Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 23

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox (

"Cat-o'-Tonics" (2 of 2)

HS Choir. Midwest U.S. Champions for High School Acapella. Is that enough for inclusion? Probably not. Delete -

• Delete, nn unless some serious proof that the State and Midwest Championship for High School Acapella confers serious notability on its winners. I also can't figure out where the justification for calling them the "#1 all-male singing group in the country" comes from? Deizio talk 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:N. The #1 group claim sounds like POV to me, but of course it's impossible to tell without sources. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into
  E@ 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unless some kind of significant source is cited for the #1 male singing group claim.
  ScottW 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as much as the a cappella singer in me wants to find some way to justify it. --fuzzy510 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Saint Ignatius High School as per above. --Dakart 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as more nn high school material. Staxringold 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. If, on the other hand, this had been a choir of actual cats, it'd be welcomed with open arms. --Agamemnon2 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I know most of the members of this group personally, and even I must say this-nn-Hornandsoccer 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)-sorry for not signing earlier[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Phil Stout

This article cites no references and does not, to this musical novice, assert the importance of its subject. Furthermore, it has been tagged for cleanup since May of last year. It was suggested on the talk page that the material could be merged into Beautiful music. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only [174] Hits for "Phil Stout" and music with none of them I can see demonstrating importance or third-party verifiability of the info on the page. Peripitus 10:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient assertion of notability Kevin 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are at least two notable bands called "The Hi-Lites" (The Chi-Lites and Ronnie & the Hi-Lites), but with a casual search I can't find any evidence that Mr. Stout belonged to either group. The column might qualify him for authorship guidelines if the paper's circulation were high enough, but to determine that we'd need to know which paper it was. I did find some mentions of him in two books about the history of easy-listening music. [3] [4], but I don't feel informed enough to say with certainty whether that's sufficient. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Staxringold 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jdcooper 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Jack's Back - The Live Comeback

fails WP:MUSIC, plus is unreferenced, poorly wikified and deadly boring Josh Parris#: 01:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  E@ 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no need for this to have a seperate article Ydam 10:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Scot^t 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A live album recorded on the "Jack's Back" tour after
  WP:MUSIC. However, I can find no verifiable evidence of the official release of such an album and his article doesn't mention it. Ironically, we don't have an article on Whispering Jack itself but we have had a rash of this bogus Farnham albums of which this is one. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. For some reason, hoax John Farnham albums often pop up on wikipedia. Cnwb 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Roisterer 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  hoax. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- unless verified as being an actual release. - Longhair 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.
  Talk) 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Plumer

Doesn't seem especially notable. Perhaps in later years he will become so, but I don't think he's quite there yet. Crystallina 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per the tag.
  E@ 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete.
  DVD+ R/W 01:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deizio talk 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schaufeld

A local dance teacher who is a "company member at Michelle Ferraro's Dance USA." I'm not sure what being a company member there means, but this individual has no direct claim to fame. Someone else who went to Michelle Ferraro's Dance USA was a finalist on "

• Delete because the article does not assert notability. Someone has speedied it. - Richardcavell 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. No actual assertion of notability. Also, it's already been speedied twice before. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that the article creator has also created
    New York Knicks City Dancers, in what appears to be an attempt to pump up this subject's notability. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy delete vanity. Aplomado ^talk 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Strategens

NN card game. External links lead only to user's own website.

Francs2000 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

• Delete per Mr. Google. Aplomado ^talk 01:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newly invented game. NawlinWiki 11:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. 2005 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN —
  ets501^talk 00:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Royal Canadian Legion. It is already mentioned there. --Ezeu 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legion Athletic Camp

This is an nn article about a camp at the International Peace Garden. It is writen in pure advertising copy, and only receives 566 Google hits. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete awful narrative, not a notable subject, not encyclopaedically useful. No redeeming value that I can discern. --
  (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into Royal Canadian Legion, if there is anything worth salvaging. Ted 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - done all I can with this then Redirect. I can't see anything else that I can verify and is salvagable beyond the scant remaining sentence - Peripitus 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  e Ong 10:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Flaming Pine Youth Camp

