Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 24 March 26 >

Purge server cache

March 25

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Apocalypse Rising

non-notable band ➥the Epopt 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

CU Backslash


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Avian flu- should we worry?

Delete. Whilst containing probably vaguely true information in places, it finishes with a rant and, as the title implies, is personal opinion throughout. This isn't really suitable as a redirect anywhere since the title is highly unlikely to be searched for and the title contains a fairly leading question anyway. (It appears not to be copyio.) -Splashtalk 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AUTUT

Delete - non-notable subforum; does not meet

WP:WEB discospinster 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Screaming Pattersons (band)

Band does not meet notability requirements in

WP:MUSIC. Prod tag was contested. OhNoitsJamieTalk 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe this band meets the Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W9843 (talk • contribs)

Above user's edits all have been vanity entries.
crashfan 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with the above commentator. I live in New York, and I have heard of this band before. They are well worthy of a wikipeida page.—This

unsigned comment was added by User3344 (talk • contribs
) .

This may be true but this may be their attempt to write a first article and may publish several others after this. But as we continue to debate its deletion, their confidence to write an article is slowly decreasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.39.31 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Winning "local competition" is not notable. Batmanand | Talk 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". —This
    unsigned comment was added by 146.151.39.31 (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 DELETE. Definitely an nn-bio. -Splashtalk 03:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Greenfield

Looks like junk --Sean Brunnock 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nn vanity page. Batmanand | Talk 01:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio or delete as nn. Fetofs Hello! 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G1/A7 as patent nonsense and no (real) assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio, and tagged as such. Reyk 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Annarborpublicschools.org

Notability not shown; fails WP:WEB; Alexa rank > 1.2 million Doctor Whom 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Swire Marketing

Doesn't satisfy

WP:CORP. No evidence of notability in the article. "Swire Marketing" gets only 29 unique Google hits. dbtfztalk 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Miller's goat

Tagged for speedy as nonsense, but is fully intelligible so presumably there are concerns that it may be a hoax. Intelligible hoaxes are AfD work. -Splashtalk 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It doesn't seem that any of the deleters are persauded and "why the heck not" doesn't cut much ice with me as an argument. I'd also observe that a link to an ebay auction and a members.tripod.com site are not useful as sources for anything. -Splashtalk 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windseye

Advertisement for a stained glass company, company does not meet

WP:CORP OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Windseye kaleidoscopes are no longer being made. These kaleidoscopes have been featured in Cozy Baker's book, "Through the Kaleidoscope" published in 1985 and featured at many arts and craft shows throughout Florida during the 1970s and 1980s. The kaleidoscopes developed pushed the envelope of creative design in kaleidocopes and were the forerunners of many existing kaleidoscope designs available today. Doug JOhnson —This
    unsigned comment was added by Windseye (talk • contribs
    ) .
Can you give examples of how it influenced modern designs? Where (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: being featured at some shows in Florida does not create notability. Delete per nom. --Hetar 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approxiamtely 40,000 of Windseye kaleidoscopes were created and made available in over 500 galleries and gift shops around the world in the 20 years of production. First and 2nd place prizes were won at the Coconut Grove Festival, FL, in 1982 and 1983. The kaleidoscopes were featured in many newspaper accounts during the 1970s and 1980s. Notability is a subjective word; the kaleidoscopes did exist historically, were unique and innovative, and more significant than arbitrary subjective judgments. Windseye 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson[reply]

If "First and 2nd place prizes were won at the Coconut Grove Festival, FL" and they "were featured in many newspaper accounts during the 1970s and 1980s." where are the sources for this? --Hetar 05:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found this one for sale. The few Google hits I've seen suggest that they are known among kaleioscope enthusiasts; I'm not sure how much that really adds to notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on the grounds that the original author will rewrite it to be a non-advertisement (assuming he can find some notablity. If not, then definately delete.
    Fire! 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could something in it, but notability not proved despite efforts here. Deizio 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, here's some notability: http://members.tripod.com/kaleidoscopemuseum/djohnson.html And check out the original Cozy Baker book on K'scopes... "Through the Kaleidoscope" Note that acknowledgement on this page regarding the marble kaleidoscope design--- the use of marbles was a first in 1979. All other scopes using marbles were based on this design. Over the years the design evolved to accomodate marbles of different size (7/8" to 1 1/2"). (I'll find more references and when I am resident at home with a scanner I'll scan in newspaper and magazzine articles.) Windseye 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson[reply]

Interesting how many web citations there are for "Doug Johnson" even though the scopes were orignally labeled as Windseye creations, e.g.: http://www.scherergallery.com/guide/featured.imagepage.ihtml?f=35.1978 Even someone on Ebay is getting into the act! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6261597026 http://cgi.ebay.com/Satellite-445-kaleidoscope-Doug-Johnson-1986-MINT_W0QQitemZ6236768431QQcategoryZ104035QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem Windseye 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson[reply]

All binocular style kaleidoscopes created within the last 30 years or so stem from the models created starting in 1983 which include the BINOC with two wheels, the SUPERBINOC made with dichroic mirror on the sides and in the wheels, the ROLABINOC suing an oil filled object case, and a MARBINOC feturing a large handmade marble.

Use of dichroic mirror as integral to the mirror system as well as in the object cases of the scopes, be they wheels, kevels, oil filled tubes, satellites, gyrosats or whatever, originated with Windseye in 1978-- all use of dichroic mirror in the last 28 years was inspirewd by the creations of Windseye. Windseye 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Doug Johnson[reply]

  • Comment Hi Windseye, links to sources verifying notability should be attached to the article, in accordance with the guides at
    WP:EL. Then all you need to do is notify (rather than replicate the links) on this page that the article has been updated, editors will be happy to check over the page anew. Nice one Deizio 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep. Apparently not an advertisement, notable to those who care about kaleidoscopes (!?, but...). Kalkin 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friend just passed this link about collecting scopes along.... http://www.collectingchannel.com/cdsdetart.asp?CID=1&PID=421 Windseye 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Doug Johnson[reply]

Keep Appears to be somewhat notable within the world of collectable kaleidoscopes, narrow as that world may be. --Krich (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Why the heck not" keep per above. Sandstein 08:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts talk 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter V. Tretter

I created this article, but in hindsight (which is often 20/20) it isn't particularly notable or important. Delete Ardenn 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real candidate in an election. Where (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a candidate in an election doesn't satisfy
    WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Jamie. JoshuaZ 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jamie. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Where. Arbusto 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The relevant criterion under
    WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" or "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." He satisfies neither. JoshuaZ 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Jamie (and kudos to Ardenn). Joe 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Pending: If was a candidate for a notable state or federal, or major local position, I'd say keep. If not I'd say delete
    Fire! 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, the position is absolutely notable: Member of Provincial Parliament is the only elected provincial office in Ontario, and from their number come the Premier, Cabinet, Speaker, opposition leaders, etc. The precedent is absolutely clear that candidates for such offices can be included, at the very least in merged lists for X party candidates in 20YY. The trouble is this is a by-election, or special election: is it worth ganging him together with his party's two other candidates in by-elections elsewhere in Ontario (far away) on the same day? Keep; merge/redirect into such an article if the consensus really thinks that's the best idea. Samaritan 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today is the 25th of March 2006. The by election in which he is running is to be held on 30th of March 2006. If you have to be an elected MP or whatever the local term may be to be notable, we cant possibly tell right now whether he's notable or not. For all we know, if we delete this now, we may very well have to recreate it in five days time. Shouldnt the AfD wait/have waited until then? Jcuk 09:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Candidacy in most elections, certainly including provincial by-elections, does not in itself carry any notability, as it is an opportunity open to anyone in a democracy and there are plenty of "vanity" and single-issue candidates out there. Other sources of this candidates importance must be provided per WP:BIO. Articles about nn topics cannot be justified simply to "balance things up", individual topics must be individually notable. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Where. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now or after the election when he gets stomped. Sorry to be guilty of crystal-ballism, but how notable is he in a riding where a Green Party candidate has never finished higher than fourth place? [2] - Fan1967 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn minor party candidate. Pick Fan1967's jaw up off the floor and recreate if he gets elected. Brief mention in the winning candidates article will be fine otherwise. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I'm willing to take that risk. A few minutes browsing the Ottawa press shows that his candidacy is barely being noticed there. Generally, candidates are not notable until they win, or lose in a notable fashion. Rarely, high-profile candidates in a high-profile election are notable, but this case involves neither. Fan1967 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I did nominate this on afd, I have to disagree with you in this respect. He was on the front cover of the city section of Friday's Ottawa Citizen [3] along with being mentioned in the Nepean Weekender, Nepean this Week, and Barrhaven Independent.[4] Ardenn 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that Citizen article is a good example of what I meant. Even the NDP candidate gets three paragraphs. Tretter barely gets a mention at the end. Fan1967 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, but the photo in the actual print edition has all 4. Ardenn 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the normal AfD period should do that. If he wins, someone can note it here and in the article. Fan1967 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The election is on Thursday. Ardenn 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can always be recreated if he wins. Fan1967 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the existing practice for byelections is to discuss them in the article on the preceding general election rather than separate articles, there would also be the option of merging this into the 2003 Green candidates list. Maybe not the best option, but I offer it for discussion. At any rate, I'd favour merging this somewhere if possible, but keep if there isn't a viable merge option. The consensus has tended to favour permitting some kind of coverage of electoral candidates. Bearcat 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you delete this article, you'd better go through all the other campaign articles and delete the pages for "marginal" candidates that lost - like Natural Law party, which is way more marginal than this one. BTW, the national Green party fielded candidates in every riding across Canada - to me that makes the Green Party influential and notable. Furthermore, the Green Party aims to have serious political effects and is succeeding - the other parties are picking up planks out of the Green Party platform - unlike the situation with those other marginal parties.
Comment Fielding candidates in open democracies like the US and Canada is so easy that I hesitate to label someone as notable just because they were on the ballot. There are two candidates in this race who are even more obscure than Tretter (for a total of six on the ballot), though one of them seems to hold some sort of record for number of elections lost, which might be a claim to fame. In the US, the Libertarians routinely field candidates in most congressional districts. I wouldn't describe them as notable. Fan1967 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Bruce Mau - Liberatore(T) 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mau Design

Prod tag contested; advertisement for a design firm; does not appear to meet

WP:CORP. "Bruce Mau" does get a lot of Google hits (in Google news as well) and appears to be a well-known designer; I'm not sure if his studio automatically merits inclusion based on that. OhNoitsJamieTalk

  • Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep needs to be expanded. Arbusto 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not a particularly notable topic, and the article reads like an ad. Perhaps incorporate into
    AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bruce Mau, who is immediately familiar to me from coverage in Canadian national media, and I don't even follow design. Samaritan 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Samaritan. JoshuaZ 06:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bruce Mau. Bruce Mau Design is directly related to the publication of "MAssive Change" and the curator of a National Art exhibit At the Ontario Art Gallery of the same name. He also designs fonts for Rem Koolhaas and Frank Gehry. He Won the Downsview Park Design competition for the city of Toronto. Come on people! get a little art into your lives. maybe, today, each one of you can get off your computer and spend the day putside, looking at things. like buildings. and fonts. and parks. things that are designed. by architects and people like bruce mau. how many parks, books, fonts, and National art exhibits have you made?
  • Merge/redirect concur with above comments - Bruce Mau is highly notable, and I can see people looking up his design co. --Krich (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Institute without Boundaries

Non-notable "education model"; also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Mau Design OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fail to see grounds for inclusion. Project which has had two sessions, future sessions apparently on hold, at thus far unincluded community college, no evidence of influence or recognition. Possible vanity / admiration page. Deizio 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone is obsessed with Bruce Mau, probably Bruce Mau himself. See the above discussion.
    AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ring Wars: Reloaded

  • Delete - Non-notable fanfilm, despite assertations in article. Google search brings up less than 200 returns, less than 50 unique, most listing the torrent only. MikeWazowski 03:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity Where (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well written article but not notable --Garrybowers 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film. --
    e Ong 10:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 15:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Change

Advertisement for an exhibition/product/book; see related afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Mau Design OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete AdCruft, nn, NPOV, possible vanity. Deizio 17:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )     20:31, 25 March 2006
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made an attempt to re-write the article. --maclean25 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's an exhibition, but bearing in mind that it is for public institutions (i.e art galleries) I think that it should be considered differently from a commercial work. The subject matter is also quite interesting, and it can serve as a good hook to lead readers to related subjects. Finally, Massive Change has managed to receive some measure of international recognition. Rewrite if needed, to avoid POV and/or vanity, but don't toss it away! (I have no connection to the exhibition or the creator - I just attended the Vancouver showing and found it quite informative.) --Ckatz 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage. Notable topic, unfortunate that it is represented by adcruft. The Tom 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Bankstown

Just a shopping center in a suburb of Sydney. It doesn't seem notable to me... Where (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sonic.fm

Internet radio station with no claims of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes Ate My Baby

weak Delete, fancruft, even for Buffy fans this is fancruft. At best this should be a single line in an article under a Trivia subheading, but not it's own article. Ned Scott 03:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

still think it should be deleted, but I am seeing the others' points and don't think this article is as harmful as I thought it would be. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my vote all together. I still don't know if it should be deleted or kept, but the comments here and revised version have changed my mind that my original reasons for nomination have changed. Or something like that. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's notable enough. dbtfztalk 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like most fancruft, it's not interesting to those who aren't hardcore fans, and most hardcore fans already know about it, so there's no point to its existence. Delete all fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not like it was a one-episode thing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough, is well-written to boot. Just a comment: I found it interesting and I've never seen a Buffy episode in my life. Crystallina 04:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please, I beg of you Buffy fans, do not take this as an attack against the show. I've seen it, I thought it was good, I have nothing against it. I have nominated similar articles for deletion that were about shows that I was a huge fan of. And giving an element of a show it's own article doesn't make it more or less important or even signify any such thing. I bet Buffy wore shoes on more than one episode, but you don't see List of Buffy's shoes, do you? These kinds of articles hurt both Wikipedia and the integrity of the topics at hand, including all things Buffy. STOP HURTING BUFFY. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let the dingoes have it but give
    Daniel "Oz" Osbourne the left-overs (that's Delete and Merge). Eivindt@c 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep Expand to inlcude more non-buffy references. U$er 04:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment non-Buffy stuff would be more appropriate for
Azaria Chamberlain disappearance#Popular media -- Ned Scott 04:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Edited
Votes made after this point were the ones made after the article received some major improvements

Personally I think it was OK to start with and still deserved to be kept, but I just made a major updating of the article anyway (so check it out again) including a table listing all their appearences and all their songs. They were a pretty big part of Buffy IMO, and this article is very useful to people want to know more about this fictional band, or track down the real thing. Also they were pretty good -- Paxomen 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid in Bed

Article about the closing production logo used by an animation studio, DiC. Obsessive minutiae, nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 03:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

Mailer Diablo 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

HBO Feature Presentation

Article describing an --The_stuart--23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)opening sequence used by HBO. Obsessive minutiae, nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Arpia

This page was originally deleted through the

WP:PROD process, but has since been recreated. It is about a user-made scenario of a computer game, which doesn't seem very notable. JeremyA 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delet n0t n0table. U$er 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that the article has been deleted before by way of the PROD process. However, I'm not sure if that makes it eligible for speedy deletion because PROD is meant to be "softly softly". I think it's best to just let the debate run it's natural course. kingboyk 12:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. --Lockley 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kalkin 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts talk 03:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Van Dyke

perhaps non-notable? also appears to be copied from somewhere M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think clean up. I would see most political history as notable. Notability seems to be a ploy to delete the entire wikipedia of late Tmothyh 04:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Chemistry 20 bonding unit

This article had been submitted to

WP:PROD, but an anonymous editor removed the PROD tag. The subject of the article is already covered by Chemical bond. The title of this article apparently refers to a chemistry class at a specific school, and this article has been written in an unusually informal style for a scientific topic. Delete. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete non-notable. U$er 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the material is covered in other articles. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Phenz 06:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Arbusto 06:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to salvage per the tone, and I don't see the use in a redirect (I think the term refers to a unit on bonding in a specific chemistry textbook/course). --Kinu t/c 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, nothing to salvage. We do not need this confusion in the science pages. --Bduke 11:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --
    e Ong 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom,nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, material is all in other articles, and informal style is unscientific. Abhorsen327 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Earthbound_Millennium_Series

Vanity pages for non-notable fanfiction. Pugs Malone 04:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fanfiction in general is non-notable. I'd make an exception to this guideline in truly extraordinary circumstances, but this is not one of them. A google search for "Earthbound Millennium" turned up only 7 hits. --Icarus 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I usually hate deleting articles on 'nn' grounds but fanfiction I make an exception. Kalkin 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep.

Mailer Diablo 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Brian Head Ski Resort

Non-notable ski resort OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I nominated it as I would an individual (non-famous) restuarant or hotel. However, I see now that there are quite a few ski resort articles in existence. I'm unable to find a specific policy that fits well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article I wrote about Brian Head Ski Resort in southern Utah was tagged for deletion by OhNoItsJamie about an hour ago. I find it rather unfair that he referenced Wikipedia notability criteria in his given reason for the tagging. There is no notability precedent for ski resorts or anything similar, and as far as general notability goes, I find that this resort probably passes muster, seeing as a Google search will reveal several unaffiliated webpages written about the resort.Brillemeister 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not a reference has been provided, and so none of the concerns of the deleters are dealt with. Indeed, if urbandictionary is the best external link that can be found, then we should be questioning very seriously if this is suitable for an encyclopedia. -Splashtalk 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpkin (sexual activity)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a list of slang terms. DanielCD 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I rebuttal... articles such as
    Cleveland steamer, which is also a sexual act and is also a slang term, is allowed to stay on Wikipedia. I can understand merging it with another article... but not outright deleting it. Bubby the Tour G 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge it with a master list of sexual slang terms. However, there's no reason to include a link to a video of someone's grandmother being ridiculed over her unfamiliarity with the word. 24.208.72.177 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a sub-stub. Nothing found on first pages of goggle serach FloNight talk 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User submitted terms. WP is not a collection of everything that anybody said. FloNight talk 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comment contributed 03:00, 28 March 2006 71.244.110.107 (contribs) Shenme 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article, though it is just a stub, has a right to be there. Last I checked, fellatio has its own article with no nomination for deletion. This article is just as that one, it explains something. Also, AtlasMc said above me, this website is often used as a resource for untraditional terms such as this. To delete this article would be to deprive people of said resource. Thunk 05:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Catamorphism, Dpbsmith et al. FreplySpang (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia needs encylcopedic entries, it's not a dictionary of slang
    HawkerTyphoon 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - plus has anybody noticed Nikpulb? It is not like this is an isolated instance. There is a pattern of trying to stuff this into WP. I don't think we should be so accepting. (ouch,ouch,...) Shenme 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, neologism, not urbandictionary, take your pick. Kuzaar 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look, I've been telling my girlfriend that this is "our special thing" that I invented. Wikipedia spoils it for everybody. Seriously, delete per above. Herostratus 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to keep it. Wikipedia is a prominent resource precisely because it is ecumenical, allowing both canonized intellectual entries while acting as a critical gloss on pop culture items. This has firmly entered pop culture since its explosion on ebaumsworld website, where there is a video clip of kids getting an unwitting grandmother to ask for "a lumpkin". This jest is specifically about her ignorance of vernacular, vulgar or not, and the purpose of Wikipedia should be to provide a resource with knowledge to eliminate our ignorance. This should be broad-based knowledge, whether highbrow, lowbrow, tasteful, or tasteless. This is not a case of promotiing a term of hate, discrimination, racism, or something similarly damaging. I can see the argument against Wikipedia allowing those sorts of things, as they abrogate people's fundamental rights, but this is mere squeamishness. As long as the wording of the entry is not vulgar (which it currently is not), I think it should stay. —This
    unsigned comment was added by 24.55.47.129 (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 delete.

