you were extravagantly enlarging beyond bounds or the truth. The underlying point of your argument may have been what you then proceeded to rant about directly above, and how much that underlying point was hyperbolically stated is another issue, but your originating hyperbolic statement was what I was taking issue with. Really, if you've now been charged with enforcing Wikipedia's policies, you should be trying to embody such basic pillars and as
WP:AGF
, not laugh them off. 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that stating you respond "on just about every comment" is an egregious "hyperbole"-- I noted the same habit at a previous AfD you initiated, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Episodes_of_Lost_(season_3), where I pointed out that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says, "Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves." I'd further suggest that claiming others are making personal attacks against you, while you make statements such as those above isn't going to be looked upon too positively. In short, criticism is not a personal insult. --LeflymanTalk 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but (1) never said it was egregious, just hyperbole, which is "extravagant" in and of itself by definition; (2) I'm not writing the same reply to each and every person, and the cited comment you ask can't in any way be construed to cover replying to individuals to challenge the reasoning of their queries; there is indeed a line between criticism and insult, but it depends much on the motive. Saying to someone that they smell of elderberries could either be a criticism of their scent or an outright insult, couldn't it? — Mike • 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Egregious" is an adjective meaning "conspicuously bad or offensive" -- which is exactly what is being claimed about Lars' comments. Ironically, the notion of calling a criticism of one's AfD habits a "hyperbole" equivalent to a personal attack is in itself an "egregious hyperbole." 2) Repeated asking those whose comments you disagree with to justify their position is akin to making "the same comment multiple times". 3) As this discussion has veered off from AfD norms, I might suggest that if wikistress is getting the better of you, as it appears to have done recently, perhaps it's time to take a break.--LeflymanTalk 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your point no. 1, I'm claiming he's exaggerating the extent of my responses. That's hyperbole. With regards to the latter half of your point regarding calling someone's comments hyperbolic itself being an act of hyperbole, you're essentially saying I'm exaggerating his exaggeration -- that really doesn't seem to parse out as understandable for me. With regards to no. 2, I'm bringing up individual problems I have with people's responses — what metric they're using, misunderstandings of policy. In each case the responses vary, and are thus not the same comment multiple times. The cited portion of the guide in question can hardly be construed as interpreting the mere act of challenging someone's viewpoint as "the same comment." With regards to no. 3, were you someone who I felt had an objective viewpoint on, or benevolently meant opinion of, my behavior and actions, I would value your comments about my personal reputation and thus take your comments under due consideration. I do not believe our past interactions support such an opinion, however, and thus do not. — Mike • 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are giving the appearance, in my view anyway, of policy shopping, wikilawyering and attacking the messenger instead of paying attention to the message, I'm afraid. Your points have been made, though, and I suspect you've now pretty effectively undercut your own arguments for deletion when this one goes to close, but I could be wrong. You can have the last word here, I'm done, your words speak perfectly well for your approach without further comment being necessary.++Lar: t/c 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lar, you're of course certainly entitled to your view of things. However, it's rather unkind of you to characterize a view you disagree with as "policy shopping, wikilawyering, and attacking the messenger." Ironically, such comments are in and of themselves attacks against the messenger and not the message, the very thing you suggest I have a problem with. As for your comments about my "approach," you may rest assured I do not exit from this process precisely enamored of your own approach, at least as demonstrated by the manner you have conducted yourself with this issue. — Mike • 21:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Kotepho 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobo Arbenz Vilanova

Former Guatamalan presedential candidate who only got 1.6% of the vote in the 2003 election. He has less than 60 google hits. -- Where 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure Remix

I don't see any evidence of a Wikipedia-quality article here. EDIT: Seems like it's total vanity too. Joewithajay 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are countless fangames that have this exact description. I hate seeing my fandom's fangames in here, it can go. Vanity, judging by the first-person comments. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 20:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus not being noetworthy. The Halo (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable fan game, possible vanity violation --real_decimic 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (Liberatore, 2006). 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David McNamara

Originally prod-ed by Mindspillage with the comment - "not notable, had 15 minutes of fame online for saying hateful things on the internet. brief mentions on Fark and mefi != articleworthy" Tevildo 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My personal view is Weak Keep. He was certainly _very_ notorious in his time, and an encyclopedia should be an historical record as well as an overview of the present day. But "notability" is always subjective. Tevildo 19:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Really, really don't like the guy, but he raised a stir, got himself a considerable amount of notoriety, and managed to get himself a place in the historical record. I'd rather he be forgotten, but this article belongs in Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Racial slurs may constitute encyclopedic topics; however, because of their sensitivity, they must be extensively referenced by verifiable sources before they can be included in the encyclopedia. There is a consensus here that this article does not meet that requirement. I will not merge and redirect to "list of ethnic slurs," but I will be happy to help any interested editor do so, if he or she comes forward with adequate reliable sourcing. Xoloz 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Pig

Delete. The prod was removed by article's creator, so it's being sent here. The article is a borderline dictionary definition about a Chinese slang term, and much of the article is in Chinese or barely salvagable English. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I might change my vote if somebody does a much better job of translation. I wonder what the author thinks the word "alights" means. -
    Danielrocks123 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I believe he thinks the word means "1. To come down and settle, as after flight: a sparrow alighting on a branch. 2. To set down, as from a vehicle; dismount: The queen alighted from the carriage. 3. To come by chance: alight on a happy solution." [www.bartleby.com] Interlingua talk 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The tags appear to be inserted simultaneously by the same person using multiple user names.The earlier tags and the current deletion tag was inserted simply because the article is not to the liking of the individual concerned. An unencyclopedic tag was inserted followed by a deletion tags listing invalid, absurd and irrelevant reasons. The article is most appropriate for Wikipedia as it is serving the important purpose of providing information on a racial slur, which is gaining prominence. The article is far from being a dictionary definition. The editor goes on to criticize the English of the author. The article was written in simple English in line with Wikipedia policy. One does not have to be Shakespeare or an English Professor to contribute to Wikipedia. The article should be allowed to remain intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chungkwok (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom StuartF 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-English dic-def. Eluchil404 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article conforms with the rules and contents policies of Wikipedia. There is no valid reason for insertion of the deletion tag or request for deletion. The claim of barely salvagable English is nonsense. The article provides valuable verified information on a derogatory term. Other Wikipedians are likely to supplement additional information. The article should be kept and protected. --Chungkwok 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are no grounds for merging the article into the List of ethnic slurs due the fact that this is an explanation of the slur with possibilities of expansion of the content. The article should be kept intact. --Chungkwok 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken your keep vote because you already voted in this discussion. --
Danielrocks123 17:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If you look at List of ethnic slurs it contains a number of such words or phrases that have been explained within the list itself. Most of them don't appear to have a standalone article. Tony Fox (speak) 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The List of ethnic slurs is only a "list" and whenever detailed information and explanations are needed, as in this case, a standalone article is appropriate. --Chungkwok 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The rewritten version of this article has much more coherent English, but has a strong POV problem. --
    Danielrocks123 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. The article is based on facts supported by actual reports and information from reliable sources. It contains necessary information and facts about a current derogatory term. The POV claim is groundless. I note with regret that the connected article in the list of ethnic slurs was deleted repeatedly by vandals. Please be constructive. The article is valuable reference material for Wikipedia. --Chungkwok 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Number of problems - (a) no evidence that the term is in actual common use. For example, the url refers to just another racist comment. The emphasis of all the articles is not on the term in particular, but on the discrimination towards mainland chinese in general. Hence, it is far more appropiate to have an article discussing say, Taiwanese-Mainline antipathy, with this as a possible redirect, than focus on a single obscure term which has no verifiable origin and so on. (b) If the term is to be noted at all, it belongs in List of Ethnic Slurs. It doesn't deserve an article of its own, because it's just a dictionary def. (c) Assume good faith. List of Ethnic Slurs has a detailed verifiability criteria that needs to be satisfied, to stop people from putting in any old phrase. Further, do not use the vandal template in the middle of an article! It's meant to be used for userpages. (d) The article in question does have a POV problem. As an encyclopedia, we should be stating matters of fact. We should not be imploring our readers to be nice to each other and not be racists. Wikipedia is not a self-help guide.--Fangz 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (A) Common use of the item is evidenced by authoritative newspaper reports and they do indicate that the term is being used openly in public. Common use of the term is evident. The term being discussed in the legislative assembly (equivalent to the US Congress) is more than sufficient evidence that term is gaining prominence and continued use of the term is expected, otherwise it would be treated as an isolated case. The article focus finely on the term itself and explanations related to the term only. There is no emphasis on racial discrimination. Origin of the term is not important considering that the purpose of this article is solely to provide encyclopedic information on a racist term. (B) The list of ethnic slurs is a list and not intended for extensive information. If all articles of this length were "listed", then the list would be too lengthy to serve any useful purpose, especially as an online encyclopedia. It is hard to see how a detailed article such as this can be considered as a dictionary definition. Coolie and the "N" word all have articles of their own so why would this term not deserve a page of its own? (C) Verifiability has been satisfied as stated above. Sorry about the vandal template. (D) Something that has happened in public and reported in newspapers is a "fact". There is no intention is not to guide anyone on anything. The sole intention is merely to provide encyclopedic information on a racial slur. --Chungkwok 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator Comment. Verifiability has hardly been met in reference to the article. The sources mentioned in the article do nothing more than use the phrase "Chinese pig" in terms of the differences between Taiwan and mainland China. If you are trying to provide a definition for Chinese pig, then you are doing nothing more than providing a dictionary definition, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. The articles asserts no importance or notability for this phrase. The one isolated incident of the Canadian teacher is not notable enough to support the need for the Chinese pig article. The article itself is strongly POV, and it does nothing but use an ethnic slur to further the differences between Taiwanese and Chinese people. I am not even sure if this article qualifies to be merged with the lackluster list of ethnic slurs. The first sentence of the article even humorously states "Chinese pig is an racially offensive term," yet one of the sources even mentions how the term Chinese pig denotes social and not racial discrimination. And, if the difference is of nationalities, then it certainly is not dealing with racism. Coolie and nigger are amongst the most widespread derogatory terms in existance. Their articles can expand a lot further than a mere dictionary definition, to which Chinese pig cannot. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
  • Strong Keep. What is important is whether the term "Chinese Pig" exists, has been actually used as a racist term in daily life, has racial slur significance and can be substantiated or verified. All these requirements have been met. Evidence of public usage of the racist term alone is sufficient to qualify it as a racial slur. The existence of the term has been demonstrated and verified by credible newspapers reports of an incident involving two unrelated individuals of different races exchanging racial slurs in public. Public transport can be taken as a miniature of society culture and usage of racial slurs on public transport indicates common usage. Use of the term in public by ordinary folks has been established. The victim was upset at the use of term to demean him racially. If a white person calling a Chinese person a "Chinese pig" is not racially injurious or discriminatory, then what is it? The Taiwan link shows that the term is also used there. Justification for inclusion of a racial slur in Wikipedia is not by the number of times the term has been used or its rank in popularity. It is not necessary to demonstrate the number of times it has been used or how common the term is. The term when used by Chinese to Chinese is ethnic or social discrimination because of the many different ethnicities among Chinese. A foreigner to Chinese is racial discrimination which is the case here. The core of the matter is whether the term exists and whether it can be verified. How can we say that the article cannot be expanded like the one for Coolie? Are we going to eliminate everyone using the term hereafter so that the term will never be used again? The arguments supporting deletion seen so far are weak and unreasonable. A black person being called a Nigger could go to Wikipedia to locate detailed information about the term and a Chinese person being called a “Chinese Pig” could do the same. Why should there be a difference? I strongly recommend keeping this article.--Dragon Descendant 03:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The comments by Dragon Descedant is the best argument so far. Keep the article.--Chungkwok 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are pathetic; give it a rest. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
  • Comment. Pathetic? Sorry if I have offended anyone, but all I am trying to do is to allow those who have been racially abused to access Wilkipedia to obtain detailed information about the slur. We would not have to go through this if the deletion proposal was not inserted. So far we have not seen any valid justification for deletion. The article should be kept. --Chungkwok 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to inform you, since you apparently haven't read the above comments, that there are many justifications for removal of this article; and, so far, you are the only person who's arguing in favor of keeping this article. I commend you for your effort to try to save your article, and I mean you no disrespect; however, I'm doing nothing more than trying to uphold Wikipedia standards for articles, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry to inform you, but the article (and your use of a newly created username to argue your point) is unacceptable. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
Comment. All comments have been read carefully and responded to point by point. No one needs to "save" this article because it has the legitimate right to exist since it meets all the criteria of Wikipedia. I have not and do not need to use another user name to argue anything. We do not need a lot of people to argue for inclusion or deletion but we do need convincing and valid arguments. The simple fact is that there is nothing to argue about therefore no one bothers. You have stated that there are "many" justifications for removal of this article, but failed to point out which ones. Please avoid such empty talk and messing up the civil and orderly manner in which this is progressing. Kindly concentrate on material facts and avoid wasting time and resources of those concerned. Anyone can see that you are not interested in constructive discussion, therefore please excuse us. Again, we have yet to see any valid and convincing argument for deletion. The article should be kept.--Chungkwok 13:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of ethnic slurs as per Tony Fox. I can't see that there is anything special about this particular insult which requires an article. The recent incident appears to be an argument a guy got into with a taxi driver which resulted in his arrest. People are sometimes abusive and subject to consequent legal action. It may make the local papers, but I'm not sure that it is notable anyway. Inner Earth 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. All these wriggling and wrangling is indeed perplexing. The pointless and tiresome efforts of some individuals trying to force or wrestle the article out are amazing. Nobody has yet come up with anything convincing. All we are hearing are just empty excuses and repetition of points, which have been satisfactorily addressed. Could anyone come up with just one valid and convincing reason for deletion of the article please? It is just not good enough to say that if we cannot get rid of this article then just merge it into list of slurs.