A nn article about a summer camp in Minnesota. It is almost entirely original research and gives no indication about why this camp is notable enough to be included on an encyclopaedia. It also gets only 42 Google hits. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research (such as an informal review of the camp's food, etc) of which little content falls outside of, and that that is factual is not referenced. Frankly, also, there isn't anything to say why we need an article. Perhaps we need some sort of
  (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable. Ted 04:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, original research. --
  e Ong 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Camp Yamhill

A nn article about a summer camp in Oregon. It appears to be almost entirely a copyvio from here, and besides that, contains no information about why this camp is notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reads like an advertising factsheet, and is more or less a copyvio. No assertion of notability; no encyclopaedic value. NPOV almost irredeemably lacking - the whole thing would need scrapping for NPOV compliance, thus delete. --
  (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn camp. --
  e Ong 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn--Jusjih 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, non-encyclopedic.
  o2 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Osbus 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know the guy who wrote this. It's not a copyright violation, since he wrote the same thing at h2g2, that's his page you linked up there (do you guys bother to read talk pages?). I agree that it needs major work. --Liface 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move Having fairly limited experience on Wikipedia I am willing to respect the decision here, but I would like details on what each of you thought was lacking besides the generic 'reason-for-deletion' terms. First, I would like to question the primary assertion of non-notability by referring you to criteria 1 on
  WikiTravel as per point 3 on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would also request examples of NPOV violations in this article so I can do better in the future; I thought this article was very neutral, as it passed rigorous editing for NPOV over at H2G2. Isle 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Camp Taconic

A nn article about a summer camp in Massachusetts. Contains no references of any kind, and is almost entirely original research. There is nothing in this article to show that it is different from other summer camps in the US, or indeed, notable in any way. It got 673 Google hits. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no real point to the article, no specialising value of the subject matter in question, and no sources. Basically, nothing really that could possibly be worth salvaging. --
  (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn.--Jusjih 13:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

This is a barely notable camp in Virginia. it is not written in anything resembling an encyclopaedic style, and in fact, it often borders on barely being comprehensible. Much of the information has no source, and the information that does have a source is hardly encyclopaedic (what crafts are available, such as tye dying, etc.) Only gets 928 Google hits. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or perhaps severely reduce down to something encyclopaedic. It isn't notable, nor encyclopaedic, and the text might be a copyvio; I'm not sure, although it has that look to it. It is a rather bad article, nonetheless, and really I think it should be put to sleep. --
  (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into
  Scouting in the District of Columbia. Ted 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Hobbeslover 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Scouting in the District of Columbia or use information from NCAC website to create a new article on all of Goshen Scout Reservation
  Cnriaczoy42 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ted. B.Wind 13:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Camp Ogontz

This article is about a summer camp in New Hampshire, which is written in advertising copy with phrases like "nestled amidst the White Mountains" among others. The talk page states that there was a discussion that the article was a copyvio but then slightly rewritten, which still makes it a copyvio. It is unnotable, and only gets 233 Google Hits. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 01:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable from a cursory check; not much assertion of importance, and indeed no useful information. No external sources apart from the camp's web site. --
  (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable and no logical place to merge it. Ted 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 11:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  non-notable. -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). — FireFox (

• Comment. This is apparently a website. As such, does it meet
  WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• RESPONSE - No, it does not. The criteria listed at
  pm_shef 01:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I think you left out this part: 1) "... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles": :::http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=83698&ntpid=1