Mailer Diablo 04:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Real Christianity

already covered in Christianity article, may be npov M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: writing makes no point I can discern. A2Kafir 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that mhunter's arguments slightly crosses wires. The question is not really whether the subject in question exists, but whether there is enough external referencing to be able to construct a viable encyclopedia article on it. -Splashtalk 17:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Geyser

Little evidence of existence or notability A2Kafir 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per Jamie. JoshuaZ 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 'Delete per Monica. JoshuaZ 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Jamie. --
    e Ong 12:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as unverifiable, with elements of patent nonsense. The Times article is real, but the article distorts it significantly; other sources show how far off target the article appears to be -- [7] [8] for example give different accounts. Bottom line -- all that's verifiable is that it was a military code phrase; just what it refers/referred to has only been fuzzily described at best, and there's no verifiable evidence that it's currently used for any purpose after its public disclosure. And "unconstitutional" because it may violate a statute? That's patent nonsense. There's probably an article to be written about the code phrase, but this article is written about a "program" that doesn't exist, according to the article's own references. Monicasdude 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as needed. The article should be rewritten to include only what is verifiable from reliable sources. In addition to the Times article, see also this article from the well-respected GlobalSecurity.org. MCB 06:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one look at the conspiracy theories category [9] could justify keeping this article, and runs counter to the need being asserted for concrete evidence of existence. Based upon the nomination criteria of little evidence for existence, we would also need to delete the UFO and Bigfoot articles. Although it would nice to see the article expanded, and due to the dearth of evidence, reclassify the article as a conspiracy theory and make it clear that the existence of the unit not certain. mhunter 08:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, Wiktionary already has an entry on this term - Liberatore(T) 16:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elucidate

transwiki to wiktionary, if needed M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki if not already there MadCow257 05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good idea, I wondered why it wasn't here but that makes snese if there's place for a dictionary... BanditBubbles 23:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Tony Mottola

copied from http://relrem.com/search/mem_detail.asp?MaccID=462 (must use google cache to view, now, however) M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). —

T
[10:22, 2 April 2006]

Culturoso

Non-notable neologism, unsourced, filled with weasel words and most of the references are to trying to prove who invented the word. Even in that case, the page would belong in Wiktionary, but since it is just bad, I don't think they would accept it. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey 'tito' I'd like to lnow what do you mean with 'weasel words' and 'unsourced'. I already posted the RAE and blog links who prove that the word exists, and since racial slurs are also 'weasel words', they should be deleted too, isn't? Please do explain yourself or retire this article from deletion. It hurts no one, it can be improved, that's true and maybe you, in a gesture of greatness and sportmanship could help. Thanks in advance. Batianismo 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can read our article on Weasel words to see what I mean. Also, if the word exists, that doesn't make it qualify for an article, per se. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Thanks! Tito(UTC)xd(?!? help us) 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to see that you're so hell-bent on erasing this word because of personal reasons. I disagree with the weasel word accusation and would suggest future voters, if any, to disregard your accusations and your personal vendetta against us who uploaded and intend to improve this article. Thanks in advance.Batianismo 04:19, 28 March 2006
  • Weak transwiki to Wiktionary or delete. The Spanish version is up for deletion as well. This gets plenty of google hits, but Wikipedia (English and Spanish) and Wikcionario are all in the top ten results (not a good sign!) Doesn't seem that verifiable, and article is far more appropriate for wiktionary anyway.
    masterka 06:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as per nom. And, "In the beggining, its ethimology was despective"? ¿Qué? —This
    unsigned comment was added by MCB (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply
    ]

Here we go again. The term is non-intrusive, accepted by the RAE and is listed 20, 000 times in the google.com.mx search engine.

If wiki articles exist for articles ranging from Cartoons to Japanese Anime Costumes, why can't this one exist? Seriously.

Why are you so hell-bent on deleting this article? Mods, this is a personal vendetta carried from Wikipedia.es, please don't delete this article. Thanks.

Batianismo 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it was me who posted the stuff above. Before the intolerant fella up there starts complaining. Thanks.

Mods, please remove the deletion warning. Improve the article, don't delete it. The reasons have been listed above and this is only a personal vendetta of sorts because some people feel uncomfortable with the word 'culturoso'. If wiki articles on racial slurs exist, this one should be able to exist, as an endemic word of sorts, at the very least. Thanks in advance. Batianismo 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, you're implying that we're comfortable with racial slurs but not comfortable with "culturoso", and that's the only reason they're on here? I searched the RAE website and couldn't find anything on this term. Upon further review, though, I'll change my vote to weak keep, because there is a lot of relevant context that I missed. But that kind of accusation doesn't help things.
    masterka 07:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not implying anything. I'm very sad that the librarians in Wiki.es couldn't act professionally and erased the article (and called 'vandals' all the people who even dared to send the article to consideration) due to personal reasons.

I saw that they also erased the word 'joto', who's a mexican and latinamerican slur for gay people because some person felt uncomfortable with the word. The world knows that I feel uncomfortable being called a beaner or a wetback, but that doesn't mean the word shouldn't be listed there, if all, as a warning notice of intolerance of sorts.

Regarding you not finding the word 'culturoso' in the RAE, I'm sorry and I don't mean this in any disrespectful way, but I did a search in the following adress [10] and found this "culturoso, sa. 

1. adj. despect. coloq. Arg., Cuba y Ven. Que aparenta tener alta formación cultural."

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact you're not a native spanish speaker, but the word exists and it's out there and its relevant in Northern Mexico and Southern California, at least.

As for the word popping up in google.com.mx and the 3rd result being the wiki.es article, I read something in that discussion regarding how they were going to link that article (the mods, I mean) so it would be considered for deletion on other wikis. Is that fair? Or a personal vendetta?

I leave that to your consideration.

Improve, don't delete.

I'd like to cast a vote to keep and improve this article, thank you.

Batianismo 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a valuable article and I personally will see that the article is improved. Thanks in advance.Batianismo 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:V); one source is not direct, one is a blog, and one uses the word exactly once in I don't know what context. Sandstein 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh, and
WP:AGF. Sandstein 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 content; no consensus about merge or keep separated. - Liberatore(T) 15:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dachau Blues

Does not meet notability criteria for songs, although it is on a notable album. Pugs Malone 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Trout Mask Replica, a very notable album. I agree that it doesn't meet the song criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. TMR deserves this kind of analysis as a whole; song forks by themselves aren't notable. ProhibitOnions 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Non-trivial song by notable artist/songwriter. I'm curious as to what people are citing as the notability criteria for songs, since the discussions at the relevant Wikiprojects pretty consistently report no consensus on the point, and there are hundreds if not thousands of song articles already with notability asserted under the standard I cite. Monicasdude 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for context. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. -- JJay 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Interestingstuffadder 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. It clearly needs hammering by those observing the massive problems with it (who don't yet seem to have acted on those concerns) and a possible move. -Splashtalk 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val Valentino

Since there is no way to prove "officially" (1) whether or not the Masked Magician ever changed his name to Val Valentino, this page should be deleted.

I would recommend restarting the Masked Magician page as opposed to creating a Leonard Monatono page, because the "magic community" only speculated that Lenny was the culprit -- they never had firm proof.

~)~

1) There is no way to prove this on the Internet, even through the background check sites. (2) I believe that such a verification must be done at the Los Angeles County Clerk's Office, but I also believe that the investigator would have to prove that sh/e is related to the subject that s/he is investigating. Therefore, none of us can ever verify the name change and the page stands for deletion.

1A) However, if the Masked Magician did change his name, odds are that his birth certificate was sealed, so no one could prove that the change did or did not occur, even if they were related.

2) Intelius, at least, says that there are no records for a "Leonard Monatono" (in whatever fashion you would want to spell it and using a wild card) anywhere in the United States. However, a complete background check for Val Valentino of Las Vegas, Nevada (where the Masked Magician is purported to be living) does not reveal whether or not a name change occurred, ever.

Daya 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to suggest an article for deletion simply because there is one unverifiable source. The rest of the page concerning his life is well-written. Why remove an entire article simply because a name change can not be proven? There is no way to prove that there was or wasn't a name change. Why not just add something to the effect of "Valentino may have changed his name" rather than state, as a matter of fact, "he DID change his name?" It would be much simpler, and the NPOV tag that you disagree with so much would not have to be added. Jogabbeyjr 06:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Jogabbeyjr; assuming arguendo that the subject is notable and that the article is generally sourced, deletion does not seem at all appropriate where the content to which an editor objects (as unsourced) can be changed readily and without respect to 95 per cent of the article. Joe 06:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I wrote the article and I can honestly state that I cannot provide sources for 99% of the information I put in there. I've read too much about him in the last nine years to even begin to guess who wrote what. And even if I could, I doubt half of it could even be entered on a sworn affadavit! (And it does say right on the bottom of every editing box, content must be verifiable!) Daya 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things on that note: 1) Yes, there's an official website, but the bio there is full of pompous, unverifiable B.S., so it's useless to our cause. 2) Am I the only user here who has used "may" in an article before and been chastised for printing speculation? The "may" solution is easy, but are you going to stand by and defend its usage when some other well-meaning editor comes by and deletes it because they feel it's "speculation"? Daya 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OMG, why are you going to delete a page because "There is no official proof?" GEEZE. Go look on any other Masked Magician sites, and it says it's Val. omg, whoever wants to delete this page obviously has too much time on his hands, and obviously has nothing better to do. You must have something against this owner, because that is RIDICULOUS. Who do u think you are? Some perfectionist? Jesus. Just keep the freaking page. It's RIGHT. If you honestly don't think it is, then you need to watch Live with Regis and KElly WHERE HE ACTUALLY SAID HIS NAME WAS VAL. omg, so you're not going to TAKE THE OWN GUYS WORD? UGH.--Kjf512 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB: This is user's fifth edit.
    Talk) 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep If you dont like the page, then boldly edit it. Obina 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to
    Masked Magician or something to avoid the whole name thing or merge with the show's article. kotepho 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep with possible move to Valentino (magician). During the Masked Magician's pre-mask days, he performed as Valentino (not using a first name), so if he had warranted a Wikipedia article then, it would most likely have been called Valentino (magician). And in his final television special, he removed the mask and identified himself as Valentino. His birth name and/or current full legal name should be included in the article, but I don't see what they have to do with whether the article should exist or what its main title should be. --Metropolitan90 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with Valentino (magician) also. kotepho 02:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daya plays catch-up

  • KJF512 is actually on my side, but he was confused on who wanted the delete. :>
  • The page appears to be a copy-and-paste from IMDb because I wrote both biographies, but with just a little change. I also wrote the bio on TV.com, but it appears completely different because it's quite subjective and rather early. (I wrote TV first, then made it objective for IMDb. Later, I wrote the one for Wiki afresh and have tried -- vainly -- to get IMDb and TV to change.)
  • The inability to prove what precisely his name is is half the deletion question. (The other being that I cannot cite 99% of the information I put into this article, rendering it unverifiable.)
  • I am in favor of resurrecting the Masked Magician page and tossing this one. (It was dumped in favor of this one by request of User:Dbenbenn in February.) Do we all agree that this is a good idea? (Maybe post "yes" or "keep: change to Masked Magician" so the answer is easy to find.)

Thanks! Daya 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • snip new vote that wasn't a new vote on the name.. or something I don't even know
  • Comment: This "new vote" makes no sense. The votes are clear above, and do not need refactoring. Four of the five users listed above as "Position Unclear" explicitly voted keep; the fifth (
    criteria for deletion and the AfD process. I would suggest that this be speedily closed (as keep, or at least no consensus), and the issues about sourcing, the name change, the article title, etc., be taken up on the article's talk page, and not here on AfD. MCB 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have not done this replacement as attributing her comments to a user that does not exist is just weird. kotepho 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment the refactored discussion was confusing and comments and votes were missing, I have done my best to undo it. Someone please doublecheck. kotepho 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with those who have said any unverifiable parts ought to be removed. If, as DRyelle repeatedly claims, 99% is unverifiable, the article should be taken back to a stub and rebuilt from there. But there is simply no reason to delete the entire article
    Talk) 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Black Dawn (Band)

Does not meet

WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Note that Allmusic.com mentions two bands that have used the name "Black Dawn," neither of which is this band. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Attack on someone called Gary. -- RHaworth 06:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garian Silverback Rat

Page is a hoax and contains no factually accurate information.

Cricetomys gambianus. Cricetomys garianus Ricketts, 1927 does not exist in any text listing all rodent species such as Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (2005), Walker's Mammals of the World (Novak, 1999), or Duff and Lawson's Mammals of the World: A Checklist (2005). All references listed are fictional; urls link to nonsense. I could continue with this list and will if needed. Aranae 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, blanked by author. — Mar. 25, '06 [08:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Not. Same author seems to have recreated. I guess it's business as usual. — Mar. 25, '06 [09:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Toronto poker

Spammer has been placed his web URL in place of official site links for Daniel Negreanu and Evelyn Ng, as well as spamming his URL to poker and online poker articles. This entry is ridiculous and should get a speedy delete. I removed the spam URLs already. 2005 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Toronto poker network to this AfD. --Kinu t/c 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adspam; for a site with supposedly "over 45,000 members at between 5000-10,000 members online at all times" an Alexa of 3,525,333 is pretty bad.
    WP:WEB applies. Also extend deletion to Toronto poker network, currently on PROD, but should be added to this AfD if contested. --Kinu t/c 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom and as, irrespective of the advertising, non-notable per
    WP:CORP in any case. Joe 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Aside from the fact that this was an ad, there's no indication that poker in Toronto is particularly noteworthy. Rhobite 06:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable in its current form. KBi 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For now. My vote is biased because I'm a poker player, but I don't think the user has an affiliation with the site. Poker, more specifically no limit texas hold'em, is a big thing right now and while there are a plethorea of poker websites, people are going to be coming here for info. It's an ad, yes, but there are worse things out there. I like finding a new poker site, as I told 1knowitall on their talk page. A chance, I say. TKE 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC) strikeout added by MSchmahl, per later comments by TKE[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think I get a vote, since I added the site, however I am new to adding information to Wikipedia. I only added it because I searched for Toronto Poker and Toronto Poker Network and neither came up. I have no affiliation with the site, however I have over 300 people in my buddy list and that is just my friends, from Toronto. A large percentage of the players (75%+) are from Toronto or somewhere nearby, and I thought it would be very informative to people who search it just like I did. It was my mistake to add the url to other places, but I wasn't sure what I was doing until I read all the information on how to do this properly, and I take the blame for that. 1knowitall
  • I don't know how to do the cross out, but I change to delete. I've been communicating with the user and advised about recreation, but ah well. TKE 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do vote to delete the Toronto Poker Network, as that's just personal. TKE 07:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you just say that you voted to keep because you like finding new poker sites? 1knowitall 07:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but simultanious articles are not neccessary. Additionally, I got lost in the web of revisions. Can the expanded article not stand for the RfD? TKE 07:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the expanded article (which I just added some more to) is much more informative that the one for Toronto Poker which has basically completely been removed. I think Toronto Poker Network is now much more informative. It's up to all of you guys though. 1knowitall 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfD is Recommendation for Deletion, this here. I see a speedy or at least deletion for both articles coming up. If you'd like to rewrite the article under one name and make it
    WP:NPOV, you can use my sandbox to start from scratch, and I will help. TKE 07:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Ok lets work on this, hopefully I'll be an expert by the end of the night.
  • I'm sorry, like I said I'm new. What does using the sandbox help me with exactly? I'm willing to try though, so let me know.
  • Delete - non notable -- Tawker 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Only 51 google hits! --Icarus 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. At times like this I wish there were something inbetween speedy and AFD. — ciphergoth 10:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per 2005's nom. Essexmutant 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine guys, go ahead and delete. Maybe I'll get some more useful criticism on my next article.

I'm not sure how many google hits makes something notable, etc etc. But hopefully I'll find out eventually. 1knowitall 09:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Toronto poker and Toronto poker network should get a speedy delete for lack of notability, amazingly endless vandalism and dishonesty. This site is not an online poker cardroom, but rather just an affiliate doorway to a cardroom. There is no there there. Please delete and lock pages so the spam article can not be recreated. 2005 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion of the article right now. I disagree with the idea of locking it for the future. The communication from the user on my Talk page shows good faith by the user that it's not blatant spam. I've been perusing the site, and it's as legit as any other gaming website. The user also admits that this is the first time doing anything with Wikipedia, and perhaps they didn't pick the right topic and their revisions weren't vandalism as much as confusion. I pointed out on their talk page about what is drawing the RfD; it's notability is second to the rapid changes to the article, which quickly became mush. I dunno, I've done my share of speedy, prods and RfDs (though I'm new in the game), and I think the the article could stand with collaboration. It's now in my sandbox for future work to get it up to par. If anyone can help or criticize let me know because this user has shown great civility for their first contribution going to delete, so I'd like to help them if possible. TKE 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is blatant spam, and the user is blatant vandal and spammer. Saying he is editing in good faith is outrageous. He has created duplicate articles; blanked and removed afd tags; replaced links to official sites for personalities to his garbage site; created duplicate articles with the same spam garbage; and then most obviously, the site being promoted is not "legit as any other gaming site". That is absurd. There is no "gaming site". It's just an affiliate doorway to Island Poker. Enough time has been wasted on this blatant and dishonest vandal spamming. The user should be blocked and these idiotic articles never allowed to return. 2005 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, what are the payouts on those? :) TKE 08:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by

Marudubshinki. -- JLaTondre 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wyvern920

Non-notable website. Vanity article by User:Wyvern920 (and sock puppet Nojkceb). Alexa has no traffic data for it. -- RHaworth 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth, I have been involved in some of the editing of Wyvern920.com so I am indeed connected with the site. However, I do not see this entry as shameless self-promotion. As we try to grow Wyvern920 into a more widely read news-humor blog I think a wiki description and history are acceptable. I do see your point that the article might appear as a mere vanity article, but since a rather small number of people know the complete, detailed history of the site, I think it is appropriate that we do the writing. Any suggestions as to improve the entry would be appreciated. --Nojkceb 07:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JQ 06:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and unencyclopedic. Bucketsofg 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Basic rule of thumb: if you need to create the article about yourself/your company/your website/etc. yourself, it's not notable. Nojkceb said it all with "As we try to grow Wyvern920 into a more widely read news-humor blog..." If it becomes notable in the future, then those who know the history can fill in the blanks. Until then, no dice. --Icarus 10:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable.--rhmoore 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --
    e Ong 12:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, doesn't meet
    WP:WEB; if only a few people know the complete, detailed history of the site to write a detailed article about it, then it's probably not notable. --Kinu t/c 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

According to the rules of

WP:WEB, this site is not-notable, so we will remove it. It doesn't seem like it's causing any harm to have a page history exist for the site but if rules prohibit that then we'll procede according to those. --Nojkceb 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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


This article was speedily deleted by Neutrality. There was no deletion summary. —Encephalon 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C-Flow

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celer Mortis

Apparently a personal D&D character, {{

prod}} failed, CSD does not(?) quite apply as it's a fictional person. Delete -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete I think the name is supposed to be Latin for quick death but that should be "Celer Mors" or "Mors Celer." So its a non-notable fictional character with an incorrect name. JoshuaZ 07:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my PROD: "Weak search results. Gamecruft; likely fan fiction character." --Kinu t/c 07:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor of the article has made an unsigned comment on the talk page of "Don't Delete it". JoshuaZ 07:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've welcomed him on his talk page and requested that he make his comment to this page instead. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 07:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and substandard Latinity per JoshuZ) Bucketsofg 08:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 10:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I can understand why you would want to delete this page, as it may seem pointless. Yet there is no harm in having it up, it is just a character that our D&D community has built, and we would like to let other people take a look. It has a decent amount of writing, and there doesn't seem to be a major reason to delete it, although it does seem pointless to you. -Sniper28
  • Question Also, I wanted to know how to make the second part of celer's physical description to be not italicized, and if that can't be done I wanted to know how to make the entire thing italicized. The word document I copied and pasted wasn't italicized, and I can't find the italics code in the article either. Please help me. -Sniper28
    • Comment The main reason to delete it is that
      Wikipedia is not a free webhost. I've fixed the italics issue for you (assuming I understood what you wanted fixed). You might want to see the links I left on your talk page which have editing help. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comment: Hey, suppose this is gamecruft? I believe the purpose of Wiki is a free encyclopedia. This is a referance to a very popular character in a fairly large DnD community.—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 68.82.176.29 (talk • contribs
) 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Question Can any of you fix th format of the backstory? A box with a link to this deletion discussion covers up the bottom part of the story.
  • Keep it This is a popular character, My friends consistantly use this page as a referance for a character. This is not being used as free webhosting, just a referance, which is what encyclopedias are designed to do. In any case, I am in favor of this site being kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Jakob holder

Vanity article. Pugs Malone 07:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's worth noting that some people have been persuaded to this view as well, somewhat unusually for such debates. -Splashtalk 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter-Strike

As much as I like machinima, this one is non notable (it hasn't won awards like RVB, or attracted a spinoff following like Strangerhood)

Fire! 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep per being featured in a major magazine-PC Format. JoshuaZ 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. As an editor, it seems to me that Jagex is the better target, but that's not up to this AfD as such. -Splashtalk 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gower

Incomplete nomination by 63.226.38.196. See the rationale at Talk:Paul Gower. This article was nomninated before, the discussion is here - Ezeu 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Jamiat Islami. I'm not qualified to execute the merge, so I'll encourage those supporting that option here to do so instead. -Splashtalk 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiat-e Islami

Unsourced POV. Delete. (Note that I reverted the last edit which might or might not be less POV-ish, because it appeared to be vandalism.) --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, could not confirm any fact. --Soumyasch 08:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Lexis-nexis confirms that Jamiat-e Islami is indeed a mujahideen faction in Afghanistan and is thus surely wiki-worthy. The current article is practically worthless, admittedly. But that doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. Bucketsofg 08:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I've deleted POV stuff, rewritten it to a one-liner, and stubified it. I think it is keepable now and hopefully someone who knows something can add more. Bucketsofg 08:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseketpolo

not notable, not verifiable, likely invention or vanity Shenme 08:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see notes below (added later). The only google hits are pages directly copied from Wikipedia (a known problem searching google) Shenme 08:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hoax/prank. Some of the rules: "Players must wear bathing suits. No tops are allowed, however." "Goggles may not be worn. But you can wear googles." and "Sunglasses may only be worn when it is sunny." Bucketsofg 08:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What drew my attention to this article was the word 'poop', present in the original article in the rule
3.02 No player shall intentionally discolor or damage the ball by rubbing it with soil, rosin, paraffin, licorice, sand-paper, emery-paper, poop, nitrogen, semen, billycones, or any other foreign substance.
Further examination brought up 'creative' phrases such as "a combination of water polo and standing", "... under jurisdiction of two or less referees.", "di-hydrogen monoxide", "2.14 ROAMING DOG RULE: ...", "Technicalities: 6.01 No clones allowed.", and a few others.
Following the external link to the "official site" finds a sort of blog, in reverse chronological order, at the top of which is "March 18, 2004: Site is closed.", and contains some number of notes about trying to get games together among a small number of people, but much else about completely divergent interests.
I can find no mentions of Baseketpolo in Google, other than those pages directly copied from Wikipedia. I can find numerous mentions of Basketpolo on pages for vacation destinations (none for Wisconsin, however), but no definitions of what that is.
User:Sweaty414 has since contributed to a small number of Wisconsin baseball articles, following the single day during which he created this article.
So after some investigation it appears to me this is purely a local invention, perhaps with a few attempts at implementation (note mentions of 2001, 2002, and 2005), but which has no known verifiable references and is otherwise not notable. Shenme 08:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! It bothered me somewhat, worrying that we might be losing a bit of our culture by deleting the article. However, pointing this out reassures me that the 'culture' will be preserved forever in its original form. :) (It also explains the timing of the 'invention') Shenme 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Lynn

I originally prodded this as Very little of this seems verifiable from independent sources. The cited site is basically advertising his services.. It has been cleaned up substantially since then and the prod tag removed but verifiability and notability remain issues.