In the absence of valid arguments, I suppose I would have to assume that and the reasons behind all these objections could lie in the embarrassment of having an article about this derogatory term in Wikipedia and the worry of the undesirable effects of mentioning the term. Could it be that some of these objections are to be from individuals exercising blind patriotism and raising objections about the article?

I suppose I would have address the concern of these individuals who might be uncomforatable with the derogatory term. People voluntarily come to Wikipedia to seek information about the term. That is what an online encyclopedia is for. I have to state the term is not being broadcasted to people on national TV new s or carried in newspapers or any other mass media. If "nigger", "coolie" and "Eurotrash" can have their own articles and people do not mind it, then why should we resist this article?

The term is not only in local newspapers. On the contrary, the term is being used everywhere from Hong Kong multi-cultural society to worldwide high governmental institutions including the respected state legislature of a major South East Asia country. Please see the external links in the article titled "Chinese pig slur used in state legislature". If that is not notable, then what is?

Considering that there appears to be no valid or constructive comments, it is time to end this debate. The article should be kept intact.--Chungkwok 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please note that comments have been moved to the bottom of the page so that votes can more easily be seen. Please still read the comments of other editors before voting, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette Inner Earth

Note: Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. The discussion itself is more important than the statistics as stated in Wikipedia Guidlines:

Inner Earth to force emphasis on the number of votes. It should be noted that the some votes are cast close to each other and that it is highly likely to be be originating from the same user using multiple names. --Chungkwok 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I apologise for moving the freestanding comments to the bottom of the page - I have since been shown the guideline I had missed. I have reverted myself and then added the only substquent comment to the bottom of the page. I hope everyone is happy with that action. (bit of a rookie mistke there...) Inner Earth 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (Liberatore, 2006). 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Y. Wong

Who is this person? Is this an

RelentlessRouge 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kottem

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

In fact there is a hamlet in Sint-Lievens-Houtem called Cotthem. No more than a circular road boarding on the Polbroek (which has also been turned into a metropolis as Polfbroekstraat). It was a hamlet of the village of Oombergen, which has been merged into Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Now, all that is already on the page of SLH. How can Sint-Lievens-Houtem, which has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, harbour a hamlet with 39,070 inhabitants?

Of course, I can provide pictures of this circular road (I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who are prepared to create a parallel universe.

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!

User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy
pgp 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following pictures show what a great metropolis Cotthem now is. Unfortunately, the only economic assets of Cotthem, two special beer pubs and two good but pricey restaurants are not shown here: [30] The walk started in the centre of Sint-Lievens-Houtem, so forget the first picture, which shows the church of SLH (not that it has much of a big apple feeling, by the way). If someone thinks this piece of the world needs mention in Wikipedia, because it is so peaceful there (one of the quietest places in East-Flanders) or because the Romans built part of Cotthem (the street, I mean), or because there is still a bridge over what used to be a tramway track long ago, go ahead ...
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Would it be allowed to use one of these pictures (the Roman soldier, for instance) in the article?
Luckily for you, it is not a Roman soldier, only a "monument" (to point out that the Romans built a street here, and no they did not build this whole street, only a small part of it) - so Belgian portrait right does not apply. Belgian copyright is at stake here - you will have to ask the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. But I'm sure they will think it such a good joke to make a Wikipedia article about this street that obtaining their permission will not be very difficult.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I figured it was probably a statue of a soldier, since there were no cameras in Ancient Rome/Belgium. I'll have to ask those folks about it. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    Fram 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Please realize that this is not an "area". It is a STREET running through green fields and an artificial wood. It does not "support" these pubs and restaurants, people from elsewhere come there (wonderful place to walk and cycle) to drink and eat. Just look up Cotthem 1 and then Cotthem 6 and Cotthem 9 in www.mappy.be (6 and 9 are the two pubs by the way) and you will see how far away houses are from each other. Basically it is a very quiet place which explains why people like to have a pint or a meal there. I did not know much about the street, I just looked on the website of the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. And I happen to understand the captions which appear when you hold your mouse on these pictures. And no, I am not going to add to an article which claims this is a city of more than 30,000 inhabitants, when every Belgian would find it a joke if it was in the Dutch-speaking Wikipedia - and we tend to put hamlets there which have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This street is not Wall Street. And no, I do not live there either (in case you are starting to think I am a nimby and want to keep it quiet). So my basic argument is: if you make an article about this street, you will have to make one about half of the streets in Belgium.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy---pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment That argument is not valid, you do not have to make articles about everything of comparable notability just because one exists. You still haven't provided a reason to delete the article beyond "it is a disgrace" and "this is a street," both of which are not reasons to delete an article. I still have seen no evidence beyond your claims that suggest that this is anything other than a town. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are defending articles about things you know nothing about, as has been shown before. You and your friends only started to look at what Gotem really is and introduce that into the article after the AfD was filed, even though you had had two years of looking into it before, but just couldn't be bothered. Now you are trying to do the same all over again here, and will probably on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat as well. While Gotem was, luckily for you, an existing, though small, village (even though it had nothing to do with the original nonsense article), you don't have such an easy escape here. Take a look at this ViaMichelin page, and click on the map to have a better look. You can see that Kottem, Polfbroek, and Eiland, are three streets around the market of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. These are thoroughly non-notable and have no reason at all to be included in Wikipedia. If one of them has even one interesting, encyclopedic fact about them, add it to the main article about Sint-Lievens-Houtem.
My question to you and The Raven is still standing: why did you bother creating, modifying, and defending articles about places you know actually nothing about and had no idea about their importance, notability, or whatever? Was the only reason that they somehow turned up in your search for words similar to Got'em and Caught'em (probably the "first battle of Gotem", since the recent one is described as the second one)? I don't mind that this all started as a joke, but it has grown very, very stale, and the little bit of respect you as a group gained by correcting finally the Gotem article is rapidly disapearing again.
Fram 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Frankly this is irrelevant, although I could take the time to answer this question, it has no value in this discussion. The point is an article was created about Kottem, and some of us believe it is a town, the others a street. The latter group vehemently advocate deletion, while the former group attempt to fix the article and make it truthful/verfiable. I have yet to see any usefull contribution to this article from those who advocate its deletion, while (surprisingly enough) they present such contributions only on these 'votes for deletion' pages. If I were to make an analogy, we are a group of workers attempting to erect a building, while a crowd of jeering kids shouts at us with insults and various demoralizing statements from below. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists. If its wrong fix it. What is there more to talk about? It would be nice if you could provide pictures though.--The Raven 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That something exists is no reason to have it in an encyclopedia. It has to be notable. It is not. An article has to be possible that is more than a stub. It is not. If (a big if) anything of encyclopedic importance can be said about the street, add it to the Sint-Lievens-Houtem article.
Untrue, an article need never become more than a stub. Many articles can't become more than a stub but are still notable. syphonbyte 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. See e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]: "City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable". If you can only make a stub from a street, then it is not notable. Furthermore, the current article lists nothing about this street that is true. Even worse, there is no street with this name, it is a typo in some database. I have not seen one textbased article (i.e. not a map) which says anything about this city or street, so why should I assume it exists and has any notability? Find me some information that shows it has notability and enough can be said about it to have an article about it. Until then, "Delete" is the only possible vote.
Beyond doubt it is notable, as
User:Pan_Gerwazy has shown (in this very discussion!). If its a street then simply change the article. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I chose a beautiful place to get my username form. Damn. It’s magnificent. Thank you for the images,
Pan Gerwazy. Polfbroekstraat 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Meta-comment The line above this is NOT by me, and is wilfully confusing. Note that this AfD is about Kottem, not Polfbroekstraat. One of this gang of four (perhaps the same one) also has a nickname "Gotem". So he was confused himself as well, I guess.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I see that by now someone has re-arranged everything to make this apparent stupid attempt at impersonation disappear. Hm, why copy paste the adress of my user talk page, when typing Pan or pgp is so much easier? Of course it is rather difficult to do away with the other problem. That someone is confusing Polfbroekstraat with Cotthem - and therefore conceding that both are the same.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment He wasn't attempting to impersonate you, he was thanking you for the images and had a link to your page to show that it was you that had shown the images. I don't really get what you're talking about in the rest of your comment, I assume it has something to do with the accounts Polfbroekstraat and Gotem, which belong to different people. Gotem is my account. syphonbyte 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course that's not by you, it's by Polfbroekstraat the user. And "Gotem" is me, I have always made this very clear, including on my user page where I highlight this. syphonbyte 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Polfbroekstraat (or the street Polfbroek if you will), is right near Kottem I think. Correct me if I am wrong.... The Raven 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a street, absolutely not a town. If you think is it, please provide a link to the PDF from the Belgian Institute for statictics, like is done on Gotem. You won't be able to do that. --Tuvic 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snippy Tuvic. Its just an online enyclopedia so dont get your panties tied in a knot. If its a street then just say its a street. I am sure there are plenty (to lazy to serach) street names listed in Wikipeida. Therefore KEEP.578 [[User_talk:578|(Yes?)]] 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice move, to not respond to my remark, but to go for the emotions. But, once again, please provide official information from the Belgian Government. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have to provide the link, I know this is true becuase I helped write it. How about you who me a link where you search for it and you cant find it. (578)
Strong argument: it's true because I wrote it. Ridicilous. If it's existing, finding official Belgian government info should not be difficult. But it does not exist, so no official information can be found. And don't try to reverse the roles here: you have to provide information is exists, not the other way around.--Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is obviously not a hoax, we have even seen pictures of this. If it's not a town then change the article to reflect this. syphonbyte 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a sockpupptet of Tuvic and then Tuvic is a sockpuppet of Farm. So you all are a bunch of sockpuppets that for some reason like to delete articles. You never know if some kid (lets call him little jimmy) is trying to find information on this subject and wikipeida dosent have it. Think of little jimmy and how hurt he will be 578 [[User_talk:578|(Yes?)]] 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sockpuppet, but a Belgian contributor for the Dutch Wikipedia. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Prove it. (578)
Just follow the link at my userpage to the Dutch wiki. Or deliver prove that I'm a sockpuppet. --Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would seem there is enough information to keep Kottem as a separate page.--Polfbroekstraat 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sig pains my eyes, whats wrong with just basic plain text.