http://www.jungewelt.de/2006/02-02/037.php Rkrichbaum 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it gets a colossal amount of unique Google hits and appears to be notable at least in the internet community. Here's a sample article, for what it's worth. Aplomado ^talk 01:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Morton devonshire 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment
    Шизомби 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Has been an
  owned article and is simply not a notable group. Google hits don't rank notability, only if their information was being published by reliable third party sources, and it isn't.--MONGO 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Are there any reliable sources for information about this group other than the group itself? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This would seem to be (at least) the 3rd nomination not the 2nd AFAICS. 1st: February 2, 2006
  Шизомби 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment OK I moved it to the 3rd nomination - should (can?)
    Шизомби 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Keep Mass deletions of content seem to have been made to make this article appear more deletable. There are at least a few notable individuals who are members of the group. The whole 9/11 revisionism issue is a hot one, and I don't see why the encyclopedia would benefit from removing a reference to such a group. Dick Clark 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the page history demonstrates that all the notable information has been removed before the deletion tags have been placed. This group is notable based on previous entries in the page history. - Richardcavell 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article as it stands as no claim to noteability. -
  pm_shef 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into a 9/11 revisionist article (I don't know of any). By themselves, this group is non-notable. Ted 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:29, 23 May 2006
• Delete NN and worthless. --Dakart 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, they've gotten some news mentions and have an online presence, but I didn't find any articles about the group itself in a major publication. Instead, they appear to be mentioned when a journalist needs a quote from the conspiracy side or, more commonly, when someone writes a commentary or a letter to the editor (sometimes written by the group itself). As others have suggested, an article about 9/11 revisionism might be good. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. --Lambiam^Talk 08:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a relevant article about 9/11 conspiracy theories - Skysmith 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not sure if this is worth an article, but it is evident that the current version has been reached through massive trimming of what appears to be a better article. Granted, even the less mutilated version needs massive work, but "needs work" is not equal to "delete". Merge sounds reasonable. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into any suitable article. --
  e Ong 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep This article was clearly vandalised before the deletion mention was put on. If you read passed entries in the history the article lists quite a few members a history etc. --Zer0faults 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The organisation is notable but this article is awful. And in the current political climate on wikipedia, no move to improve it will be tolerated by some POV pushing users and admins. Much better that it is deleted until wikipedians mature a little and a proper article can be written. Seabhcán 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does anyone else find it odd this article would come up for deletion after almost its entire contents had been removed including the published articles by proffesors? Links to radio shows removed, list of members etc. Oddly enough on of the members wiki page he is stated to be a member of this group yet, he was removed for it not being sourced. Who else would state its members other then the organization itself? I have reverted the article before the wholesale deltion of contents occured. --Zer0faults 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The organisation is clearly notable, is frequently mentioned in news articles (today hits on google news as well as yahoo news), was also described in the foreign press (e.g. Junge Welt, Germany, French articles). The organisation does not need Wikipedia to be known, but Wikipedia would loose content that is useful for the interested public. Efforts should be made, though, to keep certain users from vandalizing the article. Rkrichbaum 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable and
  E@ 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, there is nothing on Google, except the wikipedia entry, to suggest this is anything other than OR. Even hoax is a possibility. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Osbus 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 hits on google. —
  ets501^talk 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was kept Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal technicality

• Delete - This article does nothing productive, and has virtually no potential to be an informative article in the future. The term "legal technicality" is either:
  • (1) meaningless in that if it were written from a NPOV it would encompass the whole of law and jurisprudence in every country on the planet; or
  • (2) it becomes, at it presently is, inherently POV in the sense that well-reasoned and time-tested legal principles are seen as unnecessary complexities that normal folks shouldn't need to be bothered with when they may need to be in court for some reason, or alternately
  • (3) the article as titled is inherently a POV that the exercise of a person's legally permitted rights in a court of law are mere excuses for guilty people to get off scot-free. ....Kenosis 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the article, which seems perfectly informative to me in describing precisely what a legal technicality is. IMHO, the nomination strays more into POV than does the article. Regardless of the nom's opinion, there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House. There's a strong revisionist streak on Wikipedia, I recognize, but there's a difference between how we want the public to perceive things and how they actually do, and a valid encyclopedia should reflect the latter more than the former.
  RGTraynor 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Re: " there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House." Note carefully the use of the words "viewed as 'technicalities'" in this statement just made here. Are you actually asserting that the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be brought in line with the fact that anyone who disagrees with another party's use of the procedural law to stop them from doing what they want in court, they almost universally call it "based on a technicality"??...Kenosis 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am asserting that the article should be kept. I agree that aside from anything else, people do blame many legal results they don't like on "technicalities," and that mentioning the syndrome would suit the article just fine.