I vote to keep, he is referenced pretty clearly om web and in print media.

  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Necrothesp 20:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ProhibitOnions 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems quite a lot of people are aware of this person. JeffBurdges 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, collectively notable. -Sean Curtin 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I think this person's media mentions are more along the lines of "guy involved in a news story" rather than any personal notability. MCB 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukás of Bulgaria

nn child "prince" of a monarchy abolished 60 years ago Gene Nygaard 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Gene Nygaard 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These royal families are in themselves notable. In the case of Bulgaria, all the more so since Simeon returned to the country to be prime minister. Unless it is being alleged that Lukas is a hoax, this is a clear keep. Bucketsofg 09:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So do an article about the "notable family"—that doesn't make everybody with a remote connection to it notable. It's pretty ridiculous to require published college professors and scientists to stand out from the crowd, yet some kid who never did anything who calls himself a "prince" because some distant ancestor was a tsar, when his father (and maybe even grandfather or further back) came after the monarchy was abolished. Gene Nygaard 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add a vote (already nominated and voted for Lukás) to delete those three fake "princes" or "princesses" of this make-believe monarchy for the same reason. Gene Nygaard 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we're going to delete all articles on all former royals. Jcuk 10:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who wasn't born until half a century after the monarchy ended is not a "former royal". 66.97.254.212 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Gene Nygaard, not logged in.[reply]
ok then members of formerly royal families, if you must be pedantic. Jcuk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many normal, non-notable people have royalty in their ancestry if you go back far enough. Where would we draw the line? The most sensible thing to do is to only include individuals who were part of the royal family at the point in time during which the family was, in fact, royal. --Icarus 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or preferably Merge into one article about the family. Former royals would mostly be notable but the second son of the third son is probably stretching it a bit far. Davewild 12:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretenders to thrones/titles at least have verifiable claims to the titles they aspire, as opposed to the self-generated (really vanity) sources for the micronations Wikipedia treats as notable. Certainly more notable than all those those hereditary British peers who have listings, notable mostly for inbreeding and the human rights abuses their 16th century ancestors committed. Monicasdude 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So would we consider all "citizens" of a micronation, including infants, to thus be notable if we have an article about that micronation? I certainly hope not. Gene Nygaard 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What possible good would any redirects do? Even their best friends and their schoolteachers would likely give you a blank stare if you referred to them under the names with which they appear here on Wikipedia, wouldn't they? Kubrat isn't notable either; even he was born more than two decades after the monarchy ended, and only the third son of the still-living former boy king, and doesn't go by the name under which he is listed here. Gene Nygaard 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that
    Royal Descent article mentioned by Gruban: "Roderick W. Stuart says in his book Royalty for Commoners (3rd edition 1998) that the American descendants of Edward III "number in the millions"." Gene Nygaard 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't think he was referring to throne as the physical item of furniture, but rather to the occupation. There still is such a position as King/Queen of Great Britain, etc., whereas there no longer is such a position as King/Queen of Bulgaria. Do we have an article on the current King of France? GRuban 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Should Lukas publish 6 books and file a lawsuit to claim his throne, I would support his notability. Or if a movement backing his rights to the throne becomes notable. Until then, let's give the 8 year old a bit of privacy. GRuban 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt his privacy would be affected much, because I doubt that anybody knows him by the name under which his article appears—and there's not much of anything about him in any case. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's setting the bar way too high for me. As for his privacy, well, he may not have chosen to be born a prince, but it's a cross he will have to bear for the rest of his life. Since we are a reference work, I don't think we should be leaving people out because of privacy concerns.-- JJay 19:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point Gene Nygaard was making regarding Edward III's descendants was that merely being one does not make a single one of those millions of people notable. If they have articles here, it's because they're notable for something else. Also, regarding GRuban's point, I agree—to a point. I agree that Lukas et al have to do something notable before they merit inclusion, though I agree with JJay that it doesn't have to be six books and a lawsuit just because that's what Henri did. Finally, regarding the boy having been born a prince—no he wasn't, he was born the grandson of someone who was a Tsar decades upon decades ago. If he's notable as a "prince", then where do we draw the line to prevent millions of Edward III's descendants from making vanity articles? --Icarus 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly—that is my point. I don't know whether I am descended from Edward III, but maybe I should start working on the tens of thousands of descendants of his ancestors who were monarchs in various still-existing monarchies (as well as various no-longer-existing ones such as Kiev and Italy) which I do have in my genealogy database, if that makes us all notable. I should even get to count kings of Castile or kings of Essex or whatever, since Spain and the UK are still monarchies, don't I? Gene Nygaard 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable; notability is not inherited like his crown. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those Bulgarian pseudo-nobles per Carlos; once the monarchy is abolished, descendants must be notable on their own. Otherwise, are we going to have articles on every one of the
    some million descendants of Genghis Khan? Sandstein 08:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED. -Splashtalk 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch of Jamaica

Due to the debate below, I deleted the articles I created today and replaced them with a redirect to

Wilfried (talk 11:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Duplicates info already contained in the article Jamaica

  • Delete. Hard to see how it can ever be more than a stub without duplicating info elsewhere; if there is anything unique, then merge into Jamaica. --BrownHairedGirl 09:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also nominating
    Monarch of Saint Lucia. Also, delete both (merging any necessary info first). This user created quite a number of similar articles. Should I list them all here? My vote for all of them is to merge (if necessary) and delete. After considering Electionworld's reason for creating these articles, I change my vote to redirect any that do not have enough unique information to merit their own article, and keep any that do. I'm going to abstain from voting on where they should redirect to. --Icarus 09:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete both articles as per BrownHairedGirl.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(T) 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSBI Forums

Delete. Author contested {{

WP:WEB Vslashg (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Arabic Infidals

nn, not enough context given to expand upon Icarus 09:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassini's Division

Fails

WP:BAND — ciphergoth
09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By page author - according to

WP:MUSIC
guidelines -

  • The Government of India (Ministry of Trade Affairs) using an alt-rock band to reach out to the junta with its policies and public awareness campaigns! Not notable?
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. See article written by Indrajit Hazra, Asst. Editor - Hindustan Times. [18]
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene. [19]
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. [20]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/redirect. W.marsh 03:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch of the Cook Islands

Delete. Can never be more than a stub article unless it duplicates info from other articles, such as

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom -- BrownHairedGirl 09:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

See the debate at
Wilfried (talk 09:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 02:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch of Barbados

Delete. Can never be more than a stub article unless it duplicates info from other articles, such as

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom -- BrownHairedGirl 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

South Wales hardcore

Constant vandalism, and the "hardcore scene" is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article on the subject. 90% of the information is either irrelevant or just flat out wrong. John.. 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Niz 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's evidence of a scene, but just
    WP:CHILL until we have an answer on the notability question. Deizio 01:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't know - Is that a valid vote - I'm from South Wales, and well, bless us, there ain't a whole lot here. To delete it for not being there would be wrong, because, well there is lots of evidence; however I understand John's concerns about vandalism. It is an encyclopedia article on something that is changing constantly - bars / pubs open and close all the time. It has produced some notable music acts that are referenced in Wikipedia. I don't know what we should do - I'd like to keep it but maybe it's just not worth it. --Luccent 10:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Khrulez

Delete. Non-notable site, not to mention that the article is essentially an enormous walkthrough. CharacterZero 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. --Soumyasch 10:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also may by copy vio as it looks copied from here guide. Obina 10:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 218 google hits. maybe a {{db-content}}? Where (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, also this part: "this is part of the stratagy guide© DO NOT STEAL" is a blatant GFDL violation. JIP | Talk 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,
    WP:NOT a guide to GO GO GET TEH POWERUP AND WIN!!!111!!ELEVEN! --Kinu t/c 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 10:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bridie Goldstein

she does not appear to be notable enough to include on Wikipedia. --Cab88 10:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's an interesting historical footnote but Wiki is not a genealogical database. Dlyons493 Talk 12:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps the charity named after her is notable, but she is not Where (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an answer to "who is this?" for anyone coming across or participating in the annual Bridie Goldstein Run for Children [21]. Isn't an encyclopedia where someone should be able to turn with a question like that? I've deleted the genealogical info and personal notes and moved the charity run note to the top. Thanks, Bgcambridge 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable... The charity itself does not even seem to warrant a page on wikipedia. Opblaaskrokodil 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. Seems like a really nice lady, but still nn. Mikker ... 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've gone ahead and made a page for the charity run [22] that includes a short version of this without the genealogical info, personal notes, and streamlining some biographical info from the original. Bgcambridge 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was request for translation pending, AfD premature. W.marsh 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Healing Church

  • Delete, as it does not belong in English Wikipedia Soumyasch 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki into the appropriate foreign language wikipedia (Russian?) Where (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki at least, though tending towards overall Delete nn, vanity. Ukranian btw Bridesmill 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translate and bring back to AfD then if you must. Jcuk 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. By

WNBA, which I am redirecting to. If and when the article about the radio station is written, its notability can be discussed. - Liberatore(T) 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WNBA (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page seems to have been created as a response to User:66.245.68.185 and User:66.32.145.143, who appeared on 2004-06-13 each appeared for about one day in 2004, said that there was a "WNBA-AM" in Illinois, and then promptly disappeared forever - see Special:Contributions/66.245.68.185 and Special:Contributions/66.32.145.143. So, for the record - there are only two other uses of "WNBA" that even come up on the radar:

  • 1440 WNBA (AM) Forest Park, Illinois was listed as a 200 watt station licenced to a Michael T. Rafferty in the Federal Radio Commission station lists in 1927 [23] and 1928 [24]. It did not exist in 1926 [25] or 1930 [26]. Note that the vast majority of callsigns back then were issued in sequential order starting with WxAx and then WxBx; i.e. the WNBA callsign was most likely just the license issued between WMBZ and WNBB, which probably could have included Pacific ships or Atlantic ship-to-shore stations at that time. In short: WNBA (AM) only existed in the late 1920s for 3 years at most, was of no particular notability, and will probably never have or need a Wikipedia article.
  • If you do a Google search for WNBA -basketball -NBA the only other subject to come up in the first few pages is the Women's National Book Association.

--Closeapple 11:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obviously, WNBA is a valid search term for either of the above. Jcuk 00:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as

WP:CSD A3 (lack of content) - Liberatore(T) 15:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Voipbuster

Delete. If you look at the history, people have whittled out all the obvious ad language, and now it is this worthless, pathetic stub. CharacterZero 11:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It is pretty obvious that nearly all those in the debate are simply making a recommendation in line with their personal POVs. That's not useful for determining the fate of an article. -Splashtalk 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatian Kristallnacht

No Google results for the article's name, which appears to be the editor's

POV to boot. Propose either deletion or merging with Zadar. ChrisO 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom Niz 15:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I think. The only usage I could find for anything resempling Zadar Kristallnacht is a fully English translation (Crystal Night in Zadar), and both uses are from the same source -- Slobodan Milosevic testifying and also questioning a witness at his trial. So it's not OR -- but we don't have enough material here for an article solely about this event. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this in itself was significant in the course of recent Balkan history, and not enough sources to ensure NPOV on such a potentally partisan issue as this. Merge any neutral info to parent at will. Deizio 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have moved the article to Dalmatian kristallnacht, as it is better known. Also, gives google hits. Purqer 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep There ARE google hits for 'Dalmatian Kristallnacht'. There is not much evidence in English media, but the event is well known in Serbo-Croatian media. Look at the testimony at ICTY with link provided. Purqer 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you enter 'kristalna noc zadar' into google (it is also called 'dalmatinska kristalna noc' etc.) you get plenty of hits. Enter "Dalmatian Kristallnacht” - plenty of hits. And just because there are no sources in english media it is not a reason to exclude it. if there are no sources online in english, other languages will do too, as per wiki policies, though there is an ICTY testimony in english at least. Purqer 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, 'Nezavisne novine' published this

BEC

Promocija knjige o dogadjajima na prostorima bivse SFRJ

Ambasador SRJ u Becu Mihajlo Kovac ocenio je sinoc da je objavljivanje knjige "Putovanje u zemlju ratova - dozivljaj stranca u Jugoslaviji" znacajno jer je oznacilo "razbijanje crno-belog" klisea o dobrim i losim narodima, agresorima i zrtvama. Prilikom prezentacije knjige, austrijskog autora Kurta Keprunera, Kovac je kazao da knjiga daje razlog "da se ne nadje mir u snovima". Jugoslovenski ambasador je dodao da mnogi Austrijanci sada verovatno nece prihvatiti takvu knjigu, ali da ce Austrija u buducnosti biti zahvalna ljudima poput Keprunera. Predsednik Austrijsko-jugoslovensko drustvo (AJD), koje je organizovalo promociju knjige, Peter DJokic predstavio je njenog autora koji poslednjih 12 godina zivi u Nemackoj i koji je delo napisao inspirisan licnim poznanstvima i iskustvima na prostoru bivse Jugoslavije. Kepruner je kazao da je u bivsu Jugoslaviju dosao pre 10 godina i da su ga dogadjaji u toj zemlji inspirisali da u jednoj knjizi ovekoveci svoja vidjenja cetiri rata. Kepruner je, izmedju ostalog, podsetio na "brutalne primere" medijskih manipulacija sredstava javnog informisanja u Austriji i Nemackoj. On je naveo primer kada je grupa hrvatskih fanatika, potpomognuta policijom, 2. maja 1991. godine u Zadru izvela pogrom, poznat kao "Dalmatinska kristalna noc" kada je demolirano i opljackano 116 srpskih lokala. Taj dogadjaj zapadni mediji su precutali iako je Jugoslavija bila u sredistu zbivanja, istakao je Kepruner. On je, navodeci i druge primere medijske manipulacije, kritikovao zapadnu stampu zbog iskrivljene slike o uzrocima i akterima krize u bivsoj Jugoslaviji. Kepruner je, takodje, ocenio da ne bi bilo pravedno svu krivicu pripisati stranim sredstvima javnog informisanja i zapadnim politicarima, jer deo odgovornosti snose i lokalni akteri.

In short, it is a news in which ambasador of SRY in Vienna talks on promotion of a book of Kurt Kepruner, in which it is explained that events such as Dalmatinska kristalna noc were not promoted in western media, and in fact it is referred by Kepruner as a "brutal example" of media manipulation in Austria and Germany (i.e. the selective presentation of information). So, it is no surprise you cant find any reference to this event in western media. This book, I think, can also be quoted as a source - I will find more details. The sources DO NOT HAVE TO BE ONLINE (and this book is not online). Purqer 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information in this article. The date - 2nd of May. The number of cafes blown up - 116 (this is more precise than 350 cafes, shops and houses quoted by witness at ICTY) Purqer 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Info about the book [27] Purqer 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dalmatian Kristallnacht gives plenty of hits at google.
Uh, six to be precise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Purqer has been idefinitely blocked. Apparently there are too many accounts such as User:Purger and User:Purrger which all share predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - I'm shocked that someone would want to delete this article. Although, I do have a problem with the name of the article, it should be called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht", that is the more correct term of what happened. Also, the incident is probably not as important as other incidents that lead to the Balkan wars, but it certainly deserves an article. Secondly, there ARE Google results, but just as Purqer said, the info doesn't have to be online in order for the article to exsist. I suggest to all people who's best argument is "No Google results" - read more books, and spend less time in front of the computer. It's also bad for your eyes... --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion, change the name of the article to "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title already. Purqer 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP: one of the evidence for the current happening in Croatia. In 1991. in just one night in Zadar (Croatia) 116 Serbian owned shops were demolished. Prelude to ethnic cleansing, in which more than 400 000 Serbs were deliberately expelled from Croatia. --Manojlo 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong KEEP: You can delete this article, but you can't delete history!!!!!!!!
  • Strong KEEP --
    Jovanvb 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge: the ONLY official proof that supports the existance of such an event is in the transcript that was provided with the article, in the form of testimony and verbal exchange between the witness (who overheard it, and not seen it with his own eyes) of the account and Mr. Miloshevic during ICTY trial. Even though the event is sad, it was talked about in only 4 lines of the transcript, which could suggest the importance of the event, even to the Serb side. Damage to anyone's and everyone's property was widespread during the war, with cities being razored to the ground, so I don't know why this particular event should stand out..