Keep This article is a notable region of relative not unimportance thus it shouldnt not be undeleted. --Charlesxavier 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem A credible vote. Thanks charles. --578 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy

  • Comment No, a street is NOT notable because it is a street. In fact, possible precedents have been dealt with already. From [31]: "Cities and shops:
Attractions and landmarks are notable; however, touristic information should be listed on WikiTravel
Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel
Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
Malls and shops are not generally notable
Suburbs (note for Americans: see suburb) should generally be listed under the city they're part of" (hm, since Gotem is a minor suburb of Borgloon ...)
No reason to include Cotthem as a tourist trap therefore, should go to Wikitravel. And about streets in the same article:
"Transportation and geography: ...
Highways and interstates are notable
Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article
City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable"
So, CITY streets are CONTESTED. Sint-Lievens-Houtem is hardly a city - fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Delete. Since you said we should follow precedent, case closed indeed. [User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy]]--pgp 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you knew this information, why didn't you put it in the AfD at the beginning? It's taken roughly a week for all of this to come out; the fact that Kottem is actually the road Cotthem and that it's non-notable. I was under the impression that it was a town and thus notable. If you'd pointed this out at first, perhaps I would have voted delete initially, as I did with Polfbroekstraat. I'm not in the business of keeping unneccessary articles; I'm in the business of defending articles from unneccessary deletion, which is what triggered all of this when somebody speedy deleted this and a number of other articles. syphonbyte 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syphonbyte, two things: first, the fact that Kottem is nothing more than a non notable street was added to the AfD at the beginning: "What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!" (last line of initial post to the AfD). So it has not taken roughly a week for all this to come out, it was there right from the start. Furthermore, you created the article: it is your responsibility to make it truthful. If you don't know anything about the subject (as you have shown conclusively on all the articles involved and the project), don't bother creating an article, and even less start contesting the deletion of it (speedy or not). As has been shown over and over again, this isn't or wasn't an "unnecessary deletion". It is you and your friends who are wasting everybody's time, not Pan_Gerwazy.
Fram 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Syphonbyte, if your approach were correct it would be very easy to introduce non-notable items in Wikipedia. When you create the article, put some completely incredible stuff there. Make it a copyvio for good measure, with info that readers can use to google up a webpage from a credible source (the BBC or the EU) which also gives a link to the website where you stole the text. So that even after the AfD, someone who comes to vote for deletion, gets worried about the consequences for the Wikipedia project and starts correcting. After which the AfD quoting a hoax is in trouble. BUT even if it were feasible, there is still one little problem you will be faced with: neither Kottem nor Polfbroekstraat exist in the real world, where the official names are Polbroek and Cotthem. So, the hoax element basically remains. Fram, thanks for pointing that out - so I do not need to revert the changes in the article to the hoax. Saves me some time. Talking about losing time, someone does not know how far
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no time or patience for your wild accusations, and I do not appreciate them. If you have anything constructive to add to the article, then please, do so. Otherwise I believe this case is closed. Delete. syphonbyte 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in many countries, publishing a machine translation of someone else's text constitutes a copyright violation. To be fair on Syphonbyte: we are all convinced he did not really do that - he invented it all (see
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polfbroekstraat

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

The truth is there is no such place. There is in fact one real Belgian google: [32]

Which by the way, also mentions the Polbroek, as the street is really called. The text gives a lot of "wegels" (paths, unaccessible to cars, and thus usually not mentioned on a road map) that connect the "Polfbroekstraat" to "Hoeksken". On the road map I use ("Stratenatlas van Vlaanderen - Guide des Rues de Flandre. Standaard Uitgeverij, ISBN 90-0-20614-3.") Hoeksken is a street parallel to Polbroek. For those who do not understand why Polfbroekstraat could be a misprint for "Polbroek": most streets in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium end in "straat" so incorrectly adding "straat" to a street name which does not have one, sometimes happens. And again, Polbroek also appears in this one Belgian Google.

The reason why it is obvious that Polfbroekstraat is in fact "Polbroek"? Well, at the point where a street called Espenhoek, coming from the South and going to the centre of SLH, becomes the Polbroek, there is also a road on the right: the almost circular road called Cotthem. And yes, Cotthem is another one of these phantom towns created (as Kottem) by the same people who created Polfbroekstraat, Eiland, and others. Note that both Espenhoek and Cotthem are marked as hamlets of the former village of Oombergen, and that Sint-Lievens-Houtem has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. How could a town like that harbour three or even four metropolises with more than 30,000 inhabitants EACH?

Comment The article does not claim these are 'Metropolises'. It is clearly stated the population is taken within a 7km radius, as we lack a better figure. The Raven 07:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the talk page on Polfbroekstraat I claimed that the Polbroek began at the most southerly arm of the Cotthem with the approach road to Sint-Lievens-Houtem. This was based on a road map in book form quoted above. According to www.mappy.be (online road map of Belgium), this is wrong: Polbroek starts at the most northerly intersection. This makes the Polbroek even shorter.
This map and this one indicate what I mean. You can go South from the first one, or North from the second one to see the other intersection.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Of course, I can provide pictures of this road (as I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there on a sunny day like we have now), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who seem prepared to create a parallel universe.

Comment Yes, there are 4 of us. syphonbyte 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Kottem (actually Cotthem, as I explained), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!

User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy pgp 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Of course I cannot prove that something does not exist - how could I have photographic evidence of that? Since there is no such thing as Polfbroekstraat and the "place" in the area is a street called Polbroek (the only Belgian google is, I repeat, a misprint), it is going to be very difficult to prove that Polfbroekstraat is not a town. Except by default of course: how is it that such a big town as Polfbroekstraat is so strangely absent from all lists of Belgian towns, villages and hamlets? There are lists of postal codes, where everything that was once a village on its own is listed (they are on the internet) and Polfbroekstraat (or Polbroek) is again strangely absent. Talking about postal codes, where did you get the postal code mentioned in the article? The problem is, you see, that all postal codes in Belgium consist of 4 digits. Not five - like in France or Germany. I have just looked up 41063, of course. Nothing in Germany, some hamlet of Moenchen-Gladbach. But the French one is interesting: Couffy (renamed from Couffi in 1979). Seems like someone has been looking up the postal code of Cotthem in the wrong country. "Not stupid Frenchie, stupid Belgian" Hercule Poirot would have said after finding that one out. Stop inventing your own parallel universe and start writing real articles, I would say.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy
Comment I don't know why you keep referring to searches on Belgian Google, but on regular Google I get many results referring to the town/hamlet/city/cobblestone of Polfbroekstraat. syphonbyte 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I mean. Only one text made in Belgium. All the rest is either based on Wikipedia or on fallingrain. Just check "Polbroek" and note the difference.
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
There are a lot of results that are maps showing Polfbroekstraat. I have no doubts that there is a Polbroek, however I do doubt that it's the same thing as Polfbroekstraat.
Comment I'm only trying to represent a town/village/hamlet/populated area that I believe exists (and is supported by some sources). I have no clue who changed the postal code, I originally had posted a 4 digit postal code but was changed by 70.152.52.77. I will attempt to find the old postal code and replace it. Please do not make wanton accusations, we are trying to accurately represent a real place (to our knowledge). If you feel something is inaccurate, I want it changed as much as you.--The Raven 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the postal code is back to 3150 now. Funny, as that is a postal code from the province of Flemish Brabant. All East Flemish postal codes start with the digit 9. It was the postal code you first put there, and which is really the postal code of Haacht (famous for its beer, like the two pubs in the Cotthem). According to the history of the page, 70.152.52.77 first changed your postal code to 3840, which as we all know by now is a postal code in Limburg, and the postal code (surprise, surprise) of Borgloon (where this hamlet
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Concerning the pictures, its very easy to prove Polfbroekstraat doesnt exist. A simple trip to the coordinates specified by fallingrain and some pictures would prove it beyond a doubt. Otherwise, I agree fallingrain is inaccurate, but I doubt that they would be wrong about a 'population center'. Also I admit I have no idea as to the postal code, but the longtitude/lattitude coordinates are most certainly correct. The Raven 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. No article (as opposed to maps) about Polfbroekstraat has been given yet. Not one source to state its importance (fallingrain is, as we know by now, not trustworthy at all). This is because it does not exist. A city on Belgium with only one Google it from a Belgian website (a typo) is hysterical. It is up to the people that created the article or are trying to defend it to show its notability, its importance, or in this case, its existence. Until then (when hell freezes over), byebye Polfbroekstraat. By the way, as these are the same people that created
    Fram 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment There are many other sources which list the same information as falling rain. I have added some of them to the article for your viewing pleasure. Indeed, one can easily find many more that say the same thing by googling 'Polfbroekstraat'. Do you claim all of these sources are in error? I doubt this is the case. However, I would not rule out the fact that all these websites get their information from a single database. Indeed, it seems (from the link you provided) that there is a street called Polfbroek. This does not imply there is no town/cottage/hamlet/etc. called 'Polfbroekstraat', which exists as per the sources cited. The Raven 07:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, all these erroneous data seem to come from one database. Aren't you surprised that such a city cannot be found on any Belgian site, that no one can provide any info on it, etcetera? And don't ytou think that it is an incredible coincidence that Polbroek is located just next to
Fram 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. From this source: [33] I gather that Polfbroekstraat was one of several farms in Houtem (related to Sint-Lievens-Houtem?). One other farm is called Eyland. Two or three "neighbourhood roads" are listed between Polfbroekstraat and some other farm. Clearly there is some spot on the map corresponding to this, and somehow it entered some GIS database with the designation city, rather than the correct historic farm location. --15:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Though I agree with what you seem to suggest, I must say you misinterpret the list, I am afraid. Anyone who understands Dutch sees this is a list of "buurtwegen" (vicinal roads) which in 1843 ran between several points, hamlets or streets in the neighbourhood of SLH. The vicinal roads were probably just dirt roads, and most of them do not appear on the map today.
As for what they connected: Hoeksken for instance, is also a street, although it probably originated as a point or place or a farm, since it is the diminutive of "Hoek", meaning corner. Hoeksken by the way is a road that runs parallel to Polbroek, which suggests that there may have been dirt roads between those two, made by farmers for instance.
Oombergen and Borsbeke, however, WERE villages. Crapenijke was a hamlet. "Eiland" perhaps was not a farm either. It may have referred to the Eilandmolen (from 1480), which still exists today (it can be seen on the Internet) or the field to the NE of it. So, yes, you are right there, somebody got farms, mills (Eiland), fields (Cotthem) and streets (Polbroek) confused with hamlets and villages but not all those "points" were farms
User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (A3) by

t@c 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

HCW

Nonnotable "Backyard Wrestling" organization, total of 9 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wow, my backyard wrestling league is cooler that the HCW. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
  • Delete Your backyard wrestling league is cooler? My backyard is cooler- it has a basketball hoop and a bird feeder! -- Kicking222 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah but does your wrestling league have it's own freewebs page? DrunkenSmurf 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not notable, also full of POV. The Halo (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was usefied to

DVERS 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Clint Fraijo

Delete as NN-bio. Could possibly be speedied, but there are some oblique claims to notability ("...he changed the way Santa Anita drafted there players for ever..."). Article was de{{prod}}ed by an IP user after som inconsequential edits. Userfying this page would be fine, but no reason to have it in the main article space.--Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and so tagged -- this is a 14 year old high school baseball player -- I didn't see any assertion of particular notability. NawlinWiki 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, not remotely notable. DrunkenSmurf 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.