RGTraynor 04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. This has the potential to be a good article. I note that the U.S. Supreme Court has used the phrase "legal technicality" or "legal technicalities" in at least 13 opinions which indicates that it is potentially a meaningful concept. [12] --Metropolitan90 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - fair name for an article, but it could use a cleanup. - Richardcavell 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:A general analysis of the theme(s) and content of this article,, starting with the first two paragraphs: Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Paragraph 1:"The term legal technicality refers to the technical niceties and exactitudes of legal procedure, which is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure. The term technicality is actually not a term of art in the law (fish describing water) and is rarely used by lawyers, unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients."...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"technical niceties"? what on earth is that as a definition? "Fish describing water" what on earth does that mean? Where is the source for a statement such as "rarely used by lawyers" and where is the source for "unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients"?

• • Paragraph 2, Sentence 1:”Defenses based on technicalities are known as "procedural defenses." ...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(1)Say an old business associate takes you (or a friend or relative of yours) to court claiming that in 1956 a contract was broken and you owe them money for it. You assert the procedural defenses of laches and expiration of the statute of limitations, and the judge dismisses the case. The old business associate now goes to the press and says “it was dismissed on a legal technicality.” Are you convinced that the assertion of procedural defenses in this case are “legal technicalities”?

(2)Say you are arrested, hauled off to jail, not permitted a phone call, and not informed of what the charges are against you. Finally you get to court two years later and tell your story through your court appointed attorney who just met you, and are fortunate enough to have a ‘’competent’’ attorney who, with evidence and argument, persuades the judge that your version of events is factually correct. Note that all your arguments here are “procedural defenses”. The judge releases you. Have you gotten off on “legal technicalities”? ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pargraph 2, Sentence 2: “It is often used in a pejorative sense to denote aspects of legal procedure which, if not attended to or followed, can change the outcome of a legal proceeding in ways seemingly contrary to the interests of justice.” ... 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the use of the words “seemingly contrary to justice” as they are very telling of what is meant when people use the words “legal technicality” in public discourse. What the Wikipedia article on Legal technicality is saying is, in effect, that when people don’t agree with the outcome, they derisively refer to the cause of the “unjust” outcome as “based on a legal technicality” or “because of a legal technicality”. Meanwhile, the opposing party goes to the press and says “Thank God justice was done.” ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Metropolitan90, thanks for the link! I should interrupt the comment/analysis of content to report that the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the informal phrase "legal technicalities" over the last century (13 times minus two duplicates and one quote from a newspaper = 10 times) are as follows. All of them are used in a non-definitional way to refer to the idea of merely "complexities or technical aspects of the law"... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) “The function of counsel as a guide through complex
    legal technicalities
    long has been recognized by this Court.” (U.S. v. Ash, 1973)
  • (2) ”Furthermore, during the federal habeas corpus hearing Davis showed his awareness of
    legal technicalities
    .”(footnote in Davis v. North Carolina, 1966)
  • (3) ”If recovery were denied in this case, the railroads, by the simple expedient of doing each other's work, could tie their employees up in
    legal technicalities
    over the proper railroad to sue for injuries and perhaps remove from coverage of the Act a significant area of railroad activity.”(Shenker v. Baltimore and Ohio R.Co., 1963)
  • (4) “Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of
    legal technicalities
    it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 354 U.S. 129, 139 .” (CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. v. BARGE FBL-585, 1960)
  • (5) Redundant quote:“Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of
    legal technicalities
    it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." (British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 1957).
  • (6) “When the Congress deliberates over this problem, as it often has, it does not worry about the passing of title or other
    legal technicalities
    .” (KERN-LIMERICK, INC. ET AL. v. SCURLOCK, 1954)
  • (7) “by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting
    legal technicalities
    encrusted upon the 'found'-'present'-'carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose.” (UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 1948)
  • (8) Redundant quote: “Thus, by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting
    legal technicalities
    encrusted upon the 'found'- 'present'-' carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose. (U.S. V. SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA, 1948)
  • (9) “
    Legal technicalities
    doubtless afford justification for our pretense of ignoring plain facts before us, facts upon which a man's very life or liberty conceivably could depend.” (CARTER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1946)
  • (10) “We shall assume that the statement, 'judicial instance and interpretative procedure ... even go out to find, every possible technicalit of the law to protect the defendant ... and nullify prosecution,' refers to the quashing of the rape indictments as well as other condemned steps. The comment of the last two paragraphs evidently includes these dismissals as so-called
    legal technicalities
    .” (PENNEKAMP v. STATE OF FLA., 1946)
  • (11) “Yet if
    legal technicalities
    rather than practical considerations are to decide that question it should be noted that the defendants were payee-indorsers of the checks.” (KANN v. U.S., 1944)
  • (12) “After the making of the consent decree and the deposit of the money in court, the situation of this case was substantially that of an interpleader suit after the making of a decree for interpleader and the dismissal of the stakeholder from the cause, with the issue as between the conflicting claimants limited by stipulation to the determination of the amount 'justly due' from the one to the other. That question, of course, was and is to be decided according to the equities of the claimants as between themselves, without regard to
    legal technicalities
    .” (MCGOWAN v. PARISH, 1915)
  • (13) “In the News, published the evening of March 19, there was an editorial reviewing the local proceedings, which concluded: 'All of this delay is aggravating to the community. The people of Chattanooga believe that Johnson is guilty, and that he ought to suffer the penalty of the law as speedily as possible. If by legal technicality the case is prolonged and the culprit finally escapes, there will be no use to plead with a mob here if another such crime is committed. Such delays are largely responsible for mob violence all over the country.'”(U.S. v. SHIPP, 1909)