Svetlana Miljkovic 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, whatever's better. Bottom line - it needs to be kept for it is a valid happening. --Filip (§) 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, First keep then start a vote for merging --Milan Tešovic 13:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but provide some more information. In case that there is no more info on this event, then merge with Homeland war in Croatia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (merge) and rename. Why a German name, it's too POV to connect the happening to the holocaust.--
    TheFEARgod 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Noone is connecting it with the Holocaust, it's just a name. You can't change Kristallnacht, because it SOUNDS like something to do with the Holocaust. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a Holocaust reference. There is no other context for the term Kristallnacht other than the pogrom of November 9, 1938. There's no reason Milosevic would have used this term other than to make a sidelong reference to Croatia's fascist interlude during WWII. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, too bad. What do you propose we do? I suggest changing it to "Dalmatian attempt of ethnic cleansing" or maybe something more simple that has the same meaning. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, determine if the event is worthy of an article in itself (as opposed to a being just one of a zillion atrocities committed by all sides in the former Yugoslavia during that period); determine what it is called by other people than Milosevic; and get independent verification of the events described. Are there any neutral (neither Serb nor Croat) descriptions of the incident? "Well, too bad" indeed. (I do note that the that translation sourced from the Free Republic mentions the event, and footnotes the reference to two books written a decade after the purported event.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Milosevic is not the one that described that incident as "Kristallnacht", it was described in "Travels in the Land of War: Experiences of a Stranger in Yugoslavia" by Kurt Kepruner (Austrian-born author from Germany). Here's what he wrote: The Tudjman regime began with a purge of all non-Croats in state offices. Serbian journalists in the media were fired. Serb teachers were fired. The Croatian media organized a campaign against Serbs and everything Serbian, Yugoslavia, and the JNA. Croatian superiority and racism were promoted.
Kepruner was told: “Serbs are inferior to Croats, they have smaller skulls and smaller brains. Croatia is for Croats only, while Serbs are deemed a minority. Armed Croat interior ministry troops were encouraged to attack Serbs. The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was outlawed. Serbs were evicted from government housing. Streets were renamed after Nazi/Ustasha leaders such as Mile Budak, a racist ideologue of the NDH regime. The Croat police and military forces began wearing the “U” symbol which had the same symbolism as a Nazi swastika. The police tolerated private acts of ethnic cleansing and terror against “Croatian Serbs” which Kepruner described as a “Dalmatian Kristallnacht”".
Wasn't it really similar to what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just say Noone is connecting it with the Holocaust, it's just a name? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. It is just a name. Noone was connecting it with the Holocaust, untill you mentioned it. So, I explained why its kinda similar to the Kristallnacht (not Holocaust, I said what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany) and then you asked me a question, and I answered it. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Serbian propaganda, original research, POV, non-existent word in English. Croatian historian 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, our good old Croatian historian has been blocked for a while for vandalism... Ha, ha, I don't think we should count this vote, ha, ha! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B.M. - I think that the process related to your failed request to become an administrator has revealed much about your own credibility. Not to mention a tendancy to leave inflammatory remarks in Serbian on a number of user pages. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Čini ti se. Možda ti se priviđa hrvatski :-) --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge. I'm not sure with what article it should be merged as there are few possibilities. Lakinekaki 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the veracity of the incident is verified -- and I'm naturally a litle skeptical of the Milosevic mentions, but whatever in here can be independently verified (the German press seems to have some sources) -- the useful information would fit in
      History of modern Croatia (only because that's where Croatian War of Independence redirects.) -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Strong Keep --JustUser 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Luka Jačov 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Both sides of the tragic story of the civil war in former Yugoslavia must be heard.--Marko M 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article is nothing more than one of those sordid pieces of propaganda that served to justify Milosevic's wars in the former Yugoslavia and bring Serbian minorities in a state of nationalistic histeria. Furthermore, and more shockingly, the reference is being made to a Kristallnacht in which Nazis carried out pogroms over Jews and destroyed their property. That is unforgivably scandalous and should be enough to see the article dispatched into a cyber-oblivion. Also, an event of this magnitude would have undoubtedly caught the attention of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague. I should also like to draw attention to the author of the article Purger who has emerged after User:Medule has been exposed of using a number of sockpuppets to push his POV remarks to a number of articles related to Croatia's history. Besides, though many participants in this vote have made their standing point abundantly clear, it would be a good idea to go through a list of their contributions - particularly on the user pages - to ascertain the degree of their neutrality. Also a thorough check for sockpuppets is in order. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is flawed. In fact, for events in Gospic the Tribunal was involved, and Norac was persecuted. Not so for events in Zadar and Trogir. That only speaks of the selectivity of ICTY - it does not claim to be competent for NATO war crimes, nor for what happened in May in Zadar nor it does investigate crimes against Serbs nearly as much as it should. It has even admitted that, saying that Serbs are responsible for not givnig enough evidence (!!). The paralels with Nazis are quite in place, knowing what Ustashi have done in WWII, and they were drawn by a German for that sake, and also by Feral Tribune, a purely croatian newspaper. The regime of Franjo Tudjman, that changed a name of a square in Zagreb from the square of victims of fascism to square of
Edo Murtic, a prominent Croatian, has reported that Tudjman has told him that he intends to finsh what Pavelic has started, and that 250,000 serbs can pack their siutcases (1/3 killed in NDH, 1/3 expelled in 95, 1/3 to be assimilated). That he in fact expelled more than 1/2, and that from 12% number of Serbs fell to 3% is well known. EurowikiJ has an agenda to hide this side of the story, as have the Croatian users, but Croatian POV is certainly quite biased. The term 'hrvatska sutnja' is a well known term for the attitude of coverup in Croatia - do not make waves, and the crimes of Croatians will be forgotten - they think. Well, not so on wikipedia. Wikipedia policies say that ALL sides of a story should be presented in a NPOV way, and should not be supressed just because some nation with nazi-past wants to hide it. It is a valid article just as any other, and persecution of Serbs were real - the Serbian victims of the pogroms in Croatia will have their voice! And that voice says DO NOT DELETE REPORTS OF CROATIAN CRIMES Pirkovank 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
there is plenty of information about the event - even on internet, just type "dalmatian kristallnacht". there is a whole book on the events in dalmatia - quoted as a source in the article. Note that the author of the book is neither Serbian nor Croatian, but an Austrian. He has used the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht, among others, and that alone makes it an article deserving its place. There is also an article by Sultz, or what was her name, quoted also in references - and that is online, in english, and there are plenty of other google hits. There are numerous accounts of these events in Serbian and Croatian media. Feral Tribune, A CROATIAN newspaper has called these events kristallnacht. So, the events are well documented and substantial. The fact that something is reported in media/books earns this thing a place here, according to the stated policies of wikipedia. The "Zadar Kristallnacht" was perhaps a bad choice of a title, but Dalmatian Kristallnacht - as the events are refered to commonly - has plenty of hits on google. Had the article been titled like this, google check would have given you satisfactory support and this whole deletion would not have been proposed - note that NONE of the original reasons for listing this in AfD hold with the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht - plenty of google hits, lots of testimonies by third parties (neither Serbs nor Croats), even a book, etc. As for the use of Kristallnacht itself, it is not an English word, but it is used in English for the events in Germany. The title is derived from this, so that is why it should be called Dalmatian Kristallnacht (and indeed is in articles in english) rather than Crystal night - it is a language question. That you might find the title inflamatory, is your POV, the only thing that matters is that there are events which are reffered to by this name (Dalmatinska Kristalna noc in Serbian and Croatian, and the proper translation, which is indeed used in English, is Dalmatian Kristallnacht, as you can see from Google hits). Many other pieces of POV in media that Serbs find inflamatory exist - for instance, detention camps in Bosnia of Bosnian Serbs were called "concentration camps" even though they were quite different, not withstanding the atrocities, but they were not concentration camps as there were in WWII, then calling some events massacres, and not the others. The inflamatory language was used to demonize Serbs, and that is quite widespread. So, inflamatory language exists and it is POV to judge what is inflamatory and what is proper - wiki should just REPORT things, as they are called by others, report, not judge. And in this case, Dalmatian Kristallnacht is how it is called - by Serbs, Croats, and indeed by third parties. That is name of the event, that you find it objectionable is not an issue. Pirkovank 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to add to this, I personally find the comparison quite in place - look what happened there, and in Germany. VERY SIMILAR! and so, there are various opinions, but the only fact that matters is that this is how these (by no means minor) events are called (not only by Serbs in fact by Croats (Feral Tribune) , Germans, Austrians... )Pirkovank 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to rain on your parade here Pirkovank, but i get really annoyed when Serb extremists try and equate modern state of Croatia with NDH. Croatia was thoroughly de-ustashized in the 45 years following WW2, same as Germany, and noone in the right mind can claim that those people acted out of the same motives as the fascist government of NDH. It's the same bullshit Serbs have been trying to push for the last 20 years. While it is true that some of the radical elements entered Croatian politics after 1990., mainly through former post-WW2 emigrants from US and Canada, it is malicious to say that their respective ideologies shaped Croatian politics in the 1990s. A certain degree of right wing influence did exist, but Tudjman was a former partisan and a marxist for chrissakes! Only in his later years, when he started to push for more Croatian autonomy in the Yugoslavia did he come under persecution of communist authorities, as did so many emminent Croatian politicians, most of them marxists themselves. The term Croatian Silence refers to the period between 1971 to 1991 when all political activity towards greater autonomy for Croatia within Yugoslavia was deemed "dangerous" and "disrupitive". Your twisting of the term is not only malicious, it is offensive to the greatest degree! And besides, who can argue that in 1990 the goal of Croatian politics was, as ever only more autonomy? No ill intent towards the Serbs was implied. It was Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies that decided to use the political climate of the end of the Cold War to try and realise the dream of Greater Serbia, and are therefore DIRECTLY RESPONISBLE for all the wars of Yugoslavian sucession. In fact, were it not for Milosevic and the Greater Serbian extremists, Yugoslavia could have seceded peacefully, much like Czecho-Slovakia. And that's THE TRUTH. And no amount od manipulation of facts on the part of your buddies here can change that fact. So, while i do support the notion that no truth should be hidden in Wikipedia, the malicious bias of this article make it most deserving of DELETION. --Dr.Gonzo 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And I get really annoyed when Croatian extremists try to equate the position of all Serbs with that of Greater Serbia - Serbs in Croatia were truly frightened from what was going on, and you can choose to be blind about that but that is how it was. You claim that noone in the right mind can claim that the motives of Tudjman were similar to that of NDH. And then you proceed to claim that actions of Serbian side, and opinions of those who speak merely of SERB SUFFERING AND PERSECUTION are those who want Greater Serbia. Well, to me that proposition is just as laughable and in sick mind as the other claim seems to you. You just fail to see the other side of the story - you are probably brainwashed and think that all Serbs wanted greater Serbia. That is far from truth. In fact, Serbs in Croatia were frightened - and how they could not have been, when their houses and churches were painted with neo-nazi grafitti, when their houses were blown up and their parents or granparents HAVE LIVED THROUGH THIS in WWII and were expecting the worst. Your suggestion that it was they who wanted Greater Serbia was insultive and malicious. But you fail to see that. That Milosevic wanted Greater Serbia is a Croatian myth, all he wanted was power for himself, and serbian nationalists (and there were some who actually wanted Greater Serbia, just like there were those in Croatia who wanted NDH back - but they were far more minor from what your Croatian propaganda machine has brainwashed you into thinking) blame him for that. What happened and how and why Yugoslavia fell apart is far from undisputed and Serbs and Croats will probably never agree about that. Your POV is not more justified that that of Serbs just because it is yours. Wikipedia has contributors who disagree about many issues, and the principle that opinions should be presented nevertheless. You want to exclude the side of the story that you dont like. Learn some tolerance - there are people who see things differently than you do, not because they are for Greater Serbia, but because they have different point of view and come from different backgrounds and you should respect that, and supress your bias and hatred. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or at the very least merge. This is really quite typical of Greater Serbian propaganda, trying to blow up individual incidents out of all proportions to make it seem like the Serbian side is the victim of organized persecution and therefore justified in its actions. Let's not forget, May 2nd 1991 is the date of the Borovo Selo incident where nearly 40 croatian policemen were killed or wounded and their bodies mutilated while trying to disarm armed Serbian rebels who had killed 2 of their colleagues a day before, while they were on routine patrol. The bloody images were aired on Croatian Television later that day which started riots in many Croatian cities. While the loss of life and property is most regretable, most of those responsible were brought to justice. It certainly cannot be argued that the event was planned or that it represented any kind of "ethnic cleansing" type activity on the Croatian side. The claims of the "british reporter" are also very much biased. While it is true that many Croatian cities saw the emergence of NDH related graffiti in those days, any sociologist would argue that it was done out of spite, pure frustration. People tend to choose strong symbols when put in similar situations, but that does not necessarily mean they believe in ideology behind it. It's a statement of revolt, of spite, and desperation. Besides, present day Croatia has only 5% representation of the extreme right option in its parliament (and even this does not represent the most extreme elements) while present day Serbia has these political options represented around 30% . It goes to show that this so-called "Neo-ustashe" ideology did not stick nearly as well as those Greater Serbian propagandists want you to think. But I digress. In any case, this theme does not deserve a separate article and should be deleted or merged. --Dr.Gonzo 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article a Greater Serbian propaganda, while it merely speak of suffering of Serbs. To you, everything written from point of view of Serbs is Greater Serbian propaganda. One might say that everything written from your point of view is Ustasha propaganda - and indeed that is how it seems to many Serbs. Cool down, and try to understand other point of view, and learn to be respectful even if you disagree. As for your rationalizations, put things into perspective. The original Kristallnacht had a killing as its cause - a killing that was USED BY NAZI MEDIA to provoke rampage on Jews. Dont you think Germans were just as revolted, frustrated, did it out of spite towards jews due to this propaganda before Kristallnacht happened, just as you say Croats were. Does that excuse them from responsibility. You speak of Borovo incident, yet title of article here is Borovo massacre - should that perhaps be deleted as Croatian propaganda with inflamatory title? If that was the cause (moreover, the hysterical reporting in Croatian media) than that should be part of the article. You fail to see that the whole story of Grater Serbia was in fact used (and is still used) by Croatian media to cause this frustration and hatred towards Serbs, just as Serbs have been frightened by NDH - and indeed, they had real reasons to be frightened. If media is to blame for what happened in YU (and I think they share great part of responsibility as they spread hatred on all sides) that should also be explained here. There is never going to be any compromise if people just stick to their POV instead of reporting things and events in NPOV - and in the case of ex-Yu war, there is another side to the story that you refuse to hear and want to erase. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for your quoting of percentages, HDZ from that time to me is the same thing as Serbian Radical party is to you, and indeed, there were the true extremists (Beli Orlovi etc.) that had far lesser support. That you see things differently, is just your POV and you are probably unaware how biased (or perhaps ignorant or brainwashed) you are. Pirkovank 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing - articles that can't be supported by verifiable sources are considered original research. You can look up the NOR policy of Wikipedia to understand why that's a strict no-no. And frankly, even those few sources that you do cite are strongly biased and can't be taken at face value. There are no official reports on this, no hard numbers, no nothing. Just another myth Serbs use today to excuse themselves of all responsibility. And you may be surprised but I'm really quite familiar with the political situation in modern Serbia and have visited several times in the past few years. I think I can objectively say that the Serb nation today, if it were viewed as a person, suffers from a case of amnesia, denial and PTSD. There's a strong political movement to blame everything on Milosevic as if noone else had anything to do with the genocide and the nationalist expansionism and everything else. There is also a very strong media campaign still ongoing that tries to equate the position of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Yugoslavia, so as to make it like everyone is equally to blame for everything that happened. The truth however is, that Serbs controlled virtually ALL the military capacities of YNA and were therefore in a vastly superior position in 1991, they were the fiercest in their agressive expansionist nationalism and were by far the largest of all Former Yugoslavia nationalities. It was only due to a lack of political vision on the part of Serb leaders, and a lack of loyalty on the part of the squabbling clans within Serbia proper that the whole Yugoslavia wasn't absorbed in a matter of months. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? In any case, I don't even try to claim that there are no level-headed people in Serbia today, as in those days, but the fact that the Serbian Radical Party can get 30% of the vote in 2005. means that nothing has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Serbia needs to face up to the facts, nothing can change before that happens. And by supporting flawed, biased and unnecessarily inflammatory articles like this one that serves only to propagate modern Serbian myths you are directly preventing that from happening any time soon. I mean, for fvck sake, even completely neutral observers in this very thread are claiming this is nothing but pure propaganda, what more do you need?? --Dr.Gonzo 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this topic is clearly not original research. Read what NOR says, and you will see it plainly, as others have already noted. Second, you just have admitted that even in your twisted understanding of Serbian issues, Serbs have their POV that is different from yours. For all wikipedia is concerned, it does not care who is right - all that matters is what is out there, it should not even attempt to determine what the truth is - that would be OR. It has to report about ISSUES. And the issue clearly exists. That so many Serbs feel that they are not treated fairly in the Western media is no secret. For instance, some polls put number of Serbs who think ICTY is biased against Serbs at close to 90%, while supporters of what might be called nationalist position have less than 40% now, which is indeed up from 25% 6 years ago, largely due to the tribunal bias. Serbian Radical party, FYI, does not earn votes on nationalist issues so much as on economic issues and percieved corruption of new government. I for instance am neither their nor SPS supporter, but am much more symphatetic to their point of view than in the 90s, as are many other. The thing which is not understood by people like you is that Serbs are not denying their responsibility, but objecting to the twisted view that they are to blame for everything, and that Croats and all others were innocent, or vastly less responsible than Serbs. That is simply not true - Tudjman has openly admitted that there would be no war had Croatia not wanted it. Croatians were those who choose the path of breaking constitution, arming and attacking federal government. Nationalist euphoria existed in Croatia, and it was the cause of break-up just as much as any other. But Serbs are blamed 3 times more than they are supposed to, while others are amnested. That creates the atmosphere of victimhood in Serbia and is precisely what you, if you were wise, would like to avoid. After the I world war, everyone was blaiming Germany and Germany was unjustly treated. And what happened? Cant you learn from history. The lies in Croatian media, constant presentation of twisted version of history and brainwashing (like the absurd claims that, for instance, in Vukovar 8000 JNA soldiers died or that they have destroyed more tanks and airplains than NATO did in Kosovo War, for instance), are meant to homogenize new Croatian state, but these lies cannot be accepted as history here. Your bias is understandable, but it does not give you the right to be the judge of what is truth and to impose your POV as only worthy of a word here. That is clearly against NPOV policies. History is always twisted to serve political purpose - so Tito equated genocide of Ustashe with crimes of his rival antifascist Mihajlovic, and promoted equality in crimes even if that was far from truth. Now again, history is being twisted and crimes of Serbs are inflated, while suffering of Serbs and crimes against Serbs are not to be talked about. Of course Serbs will object. There were more than a million Serbian refugees, more than any other nation in YU wars, the Serbs are the largest victims of ethnic cleansing, especially in Croatia and now in Kosovo. And then you want to scilence the truth about crimes commited on Serbs. Well, if you cannot understand why people who opposed Milosevic in the 90s now object to this twisting of truth (in fact you cant beleive it, according to what you say), this should give you a hint. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on the NOR issue but thats for this arbitration to decide. In any case, I find it interesting that you so readily proclaim me a victim of "brainwashing" but you certainly don't think there is anything wrong with your information or your bias? Also, you are trying to implant the notion that Wikipedia is somehow pro-Croatia and anti-Serbia biased? Do you even realise how rediculous that sounds? Someone else already said it better - POV + POV doesnt equal NPOV. Therefore, any strongly biased article like this one (which also bears an unnecessarily inflammatory title - Kristallnacht, an obvious reference to the Holocaust, as to imply that Serbs suffered the same fate at the hands of Croats in the last war) needs to be radically NPOV-ed or deleted. And since you and your buddies obviously won't let it be NPOV-ed, then there is only one choice. Nobody is denying the Serb Krajina tragedy, what we are denying is that it played out quite as you want to portray it. Croatia has moved on, when will we be able to say the same thing about Serbia? Oh, and by the way, the Vukovar casualties number is agreed upon not only by Croatian historians but most of the foreign researchers who have studied the topic. Only Serbian historians deny it... Why? And why oh why do we always come back to the Ustashe? Ever heard of the Godwins Law? Look it up. --Dr.Gonzo 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every person has a bias, and I have lived in Serbia, you have just visited it, and I have lived outside Serbia so I think I am relatively well informed. What surprised me when I came to West is that CNN is worse in its methods of propaganda than RTS or other televisions in ex-yu. Brainwashing is universal in the world. What makes me think you are brainwashed is your conviction - but of course, it is hard to tell. Wikipedia is certainly not inherently pro-Croatian or pro-any side, and it should not be, as the very NPOV policies make it in principle more objective than any other media wich all - CNN, NYTimes, BBC, or HRT or RTS or B92 or Feral in fact all have some agenda and wikipedia has only users wich come from all around the world. The good thing about wikipedia is that it allows every side of the story to be presented - according to NPOV policies. And this is exactly why this article must stay. The only reason some articles in wiki are biased in this or other way is that some people push their POV, but the community, given large enough number of participatnts, will eventually ensure that this is avoided. You are strongly pushing Croatian POV, and this is why you oppose this article. You claim that someone will not allow this article to be NPOV-ed, while it is exactly you and your buddies who does not allow articles about Vukovar battle or such to be NPOV-ed. Have you even made a single edit to it to correct what you think is wrong? You are assuming something, that is assuming bad faith but that is wrong attitude. In fact, many people just dont understand the other side and if you explain your POV then a compromise can be found. Read what NPOV means - it says that claims should be attributed, not claimed by wiki. It exactly means PRESENTING different POV-s with relevant sources. Of course, things are not so simple, but a compromise can be worked out with good will. But you refuse to allow even existance of this article - note that POV is a separate issue here. You cannot get rid of the other side of the story, no matter how you want to hide it. You can attribute POV, but not delete it, since Serbians are a large group of people whose sufferings are relevant as are their opinions and perceptions. As for what you say about Vukovar, its simply ridicilous. It is exactly Croatians who have an agenda of making this into some wild inflated heroism story - and what other historians are you talking about. Who has an interest in that - there are many questions but you cant deny that Serbs have much better sources about their losses. Anyway, there are many topics which are hot and disputed by opposing sides, and wiki NPOV policies are clear. If there is no concensus (and there is not despite what you try to say by involving some western historians who after all, got it from you - it is all media war after all, historical distance is not there for no reason and many topics in history are disputed for decades if not centuries) and therefore, the best one can do is EXACTLY to present both sides. It would be far better if for instance Vukovar battle article would be divided into two - Serbian version and Croatian version. So, a reader can see what each side CLAIMS. That would simplify situation/avoid edit war there. Wikipedia does not judge what is true, that is OR. It just presents things, and in wars, recent especially, there are always two sides and two stories. That holds for many other topics, and not just YU-wars, and this article should not be an exception. As for the title, dont you find Borovo massacre inflamatory? Yet that is the title - and there are many more here. If there is bias in western media, that does not mean that WIKI should be biased, and in fact it is not. If policies are to be followed. Pirkovank 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume anything and if you take a better look at my edit history you'll see I tried to reach a consensus with serbian Wikipedians on numerous articles and numerous ocassions. But then those users turn to plain vandalism and rv wars. It's unacceptable. A user called Medule in particular has been very troublesome in the past few weeks and has earned himself a ban so he(she?) now edits under a number of sockpuppets. I've been involved in the revert war on Battle of Vukovar article not because I think Serbian view should not be represented, but because I try hard to stick to the
Undue weight. It's the same reason why I believe that this article should be deleted and merged, because there's no need to create a separate article about an incident that is (in the context of the Croatian War of Independance and Wars of Yugoslav sucession) - insignificant, to say the least. After all, it wasn't me who started this arbitration or requested the deletion, but I do have an opinion and I hope it counts when it's time to make a decision. Oh, and by the way, I don't find the title of Borovo selo massacre inflammatory because it gives an objective definition of an event. Or maybe you want to deny the fact that the bodies of those policemen were unnecessarily and brutally mutilated? Which was caught on tape no less? Oh, but you readily support calling this article "Kristallnacht". How very neutral of you. --Dr.Gonzo 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Feral tribune is NOT EXCLUSIVELY a satirical tabloid - in fact, it has part with serious articles, and they have honestly talked about expulsions of serbs. You are just holding an extreme Croatian POV, and it seems you also lack honesty - perhaps you never read the Feral, or you pretend not to know about its nature. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP This incident must remain documented. It is appalling that someone may consider removing the information about a controversial issue. The very notion only demonstrates that the Dalmatian Kristallnacht is alive in the public mind and its concealment profits the negotiators of hate and violence. Just as humanity cannot forget the evil of the Nazi regimes in the 30’s and 40’s, it must also never overlook the resurgence of Nazi ideologies in the world of today. The suggestion that this is an example of “Greater Serbian propaganda” is about as valid as the suggestion that the articles on the Holocaust represent “Greater Jewish propaganda”. It is crucial that the Yugoslav wars’ descriptions on Wikipedia remain impartial by providing information on the atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict. kilternkafuffle 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UCT)
This is kilternkafuffle's first contribution on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion on this issue. I assure you that this is my only account, but it is also expressively stated on this page that this is not a vote, so the matter itself is more important than the number of participants. kilternkafuffle 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UCT)
  • Delete. I must admit, I am a complete outsider on this one, I know very little in detail about the Serbo-Croatian struggles. I do, however, know POV propoganda when I see it, and this is it. The title is POV, the writing is poor and POV, and all the (very limited) verification I can get on this also looks heavily biased. A New York Times search reveals nothing as big as this happening in Zadar around the times mentioned in the article. (There are several reports about Zadar in 1991, but none about this.) Sorry guys, the lack of verifiability I'm seeing is troubling. I would think something this big should be much better covered... It's perhaps not nearly as notable as it's made out to be.
    masterka 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NYtimes quotes certainly do not contain all the truth of this world. Try searching for some lesser known scientific topic, and see how you go. This is just invalid reasoning. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does science have to do with this? (Speaking of flawed reasoning.) That doesn't compare to a widely reported conflict such as this one. You're trying to tell me that the Times had 12 reports out of Zadar in 1991 alone, but somehow missed the bombing of 116 cafés?? And Time Magazine? (These are the only sources I can find that archive their news back to 1991 for free...) I realize these are English sources, but 116 cafés?? It's very difficult for me to swallow that this would have been missed by EVERYONE except by Serbian sources. When I strongly outgoogle any sources for this, that's real cause for concern, and the rampant
masterka 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
well, science is an example of something that does not give rise to that many emotions, and therefore, you can find many obscure topics in this very wikipedia, most of them never get a line in NYTimes, and yet, noone thinks they should be deleted just because NYT does not write about them. As for your second claim, that is exactly the essence of the problem. Western media DID NOT REPORT about such events. Thats not because events did not exist, thats because NYT had an agenda. NYT in fact does not report many things which happen in the world, and yet that does not mean the things are not happening. Do you think Abu-gharib would be reported if photos have not leaked? What gets into NYT depends on many things, editorial policy including, and Serbs didnt get their share of the story. I read NYT all the time, and am aware of things happening in my country, and have a pretty good idea how much of it gets there and why. So, blowing up of 116 cafes didnt get reported - thats what the Austrian guy was objecting to if you read the link - he wrote a whole book about it. And thats what Serbs are objecting to. That NYT is biased is no excuse to exclude Serbian side of the story. And if you think NYT is not biased, you are quite naive, I can tell you that. Pirkovank 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Times magazine is even worse. And remember - these events are not reported ONLY in Serbian media (in fact, they were not reported there as much as some other events), but also in Croatian media, and in few Western sources - most notably, in the mentioned book written by AUSTRIAN. So, it is not invented. And as a matter of fact, how many murders, crimes etc. do you think happen in some obscure places and do not get into limelight? The treatment of Serbian side was like that - noone cared about crimes on Serbs. This is just one in a very, very long list of examples. And yet, if you search a bit, you will find plenty of evidence - even from western sources, even from ICTY, about crimes against Serbs that never did and never will get a line in your beloved and trusted Times magazine. Pirkovank 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment --- It's been repeatedly asserted that the phrase "Dalmatian kristallnacht" shows multiple Google hits. This is correct, if "multiple" means five. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 listed hits in your link, and 21 if you include all (the number is so 21 with your search, including ommited ones). You should also try the Serbo-Croatian version. In any case, there are multiple sources, independent, and you can see that the issue exists, even if it is a bit obscure in English. The obscurity of an issue and the fact that there are more material offline than online are no reason for exclusion. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It should be included. As part of some other article, or under some generally accepted NPOV name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is anything sourced and salvageable it should be merged with appropriate other articles. If it's kept, the name Kristallnacht has to be changed it's POV, anachronistic and in if this Serbian-Croatian event is known in English at all it's not by a German name. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOVize and Rename to whatever. I'm pretty sure that the events took place, but their presentation in the article is quite problematic. I believe that sources exist and can be found, yet the very title is inadequate and an obvious neologism. Duja 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'd add two further comments. We should be very cautious about treating as facts news reports from either Serbia or Croatia during this period, given the degree to which both countries' media were under state control and used as propaganda outlets. I'd definitely be happier if we could verify this event using non-Yugoslavian sources, e.g. State Department Human Rights reports or Human Rights Watch reports. Also, I agree entirely that the article should be rewritten - it's very non-NPOV and I think it's particularly objectionable that it should use the term "Kristallnacht" as a synonym for "pogrom". It's plain propaganda and cheapens the memory of the original Kristallnacht. -- ChrisO 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The events which took place in Srebrenica are called "genocide" - you might, and in fact people - Jews and other - as well say that this cheapens the memory of the original Holocaust. But that was not reason for consideration here. In fact, the naming convention is pretty clear - these aspects ARE NOT to be considered when naming an article. They are pretty precise as to how to proceed when choosing a name, having alternatives (and we do not have that even - Zadar Kristallnacht was inferior to Dalmatian Kristallnacht as first had almost no references, and second is how it was called IN ENGLISH). NPOV-ing is a separate issue. Let me just say that what ChrisO said about Serbian/Croatian media is absolutely not true. Neither media in Croatia, neither in Serbia, were ALL STATE CONTROLLED - thats nonsense, though it is a prejudice in which many westerners who do not understand these issues believe. In fact, in Serbia under Milosevic press was relatively free, only the MAIN RTS was state controled. A lot of criticisms and attacks on Milosevic were present in the media. The same holds for Croatia - Feral Tribune is one notable example. Also, we should not trust BBC or CNN as they in fact have bias, and it is comparable to the bias of what you call state media in Serbia/Croatia at the time - believe me, I was surprised to discover how much manipulation there is myself. Also, wiki policies make it plain that one should not judge, but report about ALL things in NPOV way. That dominant western media were more/less interested in something is really not an issue here - there are events called Dalmatian Kristallnacht, they deserve an article, and all other issues can be solved IN THE ARTICLE within the guidelines of NPOV policies. Policies for NPOV and naming exist precisely to give guidelines in cases like this. However, this is obviously a separate issue - there does not seem to be any concensus here, Serbian contributors are for Keeping and Croatians are for deleting, that should be clear - so per policy, there is no concensus, the article stays, but of course, it can be NPOV-ed like any other article. And there are much worse examples of POV in wiki present then this. Pirkovank 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
second is how it was called IN ENGLISH -- by whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By professional translators at ICTY - they have translated 'Dalmatinska kristalna noc' in such a way. By people who wrote other articles, that are quoted and can be found on Internet. Obviously, Kristallnacht is a German word, used in English to refer to a particular event, and Dalmatian Kristallnacht is a name derived from this. That is why translators have used this translation. Pirkovank 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solely when translating the words of Slobodan Milosevic, as far as I can tell. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once, again, Slobodan Milosevic didn't give the name to the incident, he was not the first one that called the incident in that way. He just accepted the name like everyone else. By saying that the word was solely translated from something Milosevic said, Jpgordon, shows just how much you know nothing about this topic. Let's get some actual historians in here. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The
    verifiable sources. Show us exactly where the English/German hybrid phrase "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" is used. Please. That could end this whole thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The incident got it's name from the media. Just like Milosevic is oftenly called "The Butcher of the Balkans" in Western media, the events in 1991 in Dalmacija are called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht". I don't see what's the big deal over the name. If you find me an edition of any political newspaper (including the