WP:NOT for things made up in school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Fluffy (The Lion King)

No notablility, I can't verify the existance of this Lion King Character -- Starionwolf 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do beacuse I read it at lionking.org that fluffy exits according to the old scrpit Fluffy is the name of the cub. so I say keep the article.- Mrsanitazier 19:49,19 June 2006 (UTC
  • Please cite some sources to comply with Wikipedia's polices Thank you. --Starionwolf 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or original fiction; no source (and I just searched lionking.org for "Fluffy"; nothing there). NawlinWiki 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete, you can talk about making it a dab page or redirect on the talk page. Kotepho 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presiding Officer of the United States Senate

There is no such office. See talk page. John Nagle 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Omura

This article was previously nominated for deletion, and consensus was reached that it was notable as an example of pseudoscience. Subsequent editing toward NPOV, however, has resulted in the elimination of any explicity pseudoscience reference in the body text as well as in an article which is lengthy and presents a fairly elaborate description of these dubious 'procedures' which in my judgement might be misconstrued, and which has actively engaged a proponent attempting to render the article a pro-Omura/BDORT piece in the name of neutrality – as well as the valiant efforts of another editor to maintain WP standards. The very lengthy discussion seems to have resulted, in my judgement, in little more than stalemate, with the question of the article's grounds for notability, now that the pseudoscience aspect has been relegated to the margins, now open. Effectively, the only established NPOV cite is that of the NZ authorities. It is unclear to me if this is sufficient to justify an entry, and I would like to throw the question to the community for consideration. TealCyfre 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Please note the discussions on the Talk page for this AfD.
  • Delete – I am the original creator of this entry, a choice I now consider to have proven ill-advised. At the time of its creation I had, as a newcomer, some mistaken impressions as to what was suitable for a WP entry, which impressions have since then been somewhat clarified. In the light of that somewhat broader comprehension I would make the following points, and will then leave the discussion to others:
  • An entry must be notable solely on the basis of verifiable independent sourcing.
  • When limited to such sourcing the only acceptable information we have for Omura and his armamentarium is limited to a patent on record and another on application, and the en passant establishment of the NZ Tribunal in the case of Richard Gorringe that PMRT/BDORT/Applied Kinesiology are without scientific basis and therefore an unacceptable modality of treatment. TealCyfre 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TealCyfre, please be advised that it is considered unethical and/or bad form for the nominator of AfD to add his/her vote below, as the very act of nominating normally constitutes a vote. It is acceptable and quite common for the nominator to follow up with relevant comments below other people's votes, which you have obviously also done. I leave it to you to cross out your vote above. This relocation by Philosophus is also acceptable. Now to your specific points:
  1. Notability and proper sourcing - we are all in agreement, I think, every single one of us here.
  2. Specific notability here: please review again the 6 points I raised above, per your request. You may not agree with my opinions, but you seem to ignore 4 other points at least.
If I may add my own summary here: Dr. Omura claims to have created a simple technique whereby it is possible to easily diagnose/cure most/many diseases that afflict mankind, which he calls BDORT. Apparently Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner, used this technique on some patients in NZ, to the exclusion of conventional medicine. He was brought in front of a Medical Disciplinary Tribunal which reprimanded and fined him, and specifically concluded that BDORT (which it called PMRT) was 'ineffective' and 'irresponsible' to use[34]. Yet, it seems (based on reliable sourcing) that BDORT is still being promoted around the world, for example by the New York Academy of Medicine[35][36]. Also, at least one BDORT article appeared in the peer reviewed Medical Acupuncture journal [37]. Dr. Omura has multiple impressive [38][39] medical credentials obtained at major US institutions according to his CV. This is a clear case of notability of both Dr. Omura and his BDORT technique. Establishing notability does not imply judgment of merit of Omura or BDORT. In fact, by prominently displaying the NZ Tribunal's result, WP is clearly showing the only mainstream's assessment of BDORT. But one can't just wish something one disagrees with away - the item's
well sourced version of it. I think what we have now is actually pretty good, and if anyone can suggest ways to improve it please do so. Crum375 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, the situation on nominators adding a vote is more confused - while some people say that doing so is bad form, the Guide to deletion actually says that doing so improves the clarity of the discussion. I have seen a few AfDs where the nominator has been neutral, so I can see how it could help, but adding it to the bottom like this detracts from the clarity, so I have moved it to the top. I usually put an explicit statement of my position somewhere in my nomination when nominating something for AfD. --Philosophus T 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I think all would agree that adding a nominator's vote at the bottom of the discussion may create an appearance of an extra vote. Having a clear vote (or neutrality) along with the nomination is fine. The way you moved the nom's vote here is OK with me. I have fixed my comment above. Crum375 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly content to stand on the sufficiency of previous statements and will leave judgement to others in the community. TealCyfre 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and wider judgement, though not likely in so minor a matter as this re Omura, to the fullness of time and the wider world. TealCyfre 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is about Dr. Omura and his invention, the BDORT procedure. Both have more than amply sourced notability. Specifically, there are multiple international symposia, as well as 'continuing education' courses, held at (but not by) mainstream institutions. All of this is well sourced in the article. Also, the BDORT procedure itself was subject to review by a highly qualified medical ethics review panel in NZ. They concluded that BDORT has 'no scientific validity'. IMO, the combination of a highly promoted medical procedure that is claimed by its promoters to diagnose and cure everything from cancer to the common cold, coupled with a clear verdict by an ethics review panel of 'no scientific validity', all well sourced, more than meets WP's
    sourcing criteria. I don't think we have to resort to tossing in inflammatory 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' adjectives (which directly label its promoters as charlatans) to allow the article to stay. It can stay as long as it meets WP's objective inclusion criteria which I think it easily does. Crum375 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete attractive though it is to debunk this obvious charlatan, 500 Googles and nothing evident on Scholar, with only two neutral references (NZ disciplinary and US court record), suggests a failure to meet
    WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If these credentials fail to establish notability, then I may need to recalibrate my notometer. Yes, he and BDORT may not be accepted by the mainstream, but that doesn't change the fact that he edits journals, hosts symposia and delivers courses, all promoting his BDORT and related concepts, some held at mainstream institutions. Crum375 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, here, though, is sourcing, as you've said yourself in discussion. The bio info you cite is sourced to Omura's site, not independently verified, as is also the situation for the claims of use. Even if it were verified, which it isn't, the bio info itself doesn't likely rise to the 'professor's test' of notability simply because the fellow self-publishes his 'international journal.' The mainstream institution you cite is simply listing a 'conference' in a local hotel – it isn't actually hosting or sponsoring it at all – which is the case for many of its other listings. We seem to have no verifiable sources for claims of widespread use at all – only vanity sources, hence the notability issue. This seems to leave the Omura entry in verifiable form dependent solely on the NZ commission and its ruling re Gorringe – for both of whom we have already appropriate short entries. If WP presents claims of widespread use, etc, not independently verified, it seems to me there may be issues at a number of levels. TealCyfre 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reference to BDORT is not self published to my knowledge. The publisher also claims peer review (see item 9). We know that it was used in NZ since the practitioner using it got punished. Dr. Omura's seminars, though not directly promoted by mainstream institutions, can be viewed as accepted by them (to an outside observer) by virtue of their being publicized on their Web site. As far as the
    WP:BIO notable professor test, I would think that holding multiple international symposia and courses promoting one's technology would suffice, but being listed in: "Who's Who of American Inventors, American Men and Women of Science, Dictionary of International Biography, Men of Achievement, International Who's Who in Community Service, International Who's Who of Intellectuals, Who's Who in World Medicine", assuming we accept the veracity of this claim (we are encouraged to accept this per WP self-bio guidelines until proven otherwise unless it is controversial and the bio info per se is not, to my knowledge), would also help notability claims. Crum375 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, I researched Who's Who some more after posting that message and I tend to agree with you that that specific part of Omura's resume does not verifiably connote notability. Crum375 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m concerned that WP, in the name of NPOV, may be used to promote for-profit dubious activities, verifiable only through paid placement and vanity self-publication, and may, to boot, inherit potential liability issues as a result of so doing. Your first cite is not self-evidently self-published, but you yourself have consistently argued in discussion against its acceptability since the author of the article is not an MD, but only, so far as anyone can determine, holds a PhD in Sports Medicine, and refers to its being ‘triple-blinded’ because three people in physical contact with one another avoided eye contact. If this is ‘triple-blinded’, heaven knows what ‘peer-reviewed’ means in their usage. As to the professor test: A near infinite number of academics and MDs attend and/or host various seminars, and yes, in the modern world they are very often ‘international.’ They are not, in my understanding, per WP criteria deemed notable. We have nothing, other than the promotional claims of Omura’s own two sites and their echoes, to vouche for attendance, extent, etc – and these are promotions for money-making activities which WP, if it is not exceedingly careful, may fall into the trap of vouching for and promoting in my estimation, which could create non-trivial exposure in the event of another Gorringe-like incident occurring. All the various listings you present, in addition to being non-verified, are to publications which simply list anyone who pays to be listed. Hardly confirmation of notability in my estimation, and arguably evidence of vanity combined with non-notability. TealCyfre 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My critique of the Shinnick article had to do with the validity of its technical assessment of BDORT as a medical technique, not with its being a neutral source that seems to show that BDORT exists outside of Omura's publications. Hence the 'triple blindedness' is not an issue, as the scientific credentials of the author are not established. As for WP inadvertently promoting a scientifically unproven technique by its NPOV stance, I believe that by simply neutrally presenting the facts as we see them in the public domain, and including a reference to pseudoscience, quackery and alternative medicine in the 'See Also' section, we would be safe. It does mean that we have to be extra careful to be as neutral as possible and present the relevant sources with appropriate weight. For example, all Omura's related Web sites and publications count very little for our purposes, as they would not be considered neutral. The NZ document would get a lot of weight by virtue of its neutrality as well as the credentials of its experts. As far as the professor test, IMO there are not a lot of professors who actually organize and hold multiple international symposia, while promoting their techniques or inventions. I agree that we have no hard proof as to attendance figures, but there are some abstracts and I would have to assume that at least the authors attended. Crum375 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem here, at least with the article in its present form, is that it scrupulously avoids any such usage in the text so as to avoid use of any such 'pejorative' or 'offensive' language, under the reasoning that such use would violate NPOV. TealCyfre 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but as dicussed in the Talk page, having
    Alternative Medicine, Pseudoscience and Quackery in the 'See Also' section allows the reader to understand the issues better and reach his/her own conclusions. This is very different from actually calling it pseudoscience etc. where WP would be expressing an opinion, which is an absolute taboo. Crum375 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP's mission is to neutrally present well sourced information about notable topics. We really should separate notability, which allows us to continue, and the neutrality of the presentation. Assuming we meet the notability burden, which I think we do, the issues of how to present the topic fairly and the weights to assign to each source need to be addressed and agreed upon by consensus, which is what we try to do. Crum375 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disclaimer really needs to be up top in the overview. There are various organizations that publish guidelines for spotting pseudoscience, perhaps an appeal to the guidelines could be included in the overview without violating NPOV. - Wickning1 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think the article in present form is acceptable (barely) from the NPOV standpoint, but there do seem to be big notability problems - no evidence that anyone notable even knows of the procedure, other than a disciplinary board (and us, haha). No evidence of being notable even within acupuncture or pseudoscientific circles. A job at a university, a self-published journal, and a bunch of self-hosted events with unknown attendence don't meet
    WP:BIO professor guidelines. The only evidence I can find of notability is that New York accredited his talk to count toward a special acupuncture certification (would not help fulfill general continuing education req's). So I changed my vote. - Wickning1 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yeah, that is something at least. Still doesn't imply much notability, but at least someone else read his papers. I'll stick with weak delete for now though. - Wickning1 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to bear in mind, Wickning1, that we are talking about someone having a single cite in a single journal, once, and this in an article written by someone who as best we can determine is a PhD in SportScience, who once was in the Olympics, and who makes a living promoting this stuff. The other example of 'notability' given here is that in a long monthly listing of seminars/meetings presented, Omura's, held at a local hotel, is on the list. If these make Omura 'notable' then 'notable' has a pretty low threshhold, or so it would seem to me. By these criteria I would think nearly every physician and college professor would manage to qualify, and it is explicit WP policy, as I understand it, that the threshhold simply isn't that low. TealCyfre 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep: I'm not sure about this. I withdrew the nomination because it does appear that, as a pseudoscientist, Omura and his practices are notable. They do seem to have international use among doctors of questionable reputation. However, the article has now been turned into what amounts to an advertisement for the practices with "These findings are not known to have been presented to or subject to evaluation by conventional independent peer-reviewed assessment." tacked on to the end of each section, much like the FDA warnings on most bogus medicines. This is not an acceptable method of NPOV. The findings probably haven't been presented for peer review (excluding, of course, peer review by Omura's colleagues) because it would be too difficult to find legitimate reviewers who could consider it as something other than a joke. An RfC for the article might help, but as with most articles like this, it is difficult to find people who care enough to maintain the article against supporters, and deal with the usual wikilawyering. I would very much like to see this as a real NPOV article, but it seems that that isn't really going to be possible. Ironically, TealCyfre may be the person who is able to do this. But given the choice between an article like the current one and deletion, I would choose deletion. --Philosophus T 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, various doctors in the NZ tribunal seem to vaguely reference a variety of articles which, if found, would solidify PMRT/BDORTs notability. For example, there seems to be a claim that there were double-blind tests published in peer-reviewed journals which found the method to be ineffective. Why can't we find any of these? --Philosophus T 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree that perhaps the 'standard disclaimer' is insufficient as people may be inured to it. Also there may be too much detail describing the various modes of the invention. But we do need a fair presentation of what's there, with language clarifying that the only assessment we have by the mainstream is the NZ report. Also, if I may ask, would you mind leaving the current version intact until we finish discussing it and until we reach some consensus? Thanks, Crum375 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... 19 minutes later you told me my newer edits were acceptable, so I assume that that comment supercedes this one?
  • I'm in effective agreement with Philosophus on these issues. I'm strongly inclined to the judgement that if any article at all is appropriate with respect to the NPOV issues, it must be very short, as I had suggested earlier. It may be that given the practical problem of finding enough people who care to maintain the article against supporters re-expanding it to another advertisement it is most appropriate to delete. I sincerely haven't a firm final judgement in this as yet, and I'm open to argument, but I think there are real problems here. TealCyfre 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the issues of length and notability are independent of each other. There is no WP policy that says that article X may be included only if it can be kept to Y words or less. If anything, we have the 'WP is not paper' policy that almost encourages us to provide extra detail. The primary and critical issue for inclusion is notability - do we have it or not - if not - forget the rest. If yes, then the only constraints are neutrality, verifiable sourcing, due weights, good style etc. Your concern about letting WP become a platform for promoting unproven science will be addressed by properly following the above guidelines. Crum375 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that the article's size doesn't have too much influence on the POV, as long as it does not become a long rant which no one but a supporter can understand enough to edit (like Modern Galilean relativity). --Philosophus T 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see the core issues as two-fold: 1) Notability, per se, given the fact that there are entries for Gorringe and the NZ commission. 2) The probability, given scant awareness of the existence of Omura, that an entry provides a point of entry for adherents devoted to the creation of an advert to further 'legitimize' their process, which, to further compound the practical problem, may present WP with legal exposure. TealCyfre 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if 'legal exposure' is a criterion, WP might as well steer clear of any controversy, or just fold up tent. The correct approach is to decide on notability, and if it exists, write a good article per WP policies of neutrality, good sourcing, due weights, etc. The 'threat of the zealots' is part of the WP process for many articles, and so far WP has managed just fine. See also the Talk page. Crum375 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid my understanding diverges here. My understanding is that WP policies do indeed consider potential legal exposure. Perhaps I'm in error. In any event, what, given the fact that the Gorringe entry exists and the NZ Tribunal entry exists, is the notability justification for this entry, really? Verifiably, we have objectively scant evidence even of its existence. What we have evidences yet another deluded fool or charlatan promoting himself. As I understand it these don't rise to notability simply because they were referenced by the NZ tribunal in the case of Gorringe. Everything else we have on Omura is Omura's self-promotion and self-publication or that of his presumably tiny band of followers with no meaningful evidence even of their existence aside from self-promotion other than the passing quasi-advert for a meeting. How is this notable? TealCyfre 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying legal exposure is a non-issue for WP. Like any organization or individual, especially in today's sue-happy environment, one has to tread carefully. Having said that, the mere fear of exposure if we address sensitive or controversial topics should not paralyze us nor thwart our mission. If we handle each notable topic while carefully adhering to WP's policies of neutrality, reliable sourcing, due weights, etc. we should be on safe ground with any future jury. As far as notability in this case, the fact that some components related to Omura/BDORT have been explained in separate articles would not detract from the notability of the Omura/BDORT. We possibly would want to merge items (e.g. Gorringe, NZ Tribunal) but I doubt it. I think Omura/BDORT is the primary focus we currently have for the other articles, and believe we have more than enough reliable and neutral sources to establish Omura's/BDORT's notability. Crum375 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off the top of my head, here are some important ones:
  1. Shinnick article (BDORT in non-Omura publication)
  2. NZ Tribunal report (neutral, tech assessment of BDORT)
  3. Omura CV (allowed to be his own Web site at this point)
  4. Omura BDORT seminars publicized by New York Academy
  5. Omura BDORT patent (neutral, describes the procedure)
  6. Omura Legal Precedent for RICO misuse (neutral)
I probably should stick in the links, which are all in the article. Let me know if you need them here. Crum375 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see these as likely proof of Omura’s and BDORT’s existence. I fail to comprehend how they rise to even the lowest level of notability.
1) The Shinnick article is an article by a non-MD in an alternative medicine journal. We don’t, so far as I know, have an entry for every professor whose work has been evaluated or referred to in an academic journal – once.
  • The issue is not if we have an article for each such case but whether such a situation is notable per se. It seems to me that that publication adds credence to the existence of BDORT and to the fact that it was published, at least once, in an academic journal. My opinion is that once it is so published it becomes notable by WP's definition of the word. It does not have to be a house-hold word. And the fact that Shinnick is not an MD has nothing to do with notability. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) The NZ report does not vouch for notability of BDORT per se. It addresses the utter lack of scientific credibility for BDORT. In any event, there is an entry for Gorringe, and the commission’s report, which had an effect in altering policy re alternative medicine. These are notable, to at least some degree. Omura/BDORT, however, are only established as references, not as notable in and of themselves. Indeed, the commission simply treats them as insignificant variations on the theme of applied kinesiology.
  • The NZ report is read within NZ among practitioners and others. It is a neutral highly qualified publication. Certainly its readers would know about BDORT (or PMRT in their case) after this report came out. Yes, it does not focus on Omura - the focus is on BDORT/PMRT. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) Omura’s CV is notable only if he is notable, which has not been independently established. Anyone can write a CV, say anything they want, and put it on the net on a couple of sites which they control.
  • Very true. Anyone can write anything on the Web. But this is Omura's Web page and WP policy is that we allow wide tolerance to a person's bio on his own Web page unless some fact is contentious. If you disagree with some fact on his page, please speak up. And yes, alone this would not be enough, this is part of the larger package. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4) ‘Publicized’ is a dubious term. The Academy has a listing. You will note that it is no more than that. They have many listings for many things. Are they all notable by virture of their having been listed?
  • It is the Academy's official Web page, with their official course schedule. The other 'things' they list are also courses. This proves BDORT is publicized (i.e. published to promote participation in a course) by a mainstream institution. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5) There is a patent. There are many patents, and claims of notability based on existence of a patent are routinely deleted from WP as non-notable.
  • True. Mere existence of a patent per se would not establish notability. In this case the reference is used to describe the procedure in a neutral site and show it exists outside of Omura's domain, and that the US government at least looked at it (with obviously no merit claim). BTW, lots of people read all newly issued patents which are published in a gazette by the USPTO. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6) Omura was so far as we know not directly involved in the Heart Disease Research case you reference. Granted, he is on evidence of self-published sources the Director of Medical Research of the Heart Disease Research Foundation. I fail to see how this establishes his notability.
  • I believe these are your own words (please correct me if I am wrong):