The last use is the kicker here, as it is a quote from a newspaper. All these uses of

legal technicalities by the Supreme Court refer to only one thing, which is in informal reference to "technicalities of the law” or “anything in the law that is highly technical” including substantive law, procedural law--everything technical. That is properly the subject of the article on law, and not the subject of a separate article on legal technicalities I would think. ... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not a legal dictionary. Ted 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable term. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the article can (and should) be improved, but I see no grounds for deletion. The quotations provided by Kenosis show several good examples of the term clearly being used as commonly understood, and not just "anything in the law that is highly technical". --Lambiam^Talk 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An article 'not being good' is no grounds for deleting it - only if it does not have the potential to become good is it deletable in my opinion. But as above it is a notable legal term and therefore has potential. THE KING 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - important term related to any kind of legislation, would need good examples from experts - Skysmith 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable term, expand it, word is more than a dicdef. --
  e Ong 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Considering the point of view of a young person who encountered the phrase "legal technicality" for the first time, an explaination would be valuable. Should it be found in an encyclopedia or a dictionary? An encyclopedia offers the possiblity of fairly extended discussion of illustrative cases, so there is good reason to include the term in an encyclopedia. Gerry Ashton 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up, including use of the research done by
  GRBerry 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and Clean as above, not that I think it'll do any good. Few people ever go back and clean such articles anyway. --Agamemnon2 11:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The correct content is a dictdef. The current content is irredeemably
  biased. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Daughters of Affluence

Fails

• Strong Delete per nom (and possibly
  WP:CHILL to the site owners. Ravenswing 02:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete copyvio M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per copyvio Ydam 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A8 --
  e Ong 11:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as copyvio and as not meeting
  WP:CORP as well as verifiabilty problems. Capitalistroadster 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Richardcavell 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - copyvio —
  ets501^talk 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Happyanimal