New York Times) from the time when the incident happened, I'll show you where it says " Dalmatian Kristallnacht", sadly I don't save newspapers that long, so... Jp, read the article carefully, and if you still think it sounds nothing like the Kristallnacht in Germany, feel free to continue discussing it. Also, read the new text I just posted. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Exactly. I'd also like to ask you if you ever heard of a different name for the incident? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP-- evey argumen for deletion I have seen here is a harangue about "Serbian propaganda," while, at the same time, no facts are given to argument the deletion. The sources listed and the google results definitely warrant an article - Ketz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketzman (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep on probation. This is one of these AFDs where most of those that might have a clue about the topic also seem to bring their POV to the table. On the face of it, though, this does seem to be a much talked-about (non-?)event, and is probably notable either as a genuine atrocity or as a
    Reichstagsbrand-style propaganda piece, depending on whom you believe. So keep for now and present sources for both points of view. Sandstein 09:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's an interesting and very good point.
masterka 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 10:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Shane Filan

Vanity page, non-notable--rhmoore 12:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC) My name is Tony Wild and I work at Newcastle College with a lady named Jane Hargreave who is 46 years old and comes to do her reading skills with me. She loves Westlife. We used the Wikipedia entry to get some well organised information about the band. We all know they are a boy band, but Jane was very pleased to get help from Wikipedia.[reply]


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


This article was speedily deleted by Sceptre with the summary (CSD A7) —Encephalon 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SparX

Delete. Non-notable band Tangotango 12:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only entry on Google I could find related to this band was [29] - Tangotango 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn band Where (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wombat's Quest

Non-notable computer game. Only 5 Google hits. Schzmo 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio - Liberatore(T) 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Muktanandaji

Non-notable religious figure with 40 Google hits. Delete and redirect to Muktananda. Contested PROD, so I'm not just doing it myself. Sandstein 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable person, changing my vote to no vote as there seems to be some confusion about the article as mentioned below by Henning Makholm--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the
  • Delete An image-search [30] indicates that the two Muktananda's are different. ImpuMozhi 19:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain on this one, as I have never heard of this guy. I have been bold and fixed the redirect from
    Swami Muktananda to point to Muktananda. I've heard of him. Fan1967 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AjaxWrite

This a a new product which I feel has not yet achieved any degree of notability and I prodded it as Yet another word processor - 112 Ghits. That was removed with the comment Reason for proposed deletion was non-sensical. Bringing it here for the community to consider.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a story on slashdot about it, which may help to establish notability or otherwise. — sjorford (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Site is gaining press. Perhaps merge with Michael_Robertson (owner/CEO) in the interim. Cleanr 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was not clear to me why you wished to remove this article. The phrase Yet another word processor - 112 Ghits didn't 't make it in the slightest bit clear WHY you wanted it deleted.The product is still relatively unknown, but what's the harm in it having its own entry in Wikipedia?
  • Delete it basically got slammed on slashdot as imature. It seems that these days everyone is writting Ajax word processors,
    Writely, Zoho Writer, seem to be leaders of this pack. Give it six months and then we will see if it hits notability. It might be worth creating an article Ajax word processors or similar to document this growing trend. AjaxWrite could be mentioned in the list there. --Salix alba (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the big list of absolutely everything.
    WP:CHILL a while Deizio 01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Put a short mention of this to Michael Robertson (or somewhere else where it makes sense), then Delete. This is a new website/product that has yet to prove itself to be notable or popular; creating a new article just after the launch may be a bit pointless. Welcome back when there's actually some point in having a complete separate article about this. Let the time tell. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did create the entry, so I won't actually vote, but I see it just as a seed. If the app does work then let it live; else, delete. A couple more weeks of life should be enough to estimate this more adequately. BTW: Google hits alone I don't believe is sufficient to judge it less than a week after its appearance; rather Wikipedia searches could be a criterium Evillan 04:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure what you mean by "if the app does work", or why that should be a criteria. Hitler's Final_Solution didn't work so well and it has an entry, while personalized mittens work quite well for my son at school, but there is no entry for them. Clearly historical significance (even recent history) needs to be the greatest factor in determining WiP page worthiness. I've used ajaxWrite, but it's a long ways from replacing MS Word or even OpenOffice.org.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 no-one, including the nominator, has voted delete. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennthorpe School

This was

prodded by Kingboyk. This edit added some nonsense and removed the tag. Although I reverted the edit, I don't think it can be prodded now, so to AfD it comes. I stopped caring about the segment of Wikipedia that's been turned into the Educational Yellow Pages a while ago, so I abstain. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Independent operability

Patent nonsense (but not as in

WP:OR if nothing else. Contested PROD. Sandstein 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The rant has now been restored for the amusement of the readers. Sandstein 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That rant has to be BJAODN'd kotepho 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It already ahs been :-) Where (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or SMerge to Self-replication as this name does not appear to be correct. The patents seem to actually be patents [31] FWIW. kotepho 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting my vote until I can do more research. If the result is deletion I request that it be userfied. kotepho 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose userfication because it is substantial content unrelated to Wikipedia (see
WP:USER). Mr. Collins may store the article on his own computer or website. Sandstein 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I want it as a WIP to aid in the writting of an article on the subject (and not Mr. Collins). kotepho 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needs rewritten if any chance, but I think no matter what it is confusing and gave me a headache. TKE 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PatentCruft, another new flavour Deizio 01:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it is true, which I highly doubt, none of this is notable anyway. -Jetman123 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the author posted the following rant on my talk page Where (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC):[reply]
At first glance the idea of my entry of "independent operability" may seem self serving. I understand. However, I am nicely retired and most likely would not work again if I was "vain". I hereby CONTEST Wikipedia's policy of blanket banning all "vanity" entries as that is the sign of a system that only supports those who have nothing to "brag" about in the first place and keeps many power producers from bothering to do anything anymore. I produced the technology of late to help others and I am highly disgusted at the insane interest in attacking it particularly when it seems that not a person attacking seems to have a slight clue (and some even admit it) as to what it is about and this fact alone warrants the removal of all the comments forthwith. This is NOT a comment place for bubble headed Madonna groupies. Large money has gone into this important project and not a dime has been spent on me. The project cannot live without funding so I hope a small note of my name and the patent will be a gratitude for the years of work many have put into it. I bet none of you remember Phill Pharnsworth do you? Well you're USING his invention RIGHT NOW. And I DON'T plan on beeing an UNKNOWN for my work.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, you know the thing that teaches the children? If all of you knew what you are attacking you would be sorry. This is why I had no compunction about nuking the first comment from the peanut gallery that opened the mouth before thinking (and I made certain to take out all the usual detractors that in fact DO know of my work and attack it for selfish reasons (such as the ELF, Unibomber, & other sorts of lunatic TECHNOPHOBS).
Let me teach you a thing or two about the first step in becoming smart. If someone says something and it is not CLEARLY NONSENSE, and you DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. PLEASE, DON'T COMMENT ON IT UNTIL YOU FIND OUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR AT LEAST BE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS FIRST. And to the HACKER WANA-BE WHO USED THE TERM "PATENTCRUFT", I REST MY CASE ON MY (WHAT YOU CALL AMUSING) COINED TERM "PATENT HATTER", there's one RIGHT THERE (and there's quite a few of them out there indeed). BAN HIM! You ALL sound like DINOSAURS MATING. If there are stupid patents allowed, blame the patent office, not ALL inventors please because THIS one is NOT. Stop being childs.
P.S. To the one constructive comment as to independent operability being "self replication". It IS self replication. A more specific form of it that NEEDS to be TAUGHT to the masses for Mechagenics to be understood. It's INDEPENDENT REPLICATION (and I did not coin the term, it's been around a long time). I will dutifully edit the entry to correct on that. Thank you so much for pointing out that thoughtful fact. Also patents are ALL PUBLISHED (pursuant to your comments on the entry being not "sourced"). Where's the moderators around here? I hope a few have a little brains on this, thank you very much. Also, five days seems a bit short a time for proper debate on this.
  • Cool. This should be linked to from www.crank.net. 131.111.8.97 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be linked to most wikipedia policies as well, starting with
    WP:8W ........ etc etc FT2 (Talk) 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What a nice long rant. Delete. Rambling and unclear what if anything is actually verified, cited, notable or more than authors vanity. Come back when the world is at your feet a bit more please. FT2 (Talk) 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • score, mark, brand, imprint, plier, clasp, bore, wind, squash, churn, lift, lower, anchor, panel, insulate, wire, plumb, entube, oxygenate, hydrate, aerate, ventilate, spread, circulate, flow, floss, mash, cement, paste, pour, pick up, lay, affix, shovel, rake, scrape, dig, bury, grind, sand, plane, beat, work, polish, gouge, tile, support, strut, buttress, beam, prop, stay, band, strap, baste, tack, sew, siphon, tap, deflate, pump, orbit, light, measure, balance, offset, counteract, counterbalance, weigh, rank, pace, servo, gauge, appraise, apportion, proportion, step, rate, list, index, log, dissect, carve, print, engrave, etch, stamp, dial, display, exhibit, program, present, record, arrange, determine temperature, determine humidity, determine allergen level, determine barometric pressure, determine visibility, determine wind velocity, determine rainfall amounts, determine ozone levels, determine varied pollution levels, determine wind chill factor[32]... ah heck, just Delete. Ronabop 02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fram fraberj - Independent operability is used extensively in nanotechnology (which is closely related to Mechagenics which is MY coined term for MY technology set forth explicitly in the patent, notice I did not ask that it be added). As an example of "secondary sources" using the term: Marvin Minsky (AKA: "Father of AI") used the term in this well known and broadly recited statement within the art: "Independent operability will make fission look like a mild irritation". Edd Regis, the most well known writer in nanotechnology, in his book "Nano" devoted that, his most noteworthy book mostly to the discussion on independent operability. In fact much inspiration for my developing it sprung from that book. K. Erik Drexler (HONORARY doctorate, for what? no one knows!) the loud mouthpiece before congress on nanotechnology and all his pretty picture filled books and political flashy jive but no substance (BUT PLENTY OF MEDIA NOTE!) used and promoted it extensively on his net site for the Fifth Foresight Institute (or is it sixth now?) he used the term many times (before I DID it first and he got very upset at that point and decided to quit using the term in any of his new writings or on the site). Richard Feyman in his book "Plenty of Room at the Bottom" may have it in it (I've not read it) but he has used it in public MANY times, I can't believe NONE of you have heard of it before. You can't have been reading much nanotechnology without running into it. The book Nano is FULL of the term, it's in the glossary for gosh sakes! As for the question of "vanity" the first version of my article purveyed was drawn from the works of Alex Nicholson (author, engineer, material specialist) NOT MYSELF, but when all the monkeys started throwing the p@@p I took over and added the long version to satisfy you guys' (& gals') objections. Here's the picture in a nutshell: It's well described in the book "Nano" (get it at the local library) and many other sources (and if you read them you will find that it very much is a BIG DEAL if that's what you are looking for in "notable", should be from merit had per function that you guy should ascertain) and if you go to uspto.gov site you can READ THE CLAIMS in the patent (LAST TWO LONG ONES) and you will see that the robotics division of the patent office indeed allowed it as it is described in the patent and it is a big one (86 pages), published world wide through the Patent Cooperation Treaty and last but not least I have both still photos and video of the device (tell me where to post it and I will). I do interviews and did two radio shows on WJFK. And so once and for all, FOR ALL both smart and dense, here goes a clear "romper room" definition: A machine that can have babies. Lots of NON independent replicators are about like Cornell's' (type "Cornell replicator" at Google and go right to it and note that one infringes on my patent if you can read the claims you'll see THAT'S of NOTE!) that is, ones that have parts that must be manufactured by man or beast (like life form commandeered versions). It exists my friends and someday with the power it bestows you will be asking the walls for chairs, and like plant life chairs will grow out of walls from tiles delivered through plumbing to your home of objects you shopped for on the net. It's the final error corrected control and creation of "stuff" in the home and elsewhere. Ask a cup to turn into a plate and it will if made of this replicating stuff and if sitting on a counter made of this stuff it will morph into it. It's instead of pixels on the screen controlled by computers now its the tiles in the world around you in a great hardware matrix being controlled by computers that are made up of the tiles by your verbal request. And finally (for you pure science buffs) its the addressable verbal control of mass structure to the atomic level; we are replacing the atom unit with another type of unit that is subject to verbal command and the like. You will copy THINGS like you copy software, by verbal command. A HARD INTERNET. Further it is error corrected and seldom subject to error and someday because of this VERY SOON there will be great automated factories that blast out tiles with lasers and e-beans to be delivered automatically to your home through plumbing (even frozen foods) and your house, chair, car, sidewalk etc will be made of them in a big physical LAN (Internet) of electrically conductive interlocking tiles and we will all live happily ever after REAL, REAL SOON. That is, if I can GET THE MEDIA AND YOU GUYS TO GET AT IT TO GET THE WORD OUT AND FUNDED AND ON LINE ect., ect., ect,. That's why it's called the INFINITY DEVICE (if you want to see the book written by Alex Nicholson called THE INFINITY DEVICE let me know where to upload it. (very much a technical bore for expert and novice alike but someone had to do it) It is and always will be ALL THAT WILL EVER BE NECESSARY once it attains evolution (has not yet, but soon will)... The Infinity Device... Any more questions?

Thank you so very much,

Charles Michael Collins.