The Heart Disease Research Foundation, of which Omura has been Director of Medical Research since 1971,[19] in 1972 sued General Motors on behalf of all citizens of the United States affected by pollution from General Motors, seeking substantial actual and punitive monetary damages to be awarded to its research activities.

if this is wrong, then it needs fixing, I guess. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not wrong, in that it is an accurate statement of fact. The statement that Omura is Dir Med Rsch HDRF is verifiable so far as I am aware only via self-published sources. Nor does it constitute evidence of notability for Omura and his armamentarium. It was originally part of a separate entry for HDRF which was conflated with this entry. TealCyfre 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Omura bio on his own Web site claims that he is the "Director of Medical Research" (DMR) of HDRF, then as I understand WP policy for bio info on one's own Web site that information is allowed (properly sourced to that Web site) unless there is any opposing claim, in which case more investigation (i.e. better sourcing to resolve the conflict) would be needed. Are you aware of any claim that Omura is not the DMR of HDRF? And as far as notability, if we accept that he is/was in fact DMR of HDRF when they took on GMC 'on behalf of the people of the USA', and created a legal precedent in the process (for which we have a separate and valid reference), I would consider that another chunk of notability. Crum375 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability question comes first, in my understanding. If Omura is not notable then other questions are moot. So, then, this other bit of 'notability' consists of his having, according to his own CV, been Dir Med Rsch of the HDRF at the time of a baseless suit that established precedent in that the courts preferred in future not to have to trouble themselves with going through the motions of dismissing suits which didn't even attempt to establish their basis? You will note that the HDRF itself was effectively judged non-notable when its independent entry was folded into that of Omura. Now we have the spectacle of that entry, having been established as non-notable, constituting evidence that Omura is notable in the absence of other established basis for establishing his notability. This seems to me the sum of infinitesimal evidence amount to nothing more than the sum of infinitesimal evidence, sorry if I'm not persuaded. TealCyfre 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the suit was 'baseless' is not an issue. The issue is that it created a precedent which was subsequently cited in the Bonano Organized Crime suit, where Omura/HDRF was used as precedent. I doubt that your average run-of-the-mill frivolous suit reaches that level of notability. Whether some previous discussion considered HDRF and its suit to be sufficienly notable on its own to justify its own article is immaterial here. We are relying on this lawsuit to add more notability to the Omura article, and yes there is a cumulative effect, but my suspicion is that if you spend some time (as I have) reviewing and voting on AfD's, you'd discover the WP Keep bar is set much lower than you seem to think. Crum375 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but for my part I fail to see how these rise to the level of notability. Gorringe is notable, his cases having in part prompted further clarification/revision of NZ codes of practice, as is the NZ commission and its successor commission, which are intrinsically notable. You will note that while press coverage may be found of Gorringe, there is none of Omura or BDORT in connection with the case, further suggesting their lack of notability. Omura is not on my considered judgement notable on the basis of the NZ case, which in the course of addressing Gorringe's defense duly consults expert witness and then dismisses Gorringe's PMRT and Omura's BDORT upon which Gorringe asserts his PMRT is based as utterly without claim to scientific merit of any sort, as simply another variant of Applied Kinesiology. This would establish via objective sourcing Omura and BDORT's claims to validity as spurious were they notable, but they do not in my judgement establish notability. The listing of seminars simply fails the professor's test in my judgement, and thus fails to establish notability. TealCyfre 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The listing of seminars does not apply to the professor's test. It applies to the notability of BDORT as a procedure, since there is a course delivered on it, publicized in the official web site of a mainstream academic institution. It does connote some notability to Omura, but that is not the thrust of that reference. In the NZ case, again, it is the BDORT/PMRT procedure that became notable, as it was allegedly used in lieu of conventional medicine to the detriment of a patient's best medical care, and the practitioner was disciplined and fined. This connotes notability to the BDORT/PMRT procedure as well as the practitioner. Crum375 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I presume you feel every comparable listing of every comparable seminar is notable by WP standards. This would mean every topic treated in every seminar listed in a publication.
  • Gorringe became notable. I see no evidence that it raised Omura or BDORT to the level of notability. If so, where is that evidence? TealCyfre 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seminar listing of a course given on topic X, publicized on the official web site of a mainstream academic institution, connotes notability for topic X, especially if topic X is claimed to diagnose/solve many/most of mankind's diseases. PMRT became notable by being cited in the final report of the NZ tribunal, as follows:

    "We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." (Tribunal Findings, para 363)[40]

I would respectfully submit that a published report by an eminently qualified medical disciplinary tribunal, that considers use of a procedure "unacceptable and irresponsible", makes that procedure (PMRT/BDORT) notable. I suspect that this was the reason the case was publicized by the Tribunal (note that some cases are kept confidential). Crum375 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seminar listing you cite simply lists 'Acupuncture and Electro-Therapeutics in Clinical Practice' as description. There is no further description whatsoever. Are you seriously advancing the argument that this constitutes notability?
  • If you look up the contents of one of the 2 Omura seminars publicized on the Academy's Web site, e.g. here you will note it includes BDORT. So I would say that if someone publicizes a symposium on a mainstream academic institution's official Web site, that would make BDORT, a featured sub-topic of the symposium (note the illustration), and most likely Omura, notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your 'suspicion' is unfounded and irrelevant as to notability. There is no basis in fact to the assertion that the tribunal publicized the case. The tribunal may if it chooses elect confidentiality, if requested. We have no reason to believe it was requested. If Omura/BDORT were rendered notable by the case, where is the evidence? TealCyfre 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't read the Tribunal's minds, but if they elected to publish their report on their publicly accessible Web site, I think a reasonable person would conclude they intended to publicize it. In any case, having been publicized in that official site, the procedure, which features prominently in the report per above, becomes notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do we have any articles that talk about this BDORT as quackery, alternative medicine, etc.? Perhaps it would be good to have a "Controversy" section that lists some of the concerns brought up by those who don't think BDORT is a viable procedure? ···
    joe 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per being the only informaton I could find on here about his little test, (even though I couldn't understand it), which I came across a reference to while watching an interview, strangely enough, doing research for another wiki article, and had no idea what it was. I don't know about the other claims, but seems notable to me, probably more so in some other countries than I'd know. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Violence

This band is completely lacking in notability. I placed a notability tag on it on 8 June, but no effort was made to indicate the band's importance. On 14 June, I placed a db-band tag on the article which CambridgeBayWeather changed to a notability prod. This prod was then removed on 16 June by an anonymous user. I replaced the notability prod, but CambridgeBayWeather said that was not appropriate. Hence, this AfD. The band is nonnotable, and despite a high number of edits to the article, and warnings that the notability had not been proven, no significant attempt has been made to prove said notability. Delete. Charles 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Wikipedia is

NOT for things made up in school one day. Not notable. --++Lar: t/c 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Slap Bag

unnotable, plus the editor repeatedly removed the notability tag However, I am not sure on this one. ackoz 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • hey sorry im really new to the whole creating a page thing and im trying to make it as "correct" as possible, but its taking come time bc im doing it in my spare time at work, eventually it will get better. just give me a few days. I mean its a legitimate game or thing college kids do across the northeast at least and i found that wiki doesnt have it on the page and just thought it would be a decent thing to put on there....i mean wiki has beer pong etc. ... ohh btw this is the creator of the page, i just forgot to log in. my apologies
also i feel that the yale news paper link covers as actual an actual published account of the game. If you have any suggestions on how i could improve it just let me know and i'd be more than happy to give it a go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.200.136 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm not sure if any of you that have tried to rally for deleting my page have read any of the references from other universities. Just wondering if that has helped you out at all Syurga01 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, those links were fine and dandy, it's just that they're detailing a phenomenon which has little claim to notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Murphy

Delete non-notable, an activist and former chair of a local branch of a pressure group. Homey 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable enough for me. snug 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The high point of his career seems to have been losing an election and then getting thrown out of his own party. Eluchil404 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable enough in Bradford and other arenas. Everyone cannot be GREAT but others are notable, like Murphy. 81.131.24.254 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user is an Anon IP editor. Homey 04:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh just great, town criers have gone round the town getting every tom, dick and harry to vote. Delete with prejudice. J.J.Sagnella 19:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played a serious role on Yorkshire political scene and was the subject of a controversial political saga in Bradford. Minor but notable political figure. Chelsea Tory 08:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user just started editing this week and has fewer than 50 edits.Homey 04:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The Monday Club is a fringe, right-wing part of the Conservative Party. This guy never held elected office and, as a Yorkshireman, I never heard of him before this AfD. BlueValour 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yorkshire is a big place! At the time the
    Conservative Monday Club was the leading Tory pressure group in the UK. Murphy was also an officeholder and Executive member of two Bradford Conservative Associations. He was deemed political expendable by a left-wing Conservative councillor on the make in what was a considerable local political scandal at the time. He was later the main office-holder of the Western Goals Institute. So a minor notable all the same. Wikipedia contains many biographies of pop stars and morons. 213.122.50.183 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - nn to me, the only thing caught my eyes is that he lost an election. --WinHunter (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems nn.--
    Konstable 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Greg Bravo (Gary Scott)

Nominated on behalf of

l T 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

For the record, this was done based on a {{helpme}} request. --
l T 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: For the record, and respectfully in deference to you being a senior Wikipedian, you may have been duped into helping him so that he can vote for deletion (though he has not as of yet)! --Countdewiki 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as is or edit with suggested compromise made a number of times on the article's talk page. Verifiable evidence can be found here as is evidenced near bottom of talk page:
A number of verifiable links have been provided below in the form of easy to verify credible sources and links, which include:
  1. The Official US Patent and Trademark site showing that “Steam” is a registered Federal mark bearing the same contact address as the Official Greg Bravo and Steam site which has a www address and is not a member page.
  2. Contributions Mr. Bravo has made that are mentioned on the Freddie Scott and Vince Martell of Vanilla Fudge pages. He is also seen on the official Steam site, and in other media on the web performing with them and other notable artistes.
  3. Performances that he has done under the “Steam” name, and under his own name at major events and venues with some quite well-known artistes and friends backing him up on stage can be seen here [41], and here as published on the official site of a major New York media market radio station [42] (click on the 3/19/05 link for the Steam and Rascals concert).--Musicknight 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
newly-registered Musicknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for sockpuppetry. Just zis Guy you know? 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the below remarks I have made regarding the issue of what is called sockpuppetry. - Ron Stabile
Please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) for my summary of this mediation. Ideogram 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since positive, official, and reliable sources that can be easily verified indicate that he definitely is performing as the lead singer of the band Steam, at least in the past two decades. No reliable and accurate sources that can be verified show that he is not or was not what the article says. From what I can see, Fortheloveofhampsters is also trying to mold history to meet his own beliefs and expectations without meeting the Wikipedia rules and guidelines on the Steam (band) article. His vendetta-like efforts begs the question of his true motives! He is acting like the subject of this article owes him child support or something? (Does he?.) :-) Very strange indeed. --Countdewiki 04:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
newly-registered Countdewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a sockpuppet. Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the below remarks I have made regarding the issue of what is called sockpuppetry. - Ron Stabile
Indeed. If the link can be absolutely verified it would be worth a redirect, but that's about it. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the nominator of this AfD. Musicknight/Countdewiki indicate above that my references are unverifiable. This is untrue. There are two Billboard Books that have articles about the original recordings (Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders and Billboard Book of Number One Hits). The story of the original recording can be viewed on-line at [44]--Fortheloveofhampsters 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is like two guys having a fight over a girl - really didn't have time to check all refs at work but can't seem to find any acceptable online about just who was in the old or new versions of the band - still waiting for the seattle paper to send me the registration confirmation to view the article -- M. LoCasio
  • There are plenty of online websites that recount the early history, specifically the names of the band members. I am not sure if WP would consider them verifiable. For example, [45]. I had also revised the article Steam (band) several days ago to reflect this information but it has since been deleted by an anonymous user, 64.12.116.67 and 152.163.100.67. --Fortheloveofhampsters 23:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Geocities (or myspace, etc) sites are not
reliable sources since we cannot tell with certainty who put the information up. Kimchi.sg 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep because it can be verifed that User:Fortheloveofhampsters was only created on June 16, 2006 according to his history tab, and only after User:JLaTondre was involved in a very personal furious exchange of edits over the article. LaTondre appears to be the one who placed the dispute tag on it. We used to call that "a clue" in my former job as a criminal investigator. User:Fortheloveofhampsters is most probably a sockpuppet or shill. Since I can easily verify the evidence presented to keep the article as it stands, I vote to keep it. However, I would vote to delete it if the article would not be restored without all that Times Square-like signage on it, and if the article was also to be left unprotected. - Ron Stabile (retired in sunny Florida)
Comment: User:Ideogram, I don't know what is going on here yet, but I also see that you are way more involved than you should be! Please do not delete my comments if you have nothing to hide. You, too, have been accused of sockpuppetry. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE LEAVE MY REMARKS AND VOTE ALONE! - Ron Stabile
Fine, I'll let others decide whether an anonymous account making ad-hominem attacks is worth listening to. Ideogram 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here's "a clue". Wikipedia is not a democracy, so ballot-stuffing won't work. Ideogram 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I agree about "ballot-stuffing" in any regard that you may have meant it. As for 'anonymous' you know my name and I know yours so what's your point? Oh, I did not register so you can't arrange to have me blocked if you do not like what I say like you did to the poor schnooks above? I am honest, and will stick the the FACTS whether you or anyone else likes it or not! - Ron Stabile
I also heartily invite everyone to look at the history tabs of every page involved with the article, including your own mediation reference (above), to see how well you edit out everything that you do not like that people say about you or your side of the story, and how you make the story lean only in your favor! I'm sure that the savvy administrators look at the tabs anyway, so take it light! And User:Ideogram, if you read the policy you would know that Wikipedia is a democracy and not a DICTATORSHIP! That is why it was created in the first place. If the shoe fits wear it! If not, don't worry about it. - Ronny Stabile
  • Delete because since anyone can write or edit on here, leaving it on here may give someone the impression that Greg Bravo may have written this himself. Any entertainer would have to be out of his mind to engage in such cheap PR tactics or even want this. I don't know who is right or wrong about the above gibberish, and do not even care. The intensity and controversy is very interesting, though--ad nauseam. Emby --152.163.100.137 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment There is no reason to add my vote because it is pretty clear in which way this vote is heading, perhaps for the wrong reasons though some definitely seem to be right! It's hard to ignore the fact that this is all like whoever brings the most friends to a gang fight wins the day! There definitely is no fairness or impartiality involved, and that is truly remarkable for an organization that touts itself as an encyclopedia. Please stay away from the Beatles' articles! From what I can see above, my comment will probably be removed as though we were living under the order of the Third Reich. SunKing --71.249.8.236 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ""Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" in 1969, that later became an anthem at sports stadiums around the world." - sorry I have been in many sports stadia and seen even more on the box but I've never heard this one. BlueValour 23:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. no evidence of notability on offer, and does not meet

WP:CORP. Consensus is clear. --++Lar: t/c 01:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Museum of Skateboard History

Private museum. I don't think we need this. -

talk/email 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IEI Food

No notability expressed in article. Almost certainly fails WP:CORP doktorb | words 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was slowly delete (Liberatore, 2006). 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GelaSkins

Repeat of company schtick for non-notable product. Was marked {{

prod}} back in April but removed by creator. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete with quick expeditious haste. NawlinWiki 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. No assertion of notability. fails

WP:BAND. will userify on request, contact me. --++Lar: t/c 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chavous

Fails to meet

WP:BAND, hence nn. Wisden17 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete (Liberatore, 2006). 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XO (song)

This single has not been officially released. All user did was copy and paste the Dance, Dance template Diehard2k5 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manteca (wrestler)

Luchawiki (which has over 700 bios of Mexican wrestlers) does not mention a wrestler named "Manteca." It appears he has won no titles, no hairs or masks, been in lucha magazines or done anything that would make him a notable luchador. It is also likely he is not real as well. The article claims that he fought with another wrestler over the name "chupacabra" about twenty years before the first chupacabra sighting. There are also questionable things like a Mexican wrestler having a move called "Butterball" and the mention of the IWA as a sanctioning body (there was no promotion in Mexico called IWA, it was an American promotion in North Carolina). At best this person in non-notable but he is most likely entirely fictional. --Darren Jowalsen 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nice job. AdamBiswanger1 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I had to chuckle at the devastating Butterball move. -Big Smooth 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Robinson (surfer)

Of borderline notability and is probably a vanity page as the only significant contributor is likely the subject of the article. The one reference given is of questionable significance. Delete vote, though I must note that the subject may become notable in the future and deserve a non-vanity piece then. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See also User_talk:Saxifrage#Intelliworks) Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelliworks

Previously deleted by

WP:CORP and is the sole contribution of Honeyuee (talk · contribs). I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • User's first edit (you guessed, didn't you?)
  • Intelliworks was profiled by The Washington Post. Full version of the article can be found here, and this is the link to The Washington Post's Archive search result.
  • CRM Blog profiled Intelliworks as recently as May 11.