Contested prod, from April. Reprodded with "neologism, unsourced, prob. offensive; orig. prod tag removed by a blocked vandal"; I agree, delete. Moved here as the prod tag was actually removed and not by a banned user as far as I know, plus this will make any recreation speedyable. Mangojuice^talk 02:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per any nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unverifiable neologism. --Hetar 04:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no source for this available. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 11:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  Wikipedia is not for things made up in prison one day. Haikupoet 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCMech

DELETE does not meet notability requirements, many opportunities to rectify. reads liks an advert. see Talk:PCMech Bungalowbill 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's an advertisement. - Richardcavell 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep seems to meet some notability requirements. I don't think it reads much like an advert, and Alexa rank isn't that bad--around 25,000, with 1,000 pages linking to it. Compare some of the other sites that come up here, and you'll see what I mean. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet
  WP:WEB. It has been mentioned in articles, but the criterion is that the article is about the site. That, I don't see. Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - It doesn't seem like an advertisement. It describes the site's purpose and what's on it, much like the other Technology websites that are listed, such as Ars Technica, doom9, neowin, etc. --Gregg 66.109.42.170 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user's only contributions have been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In spite of the Keep votes which claim it doesn't look like an advertisement, (although it shouldn't be noted that none of them actually assert that it isn't an advertisement), it clearly is an advertisement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I can tell, it has met the notability requirements. But this brings up a point: if PC Mechanic has been noted in Playboy and the Wall Street Journal, how would these mentions be tracked down / linked to since they're in print format, and not in an online format? — Hoppy42 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user's only contribution has been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "the article must prove notability itself" (paraphrase) it doesn't. linked articles are meer mentions, and the print articles are not proved. pictures would be proof, i would assume the WSJ could be accessed online somehow?. theres no reason to suspect either of the print articles are anything other than mentions without proof. there has been no claim they are more than mentions anyway. there have been many oportunities to give proof. 137.205.25.203 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Scott O'Mara

Vanity, appears to be hoax Yanksox 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - might not be a hoax, but it's non-notable. - Richardcavell 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Richard. -Jcbarr 03:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mangojuice^talk 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NN Ydam 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 11:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Dusty MacLean(guitarist)

This article does not assert notability, and is unsalvagably bad writing Richardcavell 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under
  WP:N. -Jcbarr 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, and it fails Google test. Hardly readable, too. --romanm (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Prkr

Artist is non-notable. No AMG entry for either the nickname or the real name (a truly unusual feat for a signed American artist), and I got a whopping 18 hits when I Googled Prkr with the name of one of his albums. fuzzy510 03:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  DVD+ R/W 03:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 11:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2008

• Delete per nom. I think even 2007's article is already pushing it. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Eivind^t@c 05:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by nominator.
  DVD+ R/W 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There's not one confirmed fact in the article, it's entirely speculation. --DM Andy 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author should try again when this actually exists. --Dakart 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much too early and no info. At least wait till after ESC 2007, when we'll know the host country, finalists and semi-finalists. Jess Cully 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original prodding. I've no idea why this was removed from prod anyway; C.Fred said it was "ineligible" but I wasn't aware there was such a thing. — sjorford++ 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  From the looks of it your prod was the second prod placed on the article with the first being contested, contested prods should go to AfD rather than being re-prod-ed as has been done by C.Fred--blue520 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You're quite right, I should have spotted that myself. Apologies. — sjorford++ 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Come on guys one year at a time. Maybe we should have a policy that articles for future events can only typically exist for the next nearest event Ydam 10:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  e Ong 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well i dont suppose this will count for much, but for what it's worth :keep. I think we should leave it there, it will develop over time and doesn't hurt anybody at the moment. THE KING 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it does hurt someone if (s)he clicks Random article and jumps on it. --romanm (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, look at the Olympics there are articles till 2024. Hektor 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at least content in the 2024 Summer Olympics article, due to the bidding for the right to host it. The 2024 Olympics article is the logical place for that content; it will be historical content as contenders become also-rans. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep -Barring any incidents, this will happen, but maybe keep it short.
  Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• ESC 2007 is worthy of an article because it's being hammered out as we speak, this one's still completely incorporeal. --Agamemnon2 11:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Agamemnon2, but perhaps not enough to put it all in bold. Peeper 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there was a Eurovision Song Contest 2007 article before the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 even took place. Also, I agree with THE KING, as it is not hurting anyone, in my opinion. 13756 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Premature. I'm not a big fan of the 20-years-in-advance Olympics articles cited above, either, but at least with the 2024 games there is verifiable information. Other than "it's going to happen" there really isn't anything to verify on this one yet. 23skidoo 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm ok with an article on the one after the next one (on any such event), but anything beyond '08 should be deleted for now. youngamerican (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's going to happen anyways in the next few months. As long as it has already been created, there won't be a need to rehash this later. I also agree that anything past 2008 is pushing it. --Shuki 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as no meaningful information is available yet. The info in this article assumes that the rules stay the same, which is not 100% certain. Rain74 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