P.S. I think the above writing alone by itself, if you think about it (and call it a rant if you like), is far worthy of note on its face as a literary work, particularly with the patent backing it (and all the above & more is in the description in the patent). I bet no one EVER told you guys ANYTHING LIKE THAT! HA! Even Orson Wells! My investor tells me he can't sleep at night after talking with me. I'm writing a movie about it: War in the Nanosphere. I play many musical instruments and did the sound track too. I have THOUSANDS of innovations. Several HUNDRED are in the patent alone (actually there were three of them, the patent office was caught with their pants down not knowing quite how to deal with it and blew the first one, they even allowed lists in the descriptions finally). Well, I guess I've bragged as my investors wanted me to do, this new "globalization" market will either get it or not soon with that new attitude which is what I suspect is the problem. Do you get the picture yet? Hey, this isn't advertising guys or vanity or whatever, it's HISTORY BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE MAKING. DO WHAT'S RIGHT GUYS (and be a part of history, the most important part of it there ever was or will be). — Preceding

talk • contribs
)

Oops, I must have been overpowered by the sleeplessness inducing rant and failed to log in. Brian Schlosser42 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm? quite a phenomenon going on out there. I wonder if I submitted this for a grant with merit for study before NSF if it would pull a nice big fat grant? Hmmm, lets see what would I name the paper? Oh right, now I got it: LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THE IDIOTS! Maybe Bush wasn't as stupid as we all thought after all nominating Allito. (I've got my stop watch going, if my calculations are correct after above I want to time how long before the article is yanked) Oh I noticed one of you was a Scientologist as well, whatever happened to: "Upstas get away with murder" (to quote L. Ron Hubbard).

fraberj — Preceding

talk • contribs
)

  • Delete nonsense GeorgeBills 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is getting crazy. Not only has Fraberj unleashed a slew of unwarranted, rude personal attacks upon other users, he seems to be completely unwanting to sit down and explain his points in a level-headed, rational manner, which would actually give the article a chance. Does he not get it? Personal attacks are not going to do anything but get him banned and get this article deleted. -Jetman123 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Stay
      WP:COOL. The article is pretty clearly going to get deleted, the feedback is nearly unanimous. And you have to admit his comments are amusing. Don't take it personally. GRuban 13:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Looks like kotepho is the only one doing any of the needed research here, asking the right questions, unlike the rest of you. As stated by the British House of Lords, "Copying an invention by taking its 'pith and marrow' without textual infringement of the patent is an old and familiar abuse which the law has never been powerless to prevent." (Per James, L.J., in Clark v. Adie (1873) L.R. 10 Ch. 667). But this "vanity" attitude is working a round about rendition of the above, needs to be revised to NO ADVERTISING or plugging unimportant work. This is NOT simply a new patent for a Bobby Pin. There should be a certain time place and form for those who excel to state their qualifications if of substance because the way things are going with this new globalization that's the only way they will ever be known. I know this from my own lived practical experience. You can't count on donations and others to PR you. That's what happened to Phil Pharnsworth, the principle innovator behind the first television, now few know him and he went broke when his idea was stolen and your computer monitor, whether CRT, LCD or DLP or the like IS based on the same principle. NOBODY CARES ABOUT US INVENTORS! Seriously. You guys don't seem to. Well I plan to change this whole weird way of thinking that you HAVE to modestly wait around until someone ELSE acknowledges your capabilities even if I have to be accused of vanity or rants thank you very much. This is THE NEW INVENTOR'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT starting right here. I could care less what you all think. And that's the truth. Why should I? Ban me if you like, make my day! I'm no sucker! NO MORE MR NICE GUY TO YOU ANARCHIST! I waited TEN YEARS! The PARTY IS OVER! With all due respect, I would submit that you folks should maybe consider the VALUE of the MATERIAL being brought to the table here rather than WHO brought it and HOW it was SAID or HOW it was brought. That seems to be getting lost in the wash of all this politically correct fascism! It seems clear to me, that even though there is a stated policy that this is "not an experiment in anarchy" some editors may secretly be pursuing just such, certainly "infoanarchy" to use a term used herein if not some other nefarious underhanded far flung buphoferouse boofaophery spewed far and wide all over globalistic creation! For example sanstien had his insulting comments about "confusing babble on patents" before I could barely get the article up clearly indicating that he had not a clue on nanotechnology or even cared to look into it. Attacked it on sight! THAT is what fired it all off. And you are threatening to ban me? RIGHT! BAN HIM! I was real nice up until then and you know it if you got your facts strait. How about banning deville with his insulting "it is a collection of insane ramblings"? That's pretty rude! Nothing technically constructive there. And how about the nutty comments from Gruban and the others with peanut gallery jive? And gee jetman123 UNWARRANTED?!?! I approached this with a world of dignity until sandstien blew off his mouth... I won't put up with that sort of indignity from someone who didn't do his homework. Please! What about george bills? you said nothing of substance so why say it? I nominate to DELETE ALL OF THE ABOVE FORTHWITH! Technically, if you guys/gals had an iota of ethics you would realize that's true now wouldn't you? Then we could all settle down and get to the business at hand instead of this craziness, but you know it's just not gonna happen I think because I can smell it like a rat SOMETHINGS AFOOT! Now in all fairness I REALLY LIKED Brian Shlosser42's "time cube" comparison. THAT was something of SUBSTANCE! It was constructive dialog wasn't it? A fair comparison on the face of it. However, I will point out that the same similar type of absolute bedlam went on at the patent office that seemed to have gone on with this "Time Cube" weirdness when I filed the first patent until a showed up with a video of the device of it "reduced to practice" and they all shut up and gave me all the claims I asked for because unlike "perpetual motion" and "tellatransportation" or maybe "Time Cube" (whatever the heck that is) it is broadly agreed that independent operability could actually happen (they thought it would be twenty years down the road by the way). So unlike "Time Cube" (which by the way made its way somehow into this Wikipedia didn't it?) you have NOT ONE but TWO IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY OPINIONS: the PATENT EXAMINERS for BOTH the patents at the patent office and FURTHER AS WELL all the "prior art" both patents knocked down as set forth in the patent (tell me WHY patents are not OK again?, RIGHT), plus an OPINION "LETTER OF OPERABILITY" from a renown impartial patent documenting firm devised JUST FOR THAT: Nolte Nolte & Hunter P.C. (sent to Gruban), A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE DEVICE IN FULL COLOR siting there plain as day UPON ONE OF THE PATENTS. The patents withstood over ten years of legal onslaught (definitely not new untried science) the term "independent operability" was used by Marvin Minsky (father of AI), used in the best selling book by Ed Regis (top Nano writer) sited to Gruban. Even Einstein pointed out that it would be a big deal when he used the term "independent self replication". The invention even survived the onslaught of the "Don and Mike" show as they tried to cast it as "junk science". They admitted: "You beat us into the ground." I got a tape of that if it means that much but it's just part of the continuing credibility of the science as it lives and the term which you guys seem to be conveniently trying, for some reason to ignore. Seems the LEAST you can do is this: I'll give you guys permission to rewrite the article the way you guys like if it states substantially the same thing in the same or similar way as "Time Cube" with my name used just like Gene Ray's is in a very modest way and let me know where to place the description of its function, add the picture of the device and lets give it the go. I mean, Gene Ray's article is IN THERE is it not? I mean come on guys lets be fair now. All my other competitors in academia are in there: Richard Feynman, Norio Taniguchi, K. Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas, Ralph Merkle, Sumio Iijima, Richard Smalley, Erwin Müller, Gerd Binnig, David Britz, Heinrich Rohrer, Raymond Kurzweil, Paul Alivisatos Chris Phoenix, Mike Treder, Tim McKnight, Phaedon Avouris, James Fraser Stoddart, why can't I have equall standing herein with my competitors? Is it because I'm a n "inventor" HA! Hence my coined DIRECT term: PATENT HATERS. Not some politically correct blithering blather of a name tha's indirect. I think you guys are taking "sourcing" to a new extreme too, wreaks of prejudice here. This is not unproven NEW science nor junk science, I'm the foremost authority on top down nanotechnology and self replication. I'll admit, I'm not much of a writer so I'm new to this (first article) so give me a little help guys. It is NOT vain to stand up when you have beed dishonored, particularly when being PROFESSIONALLY IGNORED. when that occers all bets are off and you hit the dirt. Further, for your information you anarchists would have been dead of some disease before 25 or living like Mennonites like all the rest of us would be too if it were not for the protection of patent rights for innovation. And let's not mix this up with copyright protection (that's why I disapprove of the term "intellectual property" as well which generally lumps the certainly more important innovation of patentable innovations with books, movies and music which are just communications when you get down to it). It's unconscionable that books, movies and music can bring criminal penalties for infringement but patents far more important to day to day living may not but in fact find themselves under direct attack for some misguided notion that it is somehow helpful to the less better off for inventors to not get paid for their work. You don't chop the head off of the able to feed it to the disabled but you do help them but don't KILL THE ABLE while you are at it, thank you. The term I coined and like to use is "technophobe" because it is more in your face as it should be. It really affronts those that are JEALOUS of those who can innovate which is what all this is all about. It does not mean I advocate LESS protection for books, movies and music I just want the same or better for patents which is rather sane. When's the last time you heard of someone giving donations to an inventor? Rarely. You guys and gals won't because it's clear YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW WHO I AM DO YOU? Worse... YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO KNOW EITHER if you go along with this program. Since 1994 I've had this work published and it's been published world wide and NOT ONCE has anyone sent me one red cent as a "donation". Don't get me wrong, I'm not for protecting the MORBIDLY RICH like Bill Gates or Trump but the urge to prosper well, i would submit is NOT GREED (Ihave to pay for MY kids too thank you. That's why Communism failed. NO MOTIVATION. What you do is tax the heck out of them at the millionaire point, up to then NO! Gives everyone a dream to be rich someday but not MORBIDLY RICH which IS greed. That directs peoples hopes and dreams in the proper fashion. You don't "tax the rich feed the poor until there are no rich no more" (song "Change the World" Alvan Lee, in the sixties) instead you "tax the rich feed the poor until there are NO POOR NO MORE! Now that's just right. Get it? Have a VERY nice day.

fraberj


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but *cough cough* some consensus to cleanup would be nice. W.marsh 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Defiants

One single released. No evidence provided for any other claim to notability and that is not enough to justify an article. Author is the drummer in the band. Spondoolicks 13:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Where (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant self promotion. --Soumyasch 14:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Annoying as the article's author is, and as much as the article needs to be cleaned up, the group is notable as a representative of a notable musical school of its time. The one single is still "in print", 40 years later, on various anthologies documenting that school of music. How many of the Pokemon characters, porn stars, and low-grade pro athletes whose notability is recognized here will be able to make parallel claims in 40 years? Debating whether the band should be notable isn't terribly relevant; Wikipedia editors shouldn't be re-evaluating otherwise valid external demonstrations of notability; it's an ersatz form of original research. Monicasdude 15:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:MUSIC was formulated with present-day acts in mind. The Defiants would not be notable were they have to started their career in, say, 1998. But the early 1960s was another era, and areas like Litchfield (and other parts of the rural Midwest) were at that time culturally disconnected from the larger music scene. In those days Minneapolis was the nearest larger town, an 80 mile drive along Highway 12, a two-lane road with
    whistle stop towns every 6 miles or so. That Litchfield had a rock band at all is itself notable, and though the article does not assert this, the Defiants were perhaps the first such band in Litchfield. A formulaic delete based upon blind application of WP:MUSIC would not serve the project. I do agree that the article is badly in need of cleanup, something that is likely to come with time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    Question Mark & the Mysterians from podunk Saginaw, MI for example). No reason the Defiants should get a free pass to circumvent this. Also, the claim that their one single is still "in print" is without any sourcing, so it can't really be considered a valid external demonstration of notability. Just mentioning that their one single appeared on a number of compiliations or anthologies isn't sufficient... this needs to be sourced. If someone can list even a few compiliations or anthologies this song appeared on I'd be willing to reconsider the notability issue, I personally couldn't find any (only found one 45 issued by Studio City records, 1965). If this article survives AfD I'll edit it for copy and content.--Isotope23 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Attack of the Tub

Delete. Could not be verified. No relevant google hits Soumyasch 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drivingthru

Article about non-notable website, fails

WP:WEB; likely to be self promotion. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as

WP:CSD A7; I'll let The Attack of the Tub run its course, as not technically speedyable (not a person or group) - Liberatore(T) 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Private Drive Productions

nn film group in a school somewhere Where (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-club


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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(T) 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft II

This game has not been announced, so the article is pure speculation. jacoplane 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete,
    WP:NOT a crystal ball. Alphax τεχ 14:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per all above Where (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly crystal ball, but this brings up a question I have. Recently I have seen a lot of {{
    WP:NOT by their very existence. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? (I ask here because I figure the people reading AfD's are the most likely to care about such issues.) --Deville (Talk) 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Agreed, if there is verifiable information, I can see the use of such a tag. Perhaps I should say more and state that most of the pages I've seen with this tag are totally crystal-balled out. Maybe I should restate my original comment and say that this tag tends to strongly encourage violations of
    crystal ballism. --Deville (Talk) 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In this particular case
    Starcraft: Ghost is the title in development (though what's going to happen with it is up in the air at the moment). Starcraft 2, as separate from Starcraft: Ghost, is wishful thinking on the part of some fans. Kiti 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Cooper

  • Delete: Non-notable professor whose computer found a huge prime number using downloadable software as part of the GIMPS project. Per my understanding, the software retrieves gigantic numbers - determined almost randomly by a centralized server - that fit a certain pattern. The computer's owner goes about his or her regular life while the computer uses an algorithm to determine if it's a prime number. My computer is also running the same software. The people that came up with the idea and the software deserve a big fat article - the people that simply download and run it?... This is as notable as people that win the lottery - except it would be a small lottery since there was no money involved here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the project page. You aren't running it on 700 unit cluster. kotepho 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I could still find a bigger one on my little 733Mhz. The network admin at my company could push the program to thousands of computers - that doesn't make him notable either. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cooper is notable. A mathscinet search shows up 23 hits (4 of which are solutions to problems) so 19 actual hits. He is the primary author of a papers in the American Mathematical Monthly which is one of the most widely circulated math journals in the world. JoshuaZ 17:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the article is expanded to include his academic work I would likely change my vote to keep. kotepho 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some of the (in my opinion) more interesting papers. JoshuaZ 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please person is notable Yuckfoo 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per JoshuaZ, but I'd like to point out that mathematics has no notion of "primary author". Authors are almost always listed alphabetically in mathematics. JeffBurdges 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. W.marsh 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Boone


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; considering the author's contributions so far [33], I do not think he needs a userfied page; I'd userfy if requested by him. - Liberatore(T) 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael dulberger

Non-notable bio (just a couple of Google hits that were relevant), nothing links here. Egil 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for www.informedforlife.org gives 14, most of them web directories. Egil 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports-Boards

Delete. Does not meet

Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Also see: Sites linking to Sports-Boards.net. Possible vanity. Nothing on Wikipedia (except for Wikipedia project pages and a user subpage as a result of AfD) links to it. At least, significant clean-up. -- Win777 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric J. Lindblom PhD (2nd nomination)

Originally prodded as Vanity page - complete with testimonials. Prod tag has been removed but it's actually recreation of previously deleted content. I'd tag it as speedy but now it's on AfD what's the correct procedure? (thought it seemed vaguely familiar!)

  • Speedy as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently the relevant field's equivalent of Angelyne, thousands of Google hits. The way to treat such low-rent but plainly visible Barnum wannabes isn't to ignore them, but provide objective articles setting out objective/NPOV information. See Robert Stanek for a good example of how this can be done. Monicasdude 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of googles for for a different Eric (N.) Linblom who is an antitobacco activist. I say no speedy though as the previous AFD was not completed.
    WP:SNOW is wrong sometimes. kotepho 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Most of those links are to posts on weblogs and the like. I didn't see any official homepage at any official site. The fact that his research page is on a freely-hosted site is a bit striking. --Deville (Talk) 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[35] gets 567 and almost all of them are from forum posts, comments.. and a review of "Zorro: A novel" on amazon. kotepho 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove duplicates you get down to 80 hits. The original 10000 without dupes is about 260. Weregerbil 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a sense of how notable the think tank is? I see this as the only claim of notability that stands him above WP:PROFTEST.
    Harro5 06:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hechmat Tabechian

Delete, NN bio, this bio is not significant beyond the upstate New York hospital in which he works. 80 google hits, with this article being the first. WU03 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I actually think this wasn't a great debate. For a start, she seems to be no less notable than her father who wasn't nominated. Secondly, her deletion breaks the line of succession infobox. But, never mind, the community has spoken and deleted it shall be. kingboyk 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Knatchbull

469th in line for the British throne. Does that make her notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're right that people should "judge this deletion decision not on the vote count, but on the quality of the arguments [sic]." Of course, the quality of the arguments is indeed speaking for the article's deletion. --Nlu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which arguments are you referring to, Nlu?
The first one presented - that being in line for the British throne is simply not worthy of a brief article? On the contrary, there already exists an article 'Line of Succession to the British Throne', which lists the 906 royal inheritants, many of whom have their own articles. Indeed, the British throne and its succession is an historic facet of British society with significant interest among British people. So there is clearly a current interest in the subject.
Or perhaps the second argument, that Miss Knatchbull should not be included because there are 250 people ahead of her (including number 76) without their own articles? But surely if we are trying to assemble details of the succession to the throne, and there are gaps in the sequence, it makes no sense to delete the ones we already have? Rather, we should create details for the ones we are missing. I fail to see a clear argument for her removal, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is already engaged in an effort to create details for the succession to the British throne. - User David 21:06, 27 March 2006
  • Delete as nn. feydey 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE - Fill up the previous 468 befor her.


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Interacia

A

no sources. PROD deleted without comment. Sandstein 15:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Evolution of genders

Page is

Evolution of sex, there is nothing here worth merging. Pete.Hurd 15:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

True, but I have to point out that the article does not deal with this in any way, shape, or form, and the author admits to using the term "gender" to mean something entirely different from this widely accepted definition to which you allude. Pete.Hurd 11:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been more clear. An article on this subject should exist, but not this one. We really need a simple statement for that (i.e. something on the same level as keep, delete, merge etc.). Take it as a delete --Midnighttonight 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forthwith!. Utter nonesense, WP:OR, WP:NEO etc. Mikker ... 15:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and apparent POV fork of
    Evolution of sex and/or Sexual reproduction. MCB 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It seems that people are concerned that the word "famous" is more-or-less inherenty problematic and are not persuade from that view. (One person was persuaded to it.) If bean-counting, note that Tombride finished up as a deleter. -Splashtalk 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous recording studios

Original work and highly subjective. Nice page but unfortunately is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Consider placing it on a personal site. Cleanr 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom. Cleanr 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but wikify a ton. This list is comparable to a lot of existing ones. --Deville (Talk) 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not ListCruft per se, but tries to do too much... permanently POV and incomplete with its current ambitions, and a manageable list would not add anything to the existing category. Deizio 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Specific recording studios certainly have notability. As can be seen in the article some even have their own wiki article. Tombride 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice Deiz's full comment. Delete per Deiz.Tombride 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's interesting that you know so much about "time-proven ways" and the other inner workings at wikipedia since this nom was your very first edit at wikipedia and you have now racked up 14 edits here [37]. I would leave you a welcome message, but you are obviously way too fast a learner to need that. -- JJay 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,
    WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, most "List of famous foo" are problematic in this way. Sandstein 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 I am reluctant to act on a subject-led request like this with the Foundation's say-so. -Splashtalk 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tse Chi-yung

I wonder why this survived the first VfD. No sign of notability. Btw, I am the person being described in this article. cytse 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly not vanity, since it is the subject of the article who has nominated the deletion. Deletion because of humility?  ;-) Bucketsofg 16:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. This has got be a precedent. Going neutral. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If this were nominated by anyone else I would probably vote keep. It is verifiable and the subject is at least slightly notable. That being said, if the nom really is the subject of the article and he does want it deleted I would go along with that being enough of a reason barring more notability. kotepho 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no reason to believe it is not him. I must forget those cow problems. kotepho 05:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think you're just being modest ;-) --
    Joey Roe 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know cytse in person. It was 2 years ago when I was bored and set up a site like this with a friend. I would consider him a great person, but not to the extent that it should warrant a wikipedia entry. I thought it would be deleted soon, but to our surprise it was edited on... Apologies for my naiveness back then. As for deletion initiated by the person himself, I think it would be unfair to him that this wikipedia entry would be all over the place when somebody searches him on Google. Sydneyfong 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I understand the nominator/subject's position, but... Weak keep as somewhat notable. The subject or the author don't
    WP:OWN the article, so their contributions to this AfD should not be treated in any special way. Sandstein 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 14:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Provinciali

Prodded for 5 days, but a message opposing deletion was left on the talk page so I'm moving it to AfD. No vote. JeremyA 16:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I have replaced the text with a copyvio tag. However the reason given for prodding was that this person was not notable enough for a wikipedia article, so I think that it's best to let this AfD continue anyway. JeremyA 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Google shows he was notable so I've started a stub. Golfcam 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the article is a speedy A7 candidate. It doesn't assert notability. Delete unless expanded. Punkmorten 11:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, notability for opposing someone's manifesto doesn't convince me. Sandstein 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for his role in futurism. -- JJay 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, moot. Just zis Guy you know? 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger music

This redirect is biased, racist, and pointless. I don't think we need to keep it.

Mister Mister 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment it looks like maybe it got speedied? Probably delete if it existed just based on the putative title.--Deville (Talk) 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roland John Morris, Sr.

Wikipedia is not an obituary column. Nn; closest approach to a claim to notability is running (and losing) in a Congressional primary. Septentrionalis 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also states that he is co-founder of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare but that organization appears barely notable [38]. Author's name appears online in various pages related to that organization [39] and an article by "CERA". Appears not-notable enough.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending verification of major newspaper article treatment mentioned below. If not provided then Delete. If kept, major NPOV rewrite. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does contain facts and information about many, many people that have passed on. Roland's running in a Montana State race is not his only claim to notability. To many people, Roland, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Leech Lake, was an important man, giving a difficult message from his heart in effort to help his family and friends. A quick search of his name, Roland Morris, Sr., brings up several various websites discussing his message, including his testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 1998. I don;t know what local tribe sites you are mentioning. I haven't seen any. I do see several references to him from national organizations such as CERA, UCE, and UPOW, and well as many national Indian Sites, such as Indian Country Today and others. At his death, he was recognized and spoken fondly of by leaders in our western Montana home community. Some have called him a hero. Many, even his opponents, have noted his extreme courage and integrity. Currently, a documentary on his life is being shown on cable TV in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I hope that the Wikipedia staff will allow his life to be accurately documented for those that are interested. Thanks, Morris Family 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while I am sorry for the Morris family's loss, this individual does not merit his own article. Where (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were only the Morris family's loss, that might be so. Interestingly, the above writers ignored many of the events listed in Mr. Morris' life that made him notable. He testified before numerous State committees through the years, as well as the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in April of 1998 and the Minnesota Attorney General in 2000. He was also allowed a private meeting with a member of the President's Domestic Policy Council in 2002 in Washington DC, and spoke at the National Press Club in 2004. A person doesn't get invited to testify before Senate Committees, speak to a presidential aide, or speak to the national press unless they have something to say, and are respected by these entities as someone knowledgeable and notable. Through the years, he has also appeared in numerous newspaper articles across the country. The last article he appeared in was on Friday, May 14th, 2004, in the Washington Times. While it is true that not everyone in the world has heard of Roland Morris, he was a notable figure.