This satisfies

WP:CORP criteria no. 1. I suggest that this be marked as a stub for cleanup. Honeyuee 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7.

DVERS 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Bain

Makes no claim to notability. Seems to be nothing more than spam-- GraemeL (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I also don't think there's a claim to notability, and thus, it's an A7 candidate. -- Kicking222 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7.

DVERS 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonas Duxén

Makes no claim to notability. Seems to be nothing more than spam.-- GraemeL (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete via CSD A7. No assertion of notability at all. -- Kicking222 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. No-one has attempted to demonstrate that the sources in the article are unreliable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James_Dicks

James_Dicks was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dicks/2006-06-19.

This guy is not notable and there are very view factual reports about his activity Smtusa 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP James Dicks is very well known. He claims to be a best selling author, produces 12 hours of radio programming a day, claims to be the "world's leading expert in forex trading." There are 17,300 hits when googling for "James Dicks" and all the hits on the first several pages appear to refer to this guy. The article has several links including a Fox TV news report, a feature Houston Press (alternative) newspaper article, a financial website "Stupid Investment of the Week." And there are several rip-off reports. There is no question that the guy is notable. The article was originally put up as a puff advertising piece, and now that I've corrected it and made it NPOV, he wants to delete it. The previous vote was to KEEP after the corrections were made.Smallbones 19:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smallbones. I fail to see what has become deletion-worthy since the previous keep. - Lex 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smtusa. There are numerous false claims in this article and unless it can be proven that the aligations are true, they don't belong in Wikipedia. The whole article seems like it is trying to prove his guilt, when in fact he has never been convicted of these accusations. "He is reportedly the nephew of Charles Givens...." Where is the proof. Anyone can make statements like this and it seems this article is completely bias and draws conclusions without facts. Writing in such a manner is liable. FYI, it is not James Dicks who wants this article deleted (although I am sure he does), but me, for the sake of keeping Wikipedia free from bias opinions against those you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.232.253 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by King of Hearts.

DVERS 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Capitol Cigar Store

notable? advert? I'm not from the US, maybe other users should assess the notability ackoz 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • <sarcasm>Wow, a statue that has been there since 1968!</sarcasm> Delete, fails notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gordon

This person does not show up as an actor at imdb, and there are zero relevant google hits for '"Christopher Gordon" "Cornwall College"'. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense because it's a hoax. This person, born 1988, supposedly appeared in Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977), among others. NawlinWiki 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Petros471 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Jensen (footballer)

Non-notable football player. Included are Mathew Holt, Matthew Elder, Shaun Densmore, Alan Kearney, Kieran Agard, John Irving (footballer), Steven Morrison and Cory Sinott who all play only for the reserve team. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason to delete this article. It is about a genuine Everton reserves player and will be updated when the reserves season starts.SenorKristobbal 22:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (article is kept) (Liberatore, 2006). 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Surf League

Delete Non-notable organization/competition. Reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. It has no history, no claim to notability and only 600 Google hits, most of which are press releases from the organization itself. -

pm_shef 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - I'm a lifeguard, so I'd hardly go around accusing me of bias against lifeguard competitions *rolls eyes*. Anyways my point about most of the google hits being press releases still stands, and the fact remains besides being the first in atlantic Canada, it makes no claim to notability. -
    pm_shef 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Meh. I figure it's notable enough. I don't know all the details on it, nor the whole lifeguarding scene. But i figure notability can be a lame reason to delete an article :) SECProto 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm Sorry. Notability is the main reason to delete an article. -
    pm_shef 02:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The sport seems to be growing. -- Usgnus 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep' agree with Agent 86 as above. -- MrDolomite 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

type 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Centric CRM

Previously deleted with different content at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centric CRM I checked this out, Google returns about 185 unique hits (some thousands total, including lots of forum posts). No evidence of user base, innovation, market share, turnover or any other objective measure of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a recreation of non-notable material. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm... I'm not sure how you reach the conclusions you do. Centric CRM has over 5,000 registered users in the development community. If you actually visit the community you will see a very active and robust set of forums with countless posts on a daily basis.

As for innovation, Centric CRM was named a finalist for LinuxWorld's Product Excellence awards 2 months ago at LinuxWorld Boston. The product's approach to CRM which marries traditional CRM functionality found in products like Salesforce.com with sophisticated functionality like Document Management, automated customer surveys, collaborative project managment, content management and e-commerce is unique in the CRM space. As an example, the Centric CRM developer community with its discussion forums, wikis, newsgroups, code repositories and so forth, is run entirely on Centric CRM itself.

As for user base, companies like The Weather Channel and other Fortune 500 companies are using Centric CRM throughout their organizations today, in addition to many SMBs throughout the world. More significant customer engagements will be announced in the months ahead as those projects clear their NDA requirements. On the partnership side, some of the leading infrastructure companies in the IT space are forming strategic partnerships with Centric CRM because of its unique position in the marketplace as a true enterprise class open source application. Announcements on these fronts will be forthcoming over the next 6 weeks, as will related articles in the press and online.

Centric CRM has been under continuous development for over 6 years, comprises millions of lines of code, and has been embraced by some of the world's largest companies. A deliberately low profile has been kept during that time while the pieces of a valuable business were put in place; sort of an old fashioned way of doing things, in this age when a couple guys with an idea can get millions of dollars of VC funding. The profile of the product is now being deilberately raised as part of a larger effort to expand its awareness and penetration into the market at large. Posting an article to Wikipedia is but one small step of that larger process.

That Centric CRM has no "encyclopaedic notability" seems to me a hasty conclusion based not on verifiable fact (development community size and vigor; technical sophistication of the product; quality of customers; etc.) but on a single datapoint--number of Google hits. I encourage you to look a little deeper before drawing your conclusion. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Mdh98368 (talk • contribs
) .

That's all very interesting, but the argument has two flaws. The first is that it does not directly address the concerns of Wikipedia, but that is excusable because you probably haven't been made aware of them. Wikipedia:Notability (software) is the project document that details how the notability of software like Centric CRM is judged. From what you've said above, criterion #6 is the closest one to being satisfied: can you provide a citation for the LinuxWorld award/honor?
The second flaw is where you say, "The profile of the product is now being deilberately raised as part of a larger effort to expand its awareness and penetration into the market at large. Posting an article to Wikipedia is but one small step of that larger process." That's specifically a Do Not at Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Autobiography.) Wikipedia is an academic project, not an advertising platform or a web directory. Using it as a platform for promotion makes editors rather hostile, often to the point that an article that is on the borderline for being included, as, say, one might be if it got a marginal honor in line with criterion #6, will get voted out of existence on principle. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for responding. Thanks also for the link to the "notability" page, since that helps clarify the policies A quick Google Search on the topic of Centric CRM as a finalist for LinuxWorld's product excellence awards returns multiple citations. As for published pieces, there is Michael Caton's-- e-Week's Techncial Analyst--piece in e-Week. At least two long articles in the print editions of 2 separate and well-respected industry magazines will hit the newsstands in July and in August. For an independent opinion on Centric CRM's technological sophistication, I could put you in contact with Brian Shield, CTO of The Weather Channel, who has moved TWC's entire help-desk operation onto Centric CRM.

My purpose in submitting the article is not commercial gain. Rather, we are proud of the approach taken in designing and building Centric CRM. Unlike many commercial software ventures, Centric CRM's design and execution would please a computer scientist. As an avid user and fan of Wikipedia, the thought of having the company listed there would be very gratifying. Over the next few weeks, my intention was to begin posting some interesting technical information about the product, discussing its MVC design pattern, its incorporation of the JSR 168 (portlet) spec, and so forth. Information, in other words, that is intended to be of general interest to other wikipedia users interested in open source, CRM, and innovative applications of advanced technologies. I hope that you will allow the article to stand. Mdh98368 (talk • contribs) .

But these are not "multiple non-trivial mentions". Your comment above is very revealing:
WP:NOT a promotional tool. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Criterion #6 isn't satisfied by the LinuxWorld mention, as nominations are not awards. The eWeek piece is a very minor news piece and future articles don't count, so #1 isn't satisfied either. Numbers 2 through 5 don't apply. So, it is non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, my apologies. I submitted the entry a month too early. Forgive the enthusiasm. Talk to you in a few weeks when your objections have been addressed by external events in the marketplace. (talk • contribs)

More like, come back and talk when someone who is not in a conflict of interest has decided that the software warrants an article, and then contribute to it. Vanity is still vanity. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

type 11:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

R. Nissotti

Although the article makes claims of notability, there are zero Google hits for Nissotti +hydrocephalus. If somebody can prove that this person is notable for the statements made in this article, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. All of the external links are to articles about hydrocephalus, not about this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as cringe inducing prose, unsourced sources, probable hoax. I almost said speedy, but read charitably it makes claims to notability and verafiability. Eluchil404 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Students flying club

Doesn't really seem that notable. The link given is dead, so can't be verified. Plus it's in an awful state

Skinnyweed 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. fails

WP:WEB no evidence of notability. --++Lar: t/c 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Desihub

Was originally prod'd and user removed tag with no reason. This article appears to drastically fail

WP:WEB. Delete Yanksox (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. No Original Research, fails POV. Willing to userify, just ask. --++Lar: t/c 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aamjiwnaang: A Canadian Community Under Seige

The very title informs us that this is a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nice use of vocab, violates NPOV. Yanksox (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, POV, unsourced. -- Kicking222 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or maybe merge with the other article suggested? Nyanyoka 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Whiteye and Aamjiwnaang

Hi Folks: I wrote or replied to each of you with no response from any. Zoe and I talked and he pointed to the NPOV to which I responded (no reaction yet). So, not having anywhere else to go, I came here to reach all if I could??? Zoe suggests the title is polemic. Scientist have dug 12 feet into the earth at Aamjiwnaang before they reached unpolluted dirt/clay. Every inch before it is polluted, as is the air above it. Aamjiwnaang is not under siege by an army everybody likes but me. It is saturated with benzodenes, clorines, x-factors providing a haven for a possible pestilent. How do I defend my piece if you mark for delete and move on to your next article, never revisiting the last to see if the writer spoke to the issues pointed out? Is there another way that I don't know about? Bud Whiteye 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Bud Whiteye, Aamjiwnaang[reply]

Bud, I did reply to you on your Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask for a little extension, Bud has implied to me that he will attempt to write this when the
WP:MoS and all other formats of Wiki. Maybe, a two day one? Yanksox (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Scratch that, I saw the article Aamjiwnaang First Nation, we can assist Bud in writing what we knows about the situation into this article in NPOV style. Yanksox (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I was just about to close this as a delete, consensus is clear... How about if it's userified to someone's user page? I still am going to delete but will be happy to userify on request, just get hold of me. ++Lar: t/c
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. The consensus is that, although this game never came to market, rumors of its existence and the general fame of the "Zelda" brand make it noteworthy enough for an article. Xoloz 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga

(Please see also the first AFD).