The Ghost Year

Album by non-notable artist. Google returns 18 hits for the artist's name and the name of the album, one of which is the article. fuzzy510 03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Limited" to 100 copies, or "only had demand for" 100 copies? -- Kicking222 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --
  e Ong 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as a cross-namespace redirect/recreated article. kingboyk 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLadder

Deproded, so here we are.

• Delete. There are three similar games listed under
  That infamous game in the article you cited. All of them are in the Wikipedia namespace. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per obviousness. I knew I'd seen that before, too- I guess we now have #12 for that infamous list. -- Kicking222 03:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This game is listed under
  Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Gwernol 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already stated.
  DVD+ R/W 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete and tagged per G4 as re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-recreated material. TheProject 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FireFox (

Propaganda -- no other way to put it, really -- for a whole bunch of unrelated leftier-than-thou beliefs, lumped together to look like something comprehensive and bigger. Calton | Talk 03:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - The page has been entirely rewritten. Keep in mind that the 'Truth Movement' is something very new. Those who might be able to define it are presently those who are participating. One might reasonably say that this would not result in an objective definition. This page was written by people with direct experience of the movement, in the sincere attempt to reasonably define a term that has recently entered the popular parlance. Logical critique will receive a logical response. 71.247.64.215 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: So how is this different from a (hypothetical) article

LaRouche Movement shouldn't be mentioned here? --Lambiam^Talk 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep Truth is notable, it sometimes adds commercials on the tube, and the organization(s) seemingly try to show what bad is going on in the world, such as the status of tobacco victims. May change my vote to Delete, though.
  Counter Vandalism Unit) 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I didn't know that this isn't the truth I was talking about. Change my vote to Delete.
  Counter Vandalism Unit) 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • This isn't the same as
    TheTruth.com, which runs the anti-tobacco ads you're thinking of. I say delete per nom. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Keep - if it's kept, there needs to be a major POV overhaul. --fuzzy510 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as presently unverifiable. I'm skeptical that these groups are referred to collectively as the "Truth Movement." A Google search for +"truth movement" -"9/11" -911 -"feldman's truth" (to pare off the 9/11 truth movement and something called Corey Feldman's Truth Movement") turns up less than 1000 hits. This article is not about
  Шизомби 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable Hdtopo 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by nominator and Шизомби.
  DVD+ R/W 05:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Morton devonshire 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for the following reason. The article defines "the" Truth Movement as a decentralized network, a loose conglomeration of forces. I see no evidence that the term is used as such outside this article; in other words, it appears to be a protologism. Other objections are repairable. --Lambiam^Talk 08:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need two pages on the exact same topic. This is a fork.--Jersey Devil 10:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  e Ong 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non existent. Vizjim 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per above Wombdpsw 05:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Шизомби and Lambiam, and bordering on {{
  nonsense}}. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The article is spectacularly vague. The "Truth Movement" could include any mildly left-wing group, I guess... There seems to be no hard evidence that there is any group (or group of groups) that is referred to like this.
  masterka 03:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete per everyone.  Grue  07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]