But what many that knew him found the most inspiring was that Roland lived a rough, criminal life for his first forty or so years, including jail time, and then turned it all around the way he did in his last 17 years. To go from abject poverty on the Rez and time in the county workhouse to meeting privately with a presidential aide isn't a real common thing. It only happened because he had something notable to say. He was a tribal member that was very unusual in the message he had to give.Morris Family 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know how to indent to respond to your above indent. I am just copying from the Wash Post site and pasting. They misspelled his name. That happens. To obtain the full artice/link from the site, one has to sign in with a archives user password.

Article ID: 200405140833060082 Published on May 14, 2004, Washington Times, The (DC) Indians fear legal breakup of family Tribe likely to assume custody

Rowland Morris Sr., who suffers from a terminal illness, ....


  • Neutral on deletion for now; I could be convinced this guy is notable enough. However, the article has to be massively rewritten if it is to be kept. It is extremely unencyclopedic, but if the claims are true, this guy seems to hit the threshhold for notability, if barely. --Deville (Talk) 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. When I search

MSN, using "Roland Morris, Sr." (In Quotes) I come up with eight different sites, the entire page, specifically mentioning him. Only one is CAICW. A couple I recognize. The others I don't.

Yahoo, the entire first page, seven different sites, a couple are repeated, only one is CAICW. On the next page, another six different sites. Some of these I know, but many I know nothing about, other than that they are quoting Roland Morris. Other mentions scattered on next pages.

Google - all on the first page are Roland; eight different ones, only one is CAICW. All on the second page are about Roland, scattered mentions on subsequent pages. I know this doesn't happen at all with my name. And this doesn't include sites that might respond to his full name, Roland John, or to activities he was invovled in, or misspellings of his name.

Rewriting is acceptable. I was simply trying to do this process quickly, and so used (with permission) material already written. Offical Link to his US Senate Committee Testimony, http://www.senate.gov/~scia/1998hrgs/0407_rm.htm , although other sites have also reprinted the testimony. Morris Family 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have done some editing, taking out unnecessary sentences and adding relevant information. Morris Family 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?"

The following articles verify the work that Mr. Morris was engaged in and his contribution to these controversial issues. Within this specific field, it is evident that he was considered an important contributor. Some of the links below are articles written by Mr. Morris' opponents, not his friends. For example, he was recognized and vilified by the Montana Human rights Network as being an important contributor to his field. However, due to the lawsuit Mr. Morris brought against MHRN, not all of the articles they had written concerning him appear to be still available online. (ie, for one: "Are They Racists? The Anti-Indian Movement in Montana." Montana Human Rights Network News, November 1999. [ http://www.mhrn.org/news/1199anti.html ]

But they have left a couple articles... http://www.mhrn.org/newsarchive/298face.html http://www.mhrn.org/newsarchive/298acere.html

And there are other sites verifying his work: http://www.citizensalliance.org/links/pages/articles%20and%20CERA%20news/Roland%20Morris%20obituary.htm http://www.ratical.org/ratville/NewTerminators.html http://www.publiceye.org/indigenous/anti-sovereignty.html http://www.senate.gov/~scia/1998hrgs/0407_rm.htm http://www.saulttribetimes.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71&mode=&order=0&thold=0 http://www.perm.org/articles/a223.html

a blog http://thesovereignpost.blogstream.com/v1/p3.html

Comment I would urge you to look at other Wikipedia articles, particularly biographical ones on recognized figures, to get a measure of the standard style of WP articles, and format the nominated one accordingly. The "headline" is especially unusual for a WP article. Also, if you attach links and new information to the article (where they count), you need only notify other editors that you have done so on this AfD debate, rather than posting all the links here. Editors will be happy to check out the page again. It may well be (especially if the page is deleted) that it is ultimately more appropriate to wait for a more neutral contributor to formulate and submit this article anew in the future. Deizio 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Early close, keep. Sorry, but this is going only one of two ways: massive pile-on keep, or massive toxicity. Eight prior keeps is more than enough, there is no realistic chance of deletion and I see no reason to waste more of the community's time. Feel free to haul me up in front of ArbCom as a rouge admin. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with JzG, he has done the right action. I do suggest that, if he hasn't already, that as a good faith action he notes it on
WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gay Nigger Association of America

Don't feed the trolls. We shouldn't have this article FireStone 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (note: this is FireStone's first edit.) Silensor 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Indeed, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep no need to delete. FroogolShopping 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trolling is something we don't want to encourage by having an article on them. Quintillion 17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sigh... probably a bad faith nomination intended to further push back the date this can ever actually be considered for deletion, but who knows. I encourage people not to kneejerk react here. This article is
    original research, it's as simple as that. Check the sources, none even mention GNAA except in webforum sections, which clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Recently there was some drama over people wanting to add that "GNAA is in decline" and people reverted it as vandalism. Eh... this shows the whole problem with original research. Who are we to believe in a content dispute? There are no sources whatsoever to check... it's just conjecture and opinion verses more conjecture and opinion. Even Slashdot has never written an article about GNAA (by acronym or full name) no one but Wikipedia can be duped into covering these guys. I asked two months ago for an actual reliable source about GNAA... and absolutely nothing has emerged. Ah well, I had to say it.--W.marsh 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We have plenty of articles that have no sources or even no
    WP:RS. See Slashdot for an example. Also, this article does have a RS, the article in The Scotsman. kotepho 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Meaningful coverage... that's just two sentences, mentioning that they are indeed a trolling group. It wouldn't help with any of the issues on this page. An article doesn't have to cite sources really unless there's a content dispute, the point is that sources do actually exist when there is a controversey. A very quick check [40] shows 633 recent news stories mentioning Slashdot, many are actually about Slashdot and look like they have good information that could be cited in the article. --W.marsh 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to google do it correctly. Google News uses slashdot as a source. Lets search the New York Times to see how many times the New York Times is mentioned! Even with the 157 results left most of them are not about /. and even if they are you will not be able to cite half of what is in the Slashdot article. kotepho 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that the nominator should maybe have looked at the talk page first, which displays the long and distinguished AfD history of this article. That being said, since it's here again, delete per W.marsh. Sandstein 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty much my opinion too. I can't in good conscience act to keep original research... but I wish this nom hadn't been made right now, and this way. --W.marsh 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It isn't Christmas season. kotepho 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a google search and pretty carefully checked and can't find any notability. Multiple postings in online forums but no major sources. They are on slashdot but only in a discussion forum. Google news returns no results. Nytimes.com--0 results. Note that if they are to be deleted from here, someone who works across other wikimedia sites might attempt the same at GNAA's entry in Wiktionary [41], and at the simple english wikipedia [42]. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately, and protect deleted page. The actual content of >75% of the article is speculation, rumour, and personal opinion.. with so much associated controversy, phrases such as "generally assumed", "tend to" should have been extirpated rather than poorly cited from an article as high-profile as this. This article is the lowest of the low as far as Wikipedia is concerned, in terms of user disagreement and persistance in trying to get the article back up at any opportunity, and the fact it is creating so much negative opinion is too strenuous on Wikipedia's wagon of faith. This article is bad for the atmosphere of Wikipedia in general. Bobo. 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to remove the OR from the article. That would still leave an article, even if it is a substub. kotepho 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, Kotepho. Thank you. Bobo. 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be a speedy keep like the last time. 9 AfDs is riduculously excessive, especially after the 6th was proclaimed to be the last and was highly trafficed. Although the full name reveals few Google hits and GNAA is overbroad, "Gay Nigger" reveals plenty. Also, if the stuff about the professor's speech is true, we have for the GNAA what we have for few Internet phenomenons: Academic commentary. As notable as trolls can be. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.At the suggestion of your text, I tried a search with "gay nigger," but limiting the results so it wouldn't rope in all the articles under the full name, wikipedia mirrors, etc. Only 65 unique hits and again, can't find anything reliable [43]. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of people have seen their trolling. The Naruto/GNfOS did happen. The Apple photos did happen. The MacOSX release did happen. kotepho 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So basically the reasoning here is that this article on a trolling group will encourage others to troll? What specious logic that is. People are going to troll regardless of whether there's a group who does it; they've been trolling for long before the GNAA existed, and they'll be trolling long after the GNAA goes away. The group seems notable enough, though the article appears to need some sources for the first couple sections. -- Wwagner 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Probably deletable per User:W.marsh above, but this 9th nomination will fail to find consensus, as will the 10th, 11th, 12th... it's time to stop wasting everyone's time and energy with the AfD process on this article. Vslashg (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nn troublemakers. Golfcam 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very notable. Sn0rlax 18:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not evident. -- Egil 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly "notable" enough. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect from deletion permenantly. This has survived 8 attempts at deletion. It's time to move on to more important things like writing an encyclopedia. Not to mention all of the above reasons to keep.Gateman1997 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per multiple previous AfDs. I move we close this debate since the nominator is an indef-blocked drive-by. More than en ough time has been wasted on this already. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has the world gone mad? --Jscott 20:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may not agree with them, but they are a group which do affect the internet to some degree. I would find this usefull if they trolled my site and wanted to know who the hell they were. --OrbitOne 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. – Elisson • Talk 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 20:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Dare Obasanjo

The article has been tossed back and forth from prod to speedy. I think it belongs here. He works for Microsoft, gets a ton of google hits [44], with our article nowhere near the top. Let's just decide once and for all so people stop changing the tags. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obasanjo is also the author of
Warrens 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep, tons of Ghits, [45], etc. --Deville (Talk) 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you think this should be kept, then you should not have sent it here. It was marked as a speedy - I rejected it as it didn't meet the CSD, but I placed a prod on it to allow some scrutiny. If someone thought it notable, they should have removed the prod and left it at that, it should only be sent here if someone wishes it deleted. Since no-one wants it deleted, speedy keep. --
    ask? 19:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: If you really wanted the article kept, you shouldn't have added the prod that triggered this AfD (per
Warrens 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. It was prodded by User:Terrestrian, the prod was removed, it was tagged for speedy by User:Terrestrian, then Doc, you rejected the speedy and re-prodded it. What the heck? Like NickelShoe said, let's decide once and for all. · rodii · 03:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with the dude, and assumed there was some reason people kept trying to get it deleted that I didn't understand. If you want to speedy keep, that's fine with me...you (Doc) are the one who reprodded the article. Moved it here out of courtesy. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good AfD, because someone with an agenda has been trying to get this article deleted. This gets it on the record as a keep, which it should be. Dare Obasanjo is extremely well known in the world of XML, RSS and related web standards; he's one of the originators of
    Microformats, and a widely-read blogger. And all the other stuff above. · rodii · 03:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Commando

This article is cruft about a game mod and is unencyclopedic.--Zxcvbnm 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT delete! all this information is correct. This is a encyclopedia for everything out there, regardless of nature. this is in no way offensive or crude.

  • Keep or Merge. This article was nominated before and survived, as was met requirements. Being total conversion mod is not a reason for deletion. Kraf 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Alicia 36jj

Apparently non-notable porn model, looks like an advertisement. Said to have started modeling in Dec 05 (was Mar 06 in the version I PRODded, then backdated by the author). You, the community, be the judge of whether the volume of her mammaries alone is sufficient to establish

notability, but I rather doubt it. Sandstein 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Bejnar should feel to rewrite it as s/he suggests, but not rewriting it to deal with the objections is not going to make a lot of difference. It reads like a copyvio to me, as well. -Splashtalk 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Citizen

Information on online course offered by the British Computer Society on how to use the internet. Does not appear particularly notable. Delete. DMG413 17:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per DMG413 and my comments in the article history -Harmil 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • E-citizen is a perfectly good word that is commonly used to describe a person who is interacting with their government electronically instead of in person or by mail. See, for example, the article: "The Rise of the E-Citizen: How People Use Government Agencies' Web Sites" at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Govt_Website_Rpt.pdf . As such I don't think that this present content about one course should hijack the entry. Bejnar 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Radio pirate dj

No allmusic entry, no evidence that is anything other than band vanity. Entry is exactly the same for their external links. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Unreal Tournament Role-play

Advertising, pure and simple.➨

DVERS❞ 17:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Xezbeth with summary of (linkspam). -- JLaTondre 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ass Parade

Advertising. Pure and simple.➨

DVERS❞ 17:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Should also include
    DVERS❞ 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulão rock ´n roll

vandalism cave 17:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Sladjana Korbas

This article is about a young lady who, it is alleged/implied, was subject to maltreatment as a baby in Banja Luka. The first problem is

verifiable evidence in the article. A Google search turns up nothing. Delete. Sliggy 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, subject is now iancognito. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cognito

The article asserts that he is not notable :-) Where (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy a7 and tagged as such. It even admits that he has no claims to notability. --Rory096 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy del, the name suggests a joke to me in any case. --Deville (Talk) 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete
    WP:CSD A7, unremarkable person. Sliggy 18:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Although this touches two-thirds, there are some better-than-usual arguments made for retaining it, and I'd prefer to see a stronger than borderline case made to have this deleted. -Splashtalk 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanhome

Non-notable board OverlordChris 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --
    pm_shef 18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep based on an Alexa rank of 600[46]. Never heard of the webpage (not a sports fan) but 600 means they are a seriously major player with millions of viewers. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, should be more expansive with an Alexa rank like that. --
    Joey Roe 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. I think that is the Alexa rank for all scout.com websites combined, not just for fanhome.scout.com; see [47] and scroll down a bit. David Sneek 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa ranks can be bumped up by those who know what they're doing. Articles looking to meet WP:WEB had better assert and link to evidence of notability before getting my vote. Deizio 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google turns up only 60 sites that link to fanhome.scout.com [48] - and several of those are other sites on scout.com. -Sean Curtin 19:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have updated the article to reflect the site's 300,000 members, 6 million posts, etc. I have been amazed in the past at the barely notable messageboards that leaks through AFD without consensus. This one however, with massive numbers, is having trouble. Go figure. Note also that Yahoo! ranks Fanhome as second only to ESPN: SportsNation in popularity for "sports chats and forums" [49]. Note that each of Fanhome's boards maintain separate statistics. For instance Fanhome's main baseball forum alone has 5,763 registered members and gets 7,839 average visitors per day [50]. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charby The Vampirate

Prod tag was removed; non-notable webcomic (article itself admits that it's "relatively unknown in the webcomic community") OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For our inclusion guidelines for web sites, including webcomics, see
    WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and google. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comic should not be deleted. Wikipedia has retained Elijah and Azuu on that bases that it is the #1 strip style comic on Drunk Duck. DD has two catagories for comics strips and graphic novels. Since Charby is the #1 Graphic Novel on DD, and even more popular then Elijah and Azuu, it should logically also be retained. -EEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.124.5 (talk • contribs)
  • I agree witht the above. This comic is entertaining, and has wonderful art, but due to the vastness of the archives, numerous people ask the same questions over and over on the site. A wiki will solve this problem. People can instead of asking a question, first check the Wiki, and THEN ask the question. I don't understand why this has been put up for deletion. -Milknut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.135.216 (talk • contribs)
  • CTV is an incredibly popular comic, especially taking into consideration the drop on DD readership after the crash. The plot is complicated enough with the dozens of characters and subplots to merit a reference. --Hazgarn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazgarn (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Reasonably written and informative. Despite the author specifically disliking promotion, it has easily made it to the most read of all drunk-duck story-based webcomics. Also, isn't there a little more to whether something is encyclopedic than mere number of google hits? It is relatively unknown, but rabidly followed by those who have found it. It is, in my opinion, an interesting anomaly of sorts and quite at home with having a wikipedia article.

Not to mention that with the sheer number of secondary characters, many people following the webcomic would be very grateful for this article's continued existance. Mister cope 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when googling it is easy to forget that Charby the Vampirate will, unlike, say, Secret of Mana Theatre, turn up only results SPECIFICALLY about charby the vampirate, as Charby is a rather uncommon name, and vampirate is a compound word if not coined by the author, certainly very far from common. To get a more fair comparison to other, aparently acceptably noteworth webcomics, you should search for the entire phrase. For example, "Charby the Vampirate" returns just over 600 pages. "Secret of Mana Theatre" returns a masssive 630, and depending on whether you search for "TIN The Incompetent Ninja" or simply "The Incompetant Ninja", you get either a colossul 220, or up to an incomprehensible entire 770 pages. And the latter's article barely qualifies as a stub!. Keep Mister cope 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charby is a very well-detailed comic, and has become very popular. It is definitely worthy of a page. --Andsean 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC) -Just because the article says that it's "relatively unknown in the webcomic community" doesn't mean that it's not worthy of a wikiedia page. If you keep this page it will help improve CTV's popularity. I also find that CTV is an incredibly detailed comic and has many devoted fans (check the forums) and yes it even has it's own forum! Amelius is and incredibly talented person and mannages to maintain CTV while also working on Unlife is Unfair, so I therefore believe that the CTV wiki entry should NOT be deleted. ~Kioushan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.86.187 (talk • contribs) [reply]

When compared to other comics it can be seen that Charby is above average in plot development, artistic quality, and character organization. Though this is largely a matter of opinion, many have proclaimed that Charby is their favorite. The comic updates regularly as promised and Amelius is more than willing to communicate with her fan base, a quality that’s not all to common with artists of her caliber that will ensure her comics growth. Charby also has a relatively active and growing fan forum demonstrating the growing potential of this comic and need for a Wiki reference.Daggertooth 01:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There isn't any reason I can see to get rid of this entry, the subject is (as stated previously) large and features a lot of points of interest that a wiki entry would be useful to keep track of. The claim that it's relativly unkown should not be considered a prominant enough complaint to warrant deletion. This is a popular comic, and there are many lesser known tv-series/games/comics/people featured on wikipedia. I had thought the point of this site was to inform. Not just to inform on the overly popular subjets. --SeanJKS

Keep. Despise the slight error in Cyril bio (he wasn't killed), I beleive this should stay up. Charby the Vampirate is a good enough comic to deserve a wiki page, and, despise the authors modest personality, needs a little more publication. I'm sure her loyal fans (which are many) would love to see this page stay.

  • Weak keep It is at the top of one of Drunk Duck's list, which is comparable to Gods of Arr-Kelaan and Elijah and Azuu. However, neither of these has been AfDed yet, so I don't know if that actually means anything. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is no valid reason to delete this entry as outlined in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The Article is well written for covering the amount of information it is covering. The comic is increadibly popular, one of the most popular comics on Drunk Duck, it's popularity should not be an issue. This article on "Charby the Vampirate" should be kept.--Neilak20

Point of Observation - Being the Top comic on DD was enough to get Count Your Sheep into Keenspot which I most will agree is no small feat. That would suggest that top DD position is something of a notable acomplishment unto itself and that DD has some notworthy standing in the comic community even if it isn't the number one comic hosting site. Charby did win several of Drunk Duck's Evil Empire awards before DD crashed and erased everything on that site. Lastly its 600+ issue full color archive is an impressive accomplishment by anyone's standards and that Charby at least has some impressive staying power with fans that most other comics lack. Charby and its characters are easily more popular then several obscure villians from main stream comics which have somehow gotten their own wiki entry despite extream obscurity and unpopularity mearly by the association with a large name publisher.