Vanity - The article, now about a fake game, was simply created to generate attention for an obscure person, who in turn tried to re-sell the "fake" game in a private auction on his forum using this article as hype for the product. Nothing but a ruse to get traffic and money from a hoax. TSA 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Nomination has the facts wrong about this article. The article has nothing to do with vanity, as I wrote the majority of the text back in November of 2005. There's no money or traffic to be had through this article at this point, nor was there any when the original article was put up, as I wasn't in possession of the alleged cart or even knew much more than what's in the article. Article is about a noted hoax that made the rounds throughout the internet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly not a vanity article, and I'd say it's a notable hoax, although it could use better referencing. BryanG(talk) 00:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments were made at the first AFD and have been copied here

  • Comment - the nominator tacked the new AFD onto the old one. For the sake of not looking so confusing, I have copied the new comments into a new AFD. No vote.BigDT 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Problem is the "hoax" is up for auction on a person fan site right now, and they're using the Wiki article in the chat about it that I've seen to get people to believe it is "real". The hoax is not even in the top 10 "Zelda" hoaxes of all time, it was merely a small blip. The article only serves to drive traffic to certain sites, to give the creator more attention, and to be used for commercial purposes. This is blantantly vanity and abuse, it's time this article goes away. Perhaps a page about ALL ZELDA HOAXES would be warranted, but not this one game. --TSA 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people want to falsely use a Wikipedia entry as justification, when it's clear in the page that the veracity of the actual cart is questionable, that's not our problem. Your continued assertions of "only used for commercial purposes," "vanity" and "abuse" make little sense considering who has written the most of it. Hell, you were involved in it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! --FlareNUKE 07:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. enough people know about it to make it notable. — Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy close. I already deleted it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learncasting. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podagogy

This article was originally listed along with Learncasting in this AfD. Learncasting was deleted, but I am re-listing Podagogy, as I can not be sure that all comments were directed at both articles. The reasoning from the original AfD was:

Wikipedia is

type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I abstain from commenting on this AfD. TigerShark 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalay Place

Advertising for a real estate opportunity in Irving, Texas. Was nominated for speedies and prods, but author/anon is removing them (and speedy wasn't under a valid criterion anyway) so sending here. Technical nomination - no opinion from me.

DVERS 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. not quite strange enough for

WP:V, etc... --++Lar: t/c 01:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Origin of name yahweh/jehovah

Original Research, nonsense Interlingua talk 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - original research; not encyclopedic at all. - Richardcavell 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly original research per this line in the article "As far as I know there is no mention of this (true) origin of the names cited anywhere". fails WP:OR, WP:V. Get published elsewhere, then let someone else write a Wikipedia article.
    GRBerry 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete obvious OR. Jammo (SM247) 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm lost ... the name Yahweh/Jehovah is derived from some metaphysical Hinduism thing? Umm ... yeah ... anyway, OR, unencyclopedic, and untrue BigDT 02:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's from Monty Python. Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After making sure the matter is commended to the attention of
    The DaVinci Code ImpuMozhi 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - OR --
    Lost 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -

talk + 16:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Half-life computation

POV fork of Half-life article. Rmhermen 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - Simplified how to along with some computer code and an absurd looong OR data table (result of user playing with Excel) Vsmith 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - created based on apparent grudge against main article--there are better ways of resolving content disputes. DMacks 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above--Jusjih 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Moreover, table doesn't reflect model described, i.e., computationally incorrect and physically unrealistic. Jclerman 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since you four are so eager to justify deletion of this fork, could you at least give an explanation of why it's wrong (e.g. in what way it is scientifically incorrect) so the rest of us laymen can judge if it should be deleted or not?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See in Talk:Half-life the extensive discussion ongoing since June 12. Jclerman 11:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discussion referred to above is quite convoluted. The article under discussion here was created by
half life
article were rebuffed. That article contains the rather standard and quite simple math equations for exponential decay, however User:[email protected] apparently objected to the use of a couple of the standard symbols. The content of the page under consideration here contains:
A simplified how to calculation which doesn't use the rate constant symbol. The use of non-standard lg for log is itself confusing (this was pointed out to the user). Objection: Wikipedia is not a how to.
The inclusion of unexplained or identified (language) computer code for the calculation. Meaningless nonsense - which adds nothing to understanding the concept. If programming is being taught then the students should develope the code from the equations.
The long table was apparently produced by the author using Excel to make a
point
and is in itself rather absurdly meaningless.
Does that help to clarify? Vsmith 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Though I'll with-hold my vote for the time being, I agree that the way the article is a bit out of place the way it is right now. I would like to bring to your attention what are called trampolines, and if there is really a need to demistify half-life (there is, high-schoolers learn about half-life and at that level it is completely inaccessible), then a trampoline could be in place. Wikipedia may not be a how-to manual, but a case has already been made for trampolines, and the only thing lacking is volunteers with enough understanding and will to create the articles.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For high-school accesible demistification of the concept of half-life I consider most appropriate to perform experiments and correct computer simulations. See in [47] how to test the behavior of the last atoms. The proponent of the fork lacks to understand that validation of physics-math models consists in comparing the model's behavior with experimental observations of real physical systems or valid simulations (physical and/or computer). The references given here describe how to test the validity (or not) of the exponential formula for small number of atoms with simple simulations, experiments, and computer code. Physics describes nature. When a formula can mimic nature we accept such a model and use it. In radioactive decay, the exponential model does not apply for small number of atoms (or small number of atoms are not within the domain of validity of the formula or equation or table). The DIY experiments use pennies or m&m candies. [48], [49]. A similar experiment is performed in college with isotopes of a very short half-life, e.g., see Fig 5 in [50]. See how to write a computer program that simulates radioactive decay including the required randomness in [51]. Let high-schoolers experience the behavior of the last atoms! Jclerman 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table is wrong--mathematically incorrect according to the specific principle it aims to clarify (as explained on the parent article Talk:Half-life, but not corrected by proponent of the forked article). The page's proponent claims the results table is for an equation for a process by which each atom of 14C transforms into an atom of 14N, given a starting amount of 14C. Observation: the total number of atoms is not constant, therefore the table is not correct for the issue at hand. The proponent supports it "The issue here is not the tables anyway or who created them or how since the facts they are intended to illustrate can be reproduced by virtually anyone using virtually any method." I don't see how false facts can be used to support anything about anything, nor why they should be included anywhere in Wikipedia. DMacks 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the tables. I don't know what Jclerman is going on about though, why are you trying to dictate how to teach high schoolers? I don't mean to be rude but your speech largely resembles rambling, and it may be that you are not a native English speaker but it is incredibly difficult to follow your discussion. Is it really neccessary to mention that "Physics describes nature" in a discussion like this?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2: 5E+307 atoms of C14 decay into 1 single atom of N14. Where are the missing (5E+307)-1 N14 atoms?
  • ...
  • between Cycle 1024 and Cycle 1025: 1 single atom of C14 decays into 1E+307 atoms of N14. Which process creates 1E+307 atoms out of a single one?
Needles to repeat it again and again, as it has been said already, the number of C14-decayed + N14-created atoms at each cycle should remain equal and constant throughout the whole table if it is to reflect both the correct physics and the proponent's own model. Jclerman 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer to focus on the fact that this is partly a
      how-to article on a radioactive-decay simulation (or both), and each is prohibited by policy. If this article were the very best article it could be, it would still meet criteria for deletion. I am sorry that IMHO has misunderstood this and put so much obvious hard work into a sincere-but-futile effort. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comments

It was necessary to create this article apart from the Half-life article in order to show computer code and data involved in the computation to avoid inappropriate and continued deletion from the Half-life article. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this page would mean that the Wikipedia stands for depriving readers (and potential financial contributors) factual information which they can understand and comprehend. ...IMHO (Talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information provided by this article differs from the
WP:NPOV policy and the Half-life article should be tagged for deletion instead. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
...IMHO (Talk) 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Fails proposed guideline

WP:ORG. No evidence of notability in article. Per clear consensus. --++Lar: t/c 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alpha Centura Science Fiction Society

This society gets 0 google hits other than references on Wikipedia and is also vanity because the leader of the society creted the article. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete

type 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Advocacy Investing

I am bringing this article up for an AfD vote because I am unsure if it meets several of the qualities for inclusion at Wikipedia. First, the subject only has 1000 Google hits, which to me is a rather low number to be considered notable. Second, the article is definately self-promotional, with people connected with Advocacy Investing having created the article. That said, the subject has had some significant press coverage (such as http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f6ddcfca-ecc2-11da-a307-0000779e2340.html, along with articles (which I can not verify) in CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, The Street.com, First Business, The Wall Street Transcript, Crain’s Chicago Business, Green Money Journal, among others. I have speedy deleted this article twice now and have restored it at the request of the article's creator. I will not be voting b/c I said I'd simply present the facts on the article and allow others to decide if it meets the criteria for inclusion here. Alabamaboy 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to
    GRBerry 01:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge.

Petros471 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeff Stein

Non-notable Congressional candidate, does not conform to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, deprodded. Accurizer 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete If he wins the election, then he would be notable. However, he has not done anything to be notable aside from that. Since he might win, and thus become notable, this article might have some future value, which is why I only give a weak delete. -- Where 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's just another independent candidate - Richardcavell 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Thought... You could say the same about
    Daniel F. Zubairi, except that Zubairi has friends and money. I think it would be wrong to disenfranchise one candidate because they aren't as rich or connected with the Governor of their state. You can't have one of them and not the other, because neither is super-famous. Where do you end up drawing the line? Jgpgmdusa 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.

type 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Post-object programming

I've searched references for the whole content of the article for too long, yet haven't been lucky. I've already asked for them in the talkl page again and again, with no answer. The original article had a whole section which was nonsense (see Talk page), so I believe the article's topic is completely made up, or maybe original research by some non-expert in the topic. In conclusion, the article is non-verifiable and (consequently) perhaps original research. euyyn 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this were a notable programming method, one would expect a fair amount of google hits (since it is related to computers). But this isn't the case. Thus, I must say, delete. -- Where 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or delete. I think it might be a valid article except that no references have been given for the article. Unless sources can be given, delete. - DNewhall 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I repeated my search for references (with google: "post-object programming" -"is a new generation" -"aspect-oriented programming", trying to avoid WP mirrors and pages about AOP - which says it's a kind of Post-object P.) and among the 95 results found 2 (non-chinesse) pages about the topic:
Post-Object Programming for Computational Science, which says a little and gives 2 emails to ask for further details
Post-object programming, which lists our WP article as one of 2 web references (the other one being the Cecil's homepage).
I now think the article is nothing but academic propaganda for someone's non-notable research. --euyyn 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (if we were vote counting, it's 4-3 delete, so no consensus, leaning towards delete, but AFD is not a vote). The three links provided - the sole justification for keeping - are sixth form reviews (ie, twelfth grade). Calton provides the best argument.

type 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Art of Silence

No assertion of notability for this play other than it was performed in Paraguay; author is redlinked NawlinWiki 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to J.J. Jeczalik. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment J.J. Jeczalik's musical project shares its name with this play but, I believe, nothing else. --DaveG12345 10:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If I do a google search for "The Art of Silence" "Hartley", it returns several articles reviewing the play including [56] , [57], [58] etc. Seems to me this article just needs to be expanded to include a summary of the play and links to some of these sources. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 13 June 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, Richardcavell 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smurf. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Part of a larger body of work by a notable playwright/author? Widely read? Widely produced? Historically important? Holding of some sort of superlative? Subject to multiple instances of critical analysis? No to all of the above, it seems: a few notices in the paper don't even come CLOSE to making this notable or even noticable. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and contains a lot of red links. I say the only useful info there is the external link. --WinHunter (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of success or notability. BlueValour 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on those links. --JJay 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_19&oldid=1081096207"