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Proper Doh Downloads

  • Do Not Delete It will reach it soon enough

Delete. A disputed

PROD (without any comment at all by the anonymous disputer) on a forum with fewer than 1000 members, no other assertions of notability (and anyway AfD needs much more than a mere assertion) and no apparent media coverage, significant listings. Does not register at all on Alexa. -Splashtalk 18:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. kingboyk 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veat

This is duplicative of the

Meat analogue article. Bejnar 18:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

You can be bold and do the redirect. Please indicate it here if you do. Then this debate can be closed. Catherine breillat 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copwatch

Non-notable civic organization. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Catherine breillat 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I heard about this organization offline. here is an image mentioning the Austin branch. I can easily see someone seeing a listing for their local copwatch meeting and searching here. I think the article probably needs cleanup though. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems quite a lot of people are involved in this organization. JeffBurdges 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, collectively notable organizations. -Sean Curtin 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gtrmp/jeffburdges.Tombride 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really an organization, but is still notable. It's going on everywhere. Canaen 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable group. Peter G Werner 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon (not really a single organization). There are chapters in several US cities and Copwatch is regularly in the news in the US. If people see a story about Copwatch, this should be a good place for them to learn about it. Definitely needs cleanup and expansion.Mycota 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have seen them on various indymedia sources and even freespeech tv, so I think they are fairly notable. The Ungovernable Force 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to be an almost nationwide organization. Many google hits and many recent google news hits [51]. Nom makes no case at all for deletion, although I would thank him for taking the trouble to spell out NN. Given Copwatch's importance, uniqueness and reach and the media attention, it would seem that this is exactly the kind of page we need here. -- JJay 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love articles that reference their own websites, love to see them deleted since they don't belong here. Mike (T C) 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that there is no third party references, ie news papers etc. Mike (T C) 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few. Feel free to add more since there are many hundreds of articles on this group. Of course, the article as it stands is already better referenced than such articles as Police, gun or justice- none of which have any references. Perhaps those articles should be deleted. -- JJay 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This article was speedily deleted by Doc glasgow with the summary: (author admits nonsense on talk page) —Encephalon 23:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Guadalupe Frias

Non-notable (but marrying an ex-prince would appear to be an assertion of notability). A Google search produces one exact match - on a different person, it appears. Otherwise, unable to find a citation for this article.➨

DVERS❞ 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Ribas

Graduado em Jornalismo (1991) pela PUC Minas, Sílvio Ribas iniciou carreira como assessor de imprensa do Sindicato dos Previdenciários de MG (1990-1994) e do Hospital João XXIII (1994). Depois foi repórter do Diário do Comércio, seguindo para a Gazeta Mercantil (1995-2001), atuando em Minas Gerais, Santa Catarina e São Paulo, como repórter, chefe de sucursal (SC) e editor. Foi assessor da Companhia de Concessões Rodoviárias (CCR), pela RP1. De 2002 a 2007, foi editor-assistente do Estado de Minas, além de colunista (Momento Econômico) e coordenador do suplemento Maiores de Minas. Em 2007, veio para Brasília, como repórter especial e correspondente de A Tarde (Bahia) e de A Tarde FM. Em 2009, exerceu a função de editor corporativo do Correio Braziliense. De 2008 a 2009, assessorou a Executiva Nacional do PSDB. Foi correspondente do jornal e portal Brasil Econômico (2009-2010). De volta ao Correio, em 2011, foi repórter de Economia, sendo promovido em 2014 a subeditor. Ganhou, pela ordem, os prêmios Embratel, Fiat Allis (CNH), Abic, Caixa, Federação das Indústrias de Santa Catarina, Fraterno Vieira (Abinam), Andef, Allianz, CNI e ExxonMobil (Esso). É autor do livro Dicionário do Morcego (Summus, 2006) e co-autor dos livros Vida Brasileira (Lazuli, 1998), Sombras (Bizarras, 2007) e 100 Dias do Governo Temer (Editora do Autor, 2017). Colaborou com a revista Mundo dos Super-Heróis e do portal www.pastajoia.com.br. Desde 2015 atua no Senado Federal como assessor parlamentar comissionado. Blogues: vendoideais.blogspot.com.br e dicionariodomorcego.blogspot.com.

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

The result of the debate was to speedy delete, per author request.

Interiot 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Percussion_Grenade

I created this page as a separate page, but later moved the content to the Hand Grenade article Yacoubean 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete,
    WP:CSD G7, author requests deletion. Tag added to article. Sliggy 20:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheaper by the dozen 3

Crystalballism at it's finest. Article states that it's all rumours, not able to verify any of the information via movie news sites. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Craig Brown (musician)

self-confessed autobiography by the drummer of a band which does not have an Allmusic profile. Says virtually nothing of note independent of the band itself. Tone is not in the least bit neutral and the article is full of cruft (do we really need to know that a drummer admires John Henry Bonham? Would it not be remarkable if a drummer did not admire Bonham?). I call WP:VAIN. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by

Marudubshinki as ('nother copyvio). -- JLaTondre 02:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The Village of Outcasts

Contested PROD. Full text of some kid's novel (whose only other edit is the speedyable

WP:NOT a free webhost/soapbox/text dump. Delete. Kinu t/c 20:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Also part of this AfD if it doesn't get deleted via PROD first: The village of Outcastes. Same great content, new great spelling.
    • Comment: I'd even support speedying both as vandalism, if possible. While one must
      assume good faith, the user had already been warned several times about removing speedy tags on his bio article, and it's possible these were created in retaliation, since one would normally tread lightly after getting a few unhappy messages on their talk page. --Kinu t/c 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense - if not speedy then it ticks a lot of WP:NOT boxes. nnvanityfictionspam Politepunk 20:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as nonsense - an imaginary novel? Kuru talk 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, unique mind indeed. --Deville (Talk) 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coldgearz

Weak Google presence. Likely

WP:VSCA as created by an editor with the same name as the author of the game. Delete. Kinu t/c 20:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shihan Mihiranga

He's not a musician yet..He is just a kid who particpated in a contest which he didnt even win (reality tv show).One day if he becomes a great musician ,then his details should be included..as of now this should be deleted..This is madness.. lol

non notable musician from Sri Lanka, maybe? Adam (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, (racism removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLASHY FUNKMAN (talk • contribs)
    • This artist is extremely popular in Sri Lanka, and therefore this article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.10.58 (talk • contribs)
    • Do not delete this page. This guy is becoming extremly popular in Sri Lanka and will release an album of his own very soon.
    • Yah, don't delete.. This is a super guy.. & he'll be a important character
  • Delete Does not meet
    WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. If you want him to stay, you need to read that and explain how he satisfies it. JoshuaZ 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


I dont think that this should be deleted. Probably it's reuested by someone for his personnal reasons. This goes for all other articals under sirasa super star topic

  • Delete, does not meet
    WP:MUSIC, based on what's in the article and from what I can find. JoshuaZ is right: if he does meet it, I can't see it. (P.S.: Sock puppetry does not help. Fixing the article does.)--Kinu t/c 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

D2evil

Delete: Does not meet

WP:WEB. --Hetar 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wolseley elm

non-notable tree. Computerjoe's talk 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Barry A. Vann

Sole edit of "notable Wikipedian" Bvann (talk · contribs), this is an autobiography which appears to fail the Professor Test or any other plausible test of notability. Either the subject was too modest to list all his achievements or this is just another university lecturer of no particular distinction. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete insufficiently notable. One book appears to be the main claim to fame. Dlyons493 Talk 20:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nom. Joe 21:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His book is ranked 762,551 on Amazon. I guess that means we only have about 700,000 other biographies to write first. --Deville (Talk) 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I would also observe that the summary reversal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009) was a little unsatisfactory and could have been fixed more appropriately by adding the tag! -Splashtalk 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009)

We deleted songs in triple meter] (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter) because it was unverifiable (most current songs are not published as sheet music so the time signature cannot be verified; several of those allegedly in triple were not), and because triple metre is not in any case that unusual. A new article, Triple metre, exists as a result of that debate. We voted to delete this again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009) but there was a "failure of process" - actually there wasn't, it's just that the editors removed the AfD tag. The current article has all the original flaws, including the false statement that 12/8 is triple metre (not in my book it isn't, it's a compound double, but 9/8 is). I suggest we delete it again. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see the problem here. If you think there are songs not in triple meter, just remove them and optionally say on the talk page why. As for which signatures are considered triple meter, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Deleting this useful list is totally unnecessary.  Grue  22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the definition of triple metre is, IU think, inaccurate, and the verifiability, is suspect, and there is nothing terribly unusal about triple metre (meaning that it has a vast number of potential entries), and it was previously deleted under another title, and it's
    original research sice there are no sources stating that these songs are in triple metre. Apart fomr those, and the fac t that it's listcruft, there are no problems of which I'm aware:-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)

We deleted Songs in triple meter partly because it was unverifiable (since the music was not, for the most part, published in sheet form so could not be verified), partly because it was potentially vast (triple metre is not that uncommon). Additional concerns with this article are that: 12/8 is not, to my knowledge, triple metre, it's a compound double; I'm not even convinced 6/8 really qualifies since music in 6/8 is often beaten in two-to-the-bar, making it a compound double (certainly the 6/8 sections of the Agnus Dei in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis which I'm singing at the moment are two-to-a-bar). Unless and until we can have an authoritative scholarly source for the contention that these songs are in the time signatures claimed and that these time signatures are, in fact, triple metre, I say delete. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the previous nomination in November ended in "no consensus" result.  Grue  10:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the problem here. If you think there are songs not in triple meter, just remove them and optionally say on the talk page why. As for which signatures are considered triple meter, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Deleting this useful list is totally unnecessary.  Grue  22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the definition of triple metre is, I think, inaccurate, and the verifiability, is suspect, and there is nothing terribly unusal about triple metre (meaning that it has a vast number of potential entries), and it was previously deleted under another title, and it's
    original research since there are no sources stating that these songs are in triple metre. Apart from those, and the fact that it's listcruft, there are no problems of which I'm aware:-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But what constitutes triple metre? The author of the article says that 6/8 and 12/8 are triple, but as far as I can tell they are generally treated as a compound duple. That's the problem: the sources cited do not actually say that the song is in triple, listening to the song and deciding it's in triple based on what you (perhaps wrongly) think triple is, is
    original research. If a secondary source could be cited which attests to these being in triple that miught be different, but there is no such source. Just zis Guy you know? 10:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, but it sounds like a mention could be added elsewhere. -Splashtalk 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ripple

From the "Notable Wikipedians" category, deleted (or userfied)

WP:BLP. An author who is about to self-publish but hasn't yet, a drummer for a smallish band, a self-taught artist (aren't we all?). I call WP:VAIN] Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum propeller

Neologism and original research. Not enough Google hits to create an article about something that doesn't exist. Also I'm under the strong suspicion, that this article was deleted in process some two years ago (as the the lemma was already on may observation list before the current version was created). But I was unable to find traces of that. --Pjacobi 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Google hits are not the sole criterion of notability. The concept is, however, used extensively in Science Fiction - much fictional interstellar travel requires the concept, even if not explicitly labelled as a 'vacuum propeller'. Did you check the link and the books?
  2. Many fictional things are documented in Wikipedia -
    Elves, Teleportation, Perpetual motion
    , etc. One more, which is actually (in my opinion) a useful concept doesn't seem to be excessive.
  3. It's not original research, as far as I can see - see the references in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something, but could you explain why you consider it to be original research? It certainly isn't on my part. Perhaps it should be renamed as 'Vacuum propeller (science fiction)'? I believe the concept deserves inclusion, but I'm open as to how it should be included. WLD 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To reply further, 'Vacuum propeller' is not a neologism. As Pjacobi says, there was an earlier attempt, I think by User:Palapala article entitled 'Vacuum propeller' - a Google search for Vacuum propeller leads to a previous discussion on User:talk pages where Pjacobi advises Palapala to merge the article into the Casimir effect article. See here:
As a matter of record, I (West London Dweller, WLD) am not Palapala.
Also, as a matter of process, Pjacobi did not notify the original author of the article on their talk page that it had been nominated. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette "Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised." - this was, unfortunately, overlooked. WLD 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By author's admission 'fictional' (which is another way of saying patent nonsense). To the author: yes, there are articles about kryptonite and warp drives. Get this idea into superman comics and/or Star Trek episodes and we can talk. In the mean time, it's not sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The works of Charles Dickens and the plays of Shakespeare are fictional, but many would assert they are not patent nonsense. I don't think that particular proposition stands. As for notability, I'll repeat that I believe the concept to be worth documenting. As you rightly point out,
Iain M. Banks appears to use what looks like the vacuum propeller concept - generating reaction against hyperspaces - in his Culture novels. Stephen Baxter also seems to use the same concept in his Xeelee novels - in his case with an alien spacecraft that flaps its wings (I'm not joking) to move across interstellar distances. To be clear, the concept is that of using free space as a working fluid to allow transfer of momentum. Vacuum propellor is simply a shorthand way of saying it. So the concept may not be in Superman comics or Star Trek episodes, but it is used in mainstream, well published science fiction. By the way, by author, I meant of the article, not the concept. WLD 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Sorry, but this is not compelling. You cite two cases of authors describing a vacuum propeller. Stephen Baxter's novel you admit describes something different than the article - wings instead of a propeller. I am very familiar with Iain M. Banks's works and his culture novels do not describe anything like a vacuum propeller that I can recall. You'll need a specific citation to convince me. If you could provide a reference to the works of an author like Banks or Baxter who uses a vacuum propeller (and that is what the article is about, not "the concept is that of using free space as a working fluid to allow transfer of momentum") then do so in the article - it does you no good here. Then I, and I suspect others, could be persuaded to change their votes. Gwernol 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Gwernol, please don't take this the wrong way - I can see the way this vote is inevitably heading, but I'll cite the use of the concept in Excession, Chapter 7 (p.246 in my Orbit edition). The Yawning Angel and Charitable View are chasing the Sleeper Service:
"Sums, sums. How much mass had there been aboard the damn thing? Water; gas-giant atmosphere, highly pressurised. About four thousand cubic kilometres of water alone; four gigatonnes. Compress it, alter it, transmute it, convert it into the ultra dense exotic materials that comprised an engine capable of reaching out and down to the energy grid that underlay the universe and pushing against it...ample, ample, more than enough." My bold emphasis.
In other words, we have a machine that does not use reaction mass to generate velocity in a vacuum. Granted, Iain M. Banks doesn't call it a 'vacuum propeller', but I think the concept applies. I know this argument hasn't convinced anybody voting here, but at least I've tried. WLD 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The anons rather patronising defence aside, just look at the article! It's first-person research (it even says "I hope") and waxes lyrical about how underappreciated women are. This article, as the deleters make very clear, is in need of beginning over from scratch. Seqsea, note that an AfD does not "salt the earth" forever: a non-substantially indentical creation is not subject to this AfD in any way. But as the article stands, it is hopeless, it's only content being exactly as charged by the deleters. Thus, without prejudice to a proper job, delete. -Splashtalk 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of american women in the media since 1900

As it stands, this is not an encyclopedic article, but a list of external links and hope for further contributions. Delete. DMG413 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Scott Ottney

Either Usr:Rsottney is being very modest or this article fails to establish notability. Top hits (other than Wikipedia) are his own site and blog. Nothing in Google News, no sources, no coverage in independent media listed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable
    WP:BIO. Joe 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, I find nothing about this person that would meet
    WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Notability not established. Bucketsofg 22:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was
    prodded about a month ago, but it got pulled off that as a notable enough author (although barely). The article used to be a lot longer and more detailed (to comment on being "very modest") with useless information about his family life, copy editing experience, etc. After the article was proposed for deletion, the author (using an anonymous URL) pared it down to what you see now. This is a lot better than the other quite wordy, vain version. I guess it just comes down to if people think that this author is notable enough to have a stub. As an inclusionist I would give this article a weak keep even though I was the one that added the original "prod" tag. Sparsefarce 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was simply redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Fourteen

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alford

Autobiographical article by

WP:BLP I can't quite see how. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Note, it's a provincal party. Even if elected, he would not have held a national office Pete.Hurd 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JzG's comprehensive nomination does the business Politepunk 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The
    Alberta Alliance is a minor provincial party in Alberta; it got about 10% of the vote in the last provincial election. Alford is a VP in that party. That probably does not quite make it to notability imo. Bucketsofg 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
afterthought. Perhaps he should be merged into the
Alberta Alliance
article.
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's been the leader of a major provincial political party. He's more notable than Grant Neufeld IMHO. Ardenn 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. Thanks Ardenn :-) Keep and cleanup. His leadership of the Socreds is notable—even if during a low period in their history. —GrantNeufeld 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Was leader of a party that formed government in Alberta for decades in the past. Every other leader of a party of equivalent note in Canada has or will soon have a Wikipedia article, probably every one besides this being written by Wikipedia's earnest community of Canadian political historians. Samaritan 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he was the leader of the
    Social Credit Party of Alberta. Note the list of leaders in the article on the party. Luigizanasi 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David Lawrence Chapman

This article is just vandalism. There's nothing true, all lies. He didn't won silver in 800 m run at the 1952 Summer Olympics (didn't even participate in that event), didn't participate in Penthatlon (the only Belgian Francois Plumerel was 45th), didn't participate at 100 m run and 800 m run or swimming. It seems that he didn't participate at the 1952 summer olympics at all. Also same as David Lawrence CHAPMAN Gh 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Fetofs Hello! 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Hanlon

non notable content Dunstan 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non article. Can't even tell what it is about. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 as no assertion of notability (which is bad, because I have no idea what this person is supposed to be). "All boys will have accommodation at Robinson Gardens Inn." But not at Wikipedia, though. --Kinu t/c 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

David Lawrence CHAPMAN

Same as David Lawrence Chapman, which I also nominated for deletion (see more Articles for deletion/David Lawrence Chapman) Gh 21:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete google returns no useful hits, seems to be a hoax. JoshuaZ 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.

Mailer Diablo 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Eede

Relevant policies:
WP:NFT

Looks like a made-up music genre that cannot be verified through Google or any of the provided sources, which look spurious anyway (forums etc.). Sandstein 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The last page of the Internet

This is unencyclopedic, so it should be deleted. Booking563 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why is it unencyclopaedic if it's just an explanation of something else? That's what an encyclopaedia is. --Rory096 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and because I don't understand the nom. -- JJay 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 30,000 google hits; seems notable Where (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough internet meme. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Where. Mikker ... 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola lelean

Non-notable person, see

WP:BIO. The current version contains stuff like "worldwide sales for the album are now over 42mil" and "She got her first TV acting in the multi award winning film 'New Town Original', In the Oscars in early 2006" which seem to be lies. Thue | talk 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh piss off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlembo (talk • contribs)

Comment He also blanked this AfD, but I ran into it as a conflict when I was posting, so I restored Joy's AfD and comments. Fan1967 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I was making was not about his wish to delete the article but the suggestion that everyone should be banned. He wants to ban people as retribution for being banned from coolclarity.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.

Mailer Diablo 22:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Viking Range

Delete: Non-notable corporation/advertisement. --Hetar 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a fairly notable company, though the article needs a little cleanup. Keep. --DMG413 22:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well known company in the field of professional-quality appliances for the home. -Dawson 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although as said before could be cleaned. This returns 180K links, seems like enough. --Deville (Talk) 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable maker of high-end ranges for McMansions.
    Thatcher131 05:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • From Wikipedia's Notability Page: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." Consumer Reports tests and rates Viking products. Also, Viking appliances are used on The Food Network's Emeril Live. Hope this helps to add legitimacy. Keep. Trgiii 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by JesseW as hoax. -- JLaTondre 14:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setries of atlantis

Patent nonsense; doesn't return a single result on Google outside of wikipedia, even when the spelling is corrected. Pugs Malone 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep content - Liberatore(T) 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Analogs albums

This list is too small. And it isn't necessary at all. Visor 23:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE.

Harro5 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Bare (2003 album)

That's not an article, just an external link. As in [52]. Visor 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts III

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Currently this article contains a single quote on this unconfirmed game. Delete for now, and re-create when there is more information. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cherry

This person seems to be mainly famous for ranting on Usenet. His notability seems to be supported by a minor mention in one magazine article and some documents at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Delete, because while he may have wound people up, there is no need for an article about him The Land 23:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, he seems barely notable enough. EFF seems to think he's worth his own top-level directory... --Deville (Talk) 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would perfer an article about the court case as he really isn't that famous, but I'm not sure we have one to merge to. kotepho 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember the court case he filed against Koch, even without knowing anything about the Usenet rants. GRuban 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth_Cameron

This appears to be a page created by it's name sake. It is my opinion that this individual is not notable enough to warrent an article. Please note that many of the claims made are ludicrusly overhyped, such as being widely known in Scotland, when making a decision Jefffire 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I'm not sure about the vanity, and also this Edinburgh University Students' Association seems to be a well-maintained page. If the organization is notable, its president should be, no? On the other hand, a claim of "widely known in Scotland" is probably false. --Deville (Talk) 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I don't believe Wikipedia has, or should have, a principle that if an organization is notable, its president is too -- particularly with regard to student organizations whose officers tend to change annually. --Metropolitan90 08:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable enough, give her a few years tho, and I'm sure we'll need to have an article on her! :) Mikker ... 14:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. As an Edinburgh resident, I'd say Ms Cameron is regularly in the press and relatively prominent - much more so than other Students' Association Presidents I have come across in the past.
  • Delete. I fail to see anything in that article that says she merits an article. Vegaswikian 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While don't think Ms. Cameron is bored / vain enough to create the article (I can think of many people who'd do it as a joke), as per Mikkerpikker, but one and half year too early. ;-) -- KTC 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! I work with Ruth on a day to day basis and i would say she is wholly deserving of an entry on wikipedia! And I tell you something else, there is no way she wrote that article herself - it's full of spelling errors! Ruth's English lit degree, her spells as editor of hype and student plus her internship with the Observer assure me that she has nothing to do with this. Everything in this entry is accurate. She might not be renound across Scotland quite like an MSP but she is extremely well known within the Higher Education sector and that is a credit to the hard work she has put in this year. Credit where credit is due - keep the article, I think it's great. Kezia Dugdale
  • Delete - nn vanity page. Lbbzman 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safer, cooler, greener cars.

Delete as an advertisment. Only editor is User:Firstride, and the company being advertised is called FirstRide. Coincidence? I think not... htonl 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric L. Haney

article created by User:Striver as a part of his campaign of soapboxing his conspiracy non-sense.

I plan to expand the article, but i know it will be afd if i do that, so i afd'd it without the controversial stuff, so people can consentrate on the guys notability, and after that, when it is established that he is not non-notable, then i can expand on him. Maybe not the best thing to do, i got a bit angry at geting perfectly notable articles deleted only since people cant tolerate views they dont share, even thogh they fullfill the Wikipedia criteria. For a recent example, just see my Sheen-Alex article, it fullfills all wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its geting deleted.--Striver 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete not notable. No vote either way. Striver again defies logic with this bizarre action and it is a violation of

WP:POINT...don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, Striver.--MONGO 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Now everyone can see why i get frustrated, the guy just votes procedural deleted on anyting, whitout even bothering to chek the facts. And he is not the only one. --Striver 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25&oldid=1116878738"