Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 6

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

The result was delete. --

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)

Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure why this is in the main article space, but it should not be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete no subpages in main space.
  Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete. Even ignoring reason above, this article would be deleted in a heartbeat after actual creation. -Amarkov ^babble 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly written article in desperate need of wikification that has received little to no attention. As is it is not encyclopedic. wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above or move it to talk page of "parent" article.
  MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move or Merge — regardless of its subpage status (which is policy for POV dispute i believe), it has sources. it may be relevant to its parent article, Amin_al-Husseini where it can be merged, or moved to its own space. i dont think the nom provided a reason to delete beyond its location (which is easy to fix :). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 08:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is a
  test page. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since there has been no reasonable attempt to merge this since it was moved to this temp page >6 months ago, I'd say there is no reason for the temp page anymore...--Isotope23 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don’t know what to make of this page or what its purpose is. As it stands now it’s POV and violates article names guild lines and probably topic guide lines. Seano1 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Isotope23. Active POV disputes may use subpages under Talk or User space, but leaving them around is dangerous, and forbidden for article space. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by

Toysandtreasures

Toysandtreasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable web shop. --fvw* 00:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN. Arbusto 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete NN, spam --Steve 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete (G11) Spam for NN company.--Húsönd 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement.
  Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete per above. wtfunkymonkey 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete; has been tagged.--TBCΦtalk? 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Philips

Bilal Philips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails

• Delete as per nom. I fail to see how this individual is notable. Xdenizen 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Well, he has quite a few google hits. That said I think he still falls short of being notable of being mentioned here on WP. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this person -
  crztalk 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DELETE (see below... waaaaay below) Yikes and goodness gracious!! My google search comes up with several sites identifying this man as being linked to terrorist groups and a "list of unindicted co-conspirators" of the 1993 WTC bombing. And here we have a Wikipedia article making him look so shiny and clean and →respectable?? Yikes! and again I strongly say... YIKES! There's no good faith effort to write a balanced, truthful article here. Wikipedia is not a propagnada machine for terrorist organizations. We must delete this until someone can verify all the hubub about his terrorist leanings or at least where all that talk is coming from. We cant ignore it. I won't buy an excuse that "it's just a smear campaign from prejudiced people who are his enemies." Where there's smoke... It would be good for people to see that these are where the man's sympathies and associations lie in a well researched article on Wikipedia, but this by no means is the beginnings of such an article. There is no excuse for this article. Wipe it completely clean until someone can write a responsible article. OfficeGirl 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flamel College

Flamel College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? There are only two sources of trivial mention, which fails WP:CORP. No google news hits. One mention is "Determined to apply academic rigor to his pursuit, Mr. Villella took several online courses from Flamel College, which keeps a post office box in Sacramento ..."[14]

• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed. --humblefool® 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many google hits and enough people claiming certificates from the school to make it worth keeping. In particular, author Dennis Hauck [15] prominently claims to be an instructer there [16]. Further verifiable through references from the New York Times and other sources (which this nom has sought to remove [17]). I think we should document as many of these types of schools as we can, expanding our coverage beyond the bare bones
  List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that wikipedia carefully maintains (as per the list guideline, which mandates articles for list components). An alternative would be to merge info into the list, but there is probably enough meat to maintain a separate article. --JJay 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Conspiracy people claiming "certificates" from a PO Box is not a criteria for inclusion. There is not enough independent, RS sources for an article on this unaccredited school. WP:CORP is the criteria, and you have included trival sources that mention this in passing (read WP:CORP #1 to see why this fails). You have trivial mentions and no article that actually discusses this school. The NY Times (I linked above, but you omitted in your reference) says in one sentence its a PO Box and that's it. Also as you have been told before, just because I added it to a list does not mean wikipedia must keep it. Arbusto 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wp:Corp is a guideline. I consider it a stretch when applied to a school. For example, few schools are "listed on ranking indices" or have share prices "used to calculate stock market indices". Few schools have share prices full stop. However, the
  Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline does state that: Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. [18]. I consider that further justification for keeping articles of this type. Otherwise, my reasons for wanting to maintain the article are explained above. --JJay 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You are saying we should keep this because I added it to the unaccredited list? Arbusto 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my first comment for numerous reasons why this article should be kept (and expanded). --JJay 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No response with substance? Arbusto 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. To clarify, this is a bunch of woowoos I've heard of before, but even given that I was unable to find multiple independent non-trivial sources online or any other indication of notability. Which is too bad really, because I'd actually like to keep this one... I think its kinduv funny. JoshuaZ 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xdenizen 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Don't see why an unaccredited school needs an article on Wikipedia, no assertion of notability. IMO, this school sounds like some half-past six school. --
  T | C) 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment A) What makes you think that users will do so? B) Since when was that an inclusion criterion? JoshuaZ 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Considering that this is an unaccredited college, perhaps
  wp:corp should be used for consideration, contra to an above comment. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Marcus1234 (talk • contribs
  ) 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay, it is more than reasonable that readers will turn to Wikipedia for this information. Yamaguchi先生 06:00, 9 November 2006
• Keep JJay makes a strong argument.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please. This is a "school" that gives degrees in ghost hunting. Did you even review the article? Arbusto 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its about as useful in the real world as a college giving a degree in Turfgrass Management (Ohio State), Poultry Science (Univ of MD), or video gaming.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those are all large industries (and Poultry Science is to be blunt necessary for the standard of living in most developed nations). Ghost hunting on the other hand...(note, I don't think this actually has much to do with notability anyways, but its worth noting). JoshuaZ 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please assume good faith that those who have commented have reviewed the article. This is a unique and interesting school, with verifiable coverage (i.e. New York Times) that without a doubt should be included on a project aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifable? The NY Times' trival mention is posted at the start of this nom says it based from a PO Box. Explain how it meets WP:CORP. Also unique isn't a criteria for inclusion. Arbusto 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence that this is an institution with any academic standing, and after an admittedl brief check I can't verify any of the article from reliable independent secondary sources. Guy 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is the basis for that statement? I provided three references when I addded material to the article including the NY Times. They are all reliable, independent and secondary. --JJay 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked from the NY times at the top and is cited in the article simply states it is a PO Box. That is also on its webpage. Hardly passes any WP:V of a study body, history, etc. Arbusto 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:V miserably. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits should be the primary reason we include an article, but whatever. Based on the numbers there is no consensus to delete, thankfully arguments other than the google hits were presented, and per JJay's argument and evidence there does seem to be reliable information written about this topic. I suggest actually citing it in the article, which is about 0.02% as long as this AfD. W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport University (California)

Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable, unaccredited private school. Lacks independent sources. Do students actually attend? If so, how many? Created by

• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well summarized nomination. JoshuaZ 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Do not mismatch stub with delete candidate. Tulkolahten 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Accredited or not, this school brings in over 385,000 relevant Google hits. What are the requirements for obtaining an .edu domain name, does anyone know? Silensor 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It depends very much how and when you got it. I know someone who technically owns Miskatonic.edu (see
    Miskatonic University). My impression is that it has gotten harder in the last few years. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I don't see relevant hits. Wikipedia and mirrors, and the Chronicle for Higher Education talks about "Christopher Newport University." Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unaccredited colleges should not have articles. They are nothing more than non-notable corporations. --- RockMFR 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silensor. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Silensor, it seems to have gained some notoriety. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass WP:CORP? How many students attend? Does it have a campus? The only place that knows of this is a divison of California Department of Consumer Affairs NOT any academic accreditor nor the Department of Education. Arbusto 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a school. Just because it is a private company does not mean it is not a school. Unacredited is not the same a not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools which are unaccredited are in many ways only schools in so far as they claim to be schools. It isn't clear to me why they shouldn't be treated a corporations. JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acreddited simply means officially recognized. While unaccredited may mean it is not notable, it really only means it is not officially recognized, by whatever officials happen to be in charge of accrediting, not that it is neccesarily not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unaccredited doens't mean not-notable.

WP:CORP. This university seems to fail it. JoshuaZ 03:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

An article does not need to meet every notability requirement it may fall under, only one(unless I am wrong). My stance is that while it may be a CORP, it is still a SCHOOL, and if it meets one of them, as opposed to all of them, it is fine. Yes, it is a CORP, but it is still a SCHOOL. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we have a consensus about corporations. We have no consensus abotu schools. So it maybe makes sense to differ to the one we have an actual consensus on? JoshuaZ 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, because that consensus was not neccesarily made with schools in mind. To be frank, it seems like a bit of a stretch to apply CORP to a school simply because it is not accredited. After all, acredited schools can be private corperations aswell, I don't see the connection. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This place is for-profit, see policies on WP:CORP. And thus, is much different a public high school. It lacks sources and notability. Arbusto 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Article needs to be expanded. We seem to have an arbitrary distinction between accredited and unaccredited schools that seems to have no factual basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Newport U. would seem to be no different from any other non-public university or school. Alansohn 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A public institution must have accreditation implies notability. Unaccredited schools like Bob Jones University have established notability with the number of students and articles, etc. Do have nothing like that here? Any articles for notability? Any statistics IF ANYONE ATTENDS? Arbusto 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, concur with nomination. Nothing here suggesting notability. It apparently exists, is located in Newport, and is unaccredited. Wikipedia is not a directory. —
  fgs 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep per Silensor. --
  ManiF 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: This place is "for profit" in this link that comes up as the top ten ghits supplied by Silensor. Can anyone explain how this meets WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, it is still a school, even if they make profit. Most major schools profit. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, most private schools are non-profit (all public are non-profit by definition), which gives them different tax stuctures and incentives. Moreover, its an unaccredited school that we can't verfiy academics nor do we have any

WP:RS to write an article with. Please supply some WP:RS if you wish to expand this instead of keeping it as a two sentence stub. You can't even answer my basic question: HOW MNY STUDENTS CLAIM TO ATTEND? Arbusto 02:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Silensor. Notable Google hit count and commenters above suggest that our readers will look to Wikipedia for neutral coverage of this educational institution regardless of its accreditations or lack thereof. Yamaguchi先生 06:04, 9 November 2006

What are some of these links that cover this subject? Post them here. We have NOTHING to write an article with. Arbusto 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Silensor, there is significant Google coverage here... I think a strong argument can therefore be made regarding its notability.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "think an argument can be made"? Of that ghit count what are some WP:RS we can write an article with? I see forums, ads, and a bunch of other places with the "Newport University" not tied to this. Also how does this meet WP:CORP? Arbusto 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for all those "per Silensor" keeps: most of the Google hits returned are not about the Newport University on Newport Beach at all, but about the Cristopher Newport University. When you search for "NEwport University" California -"Christopher Newport", you already drop to 13,500 Ghits[20]. Many of those are still false positives, but you get the idea. As for the number of students: they seem to have had a grand total of 8 graduates in 1993[21], and are not listed in the COOL database[22]. As far as I can see, it is an unaccredited correspondence law school with some 10 to 15 students each year[23]. Since OCtober 2004, only two first years students passed the "Baby Bar"[24]. Apart from their own website and such statistics which prove existence (although with a very limited number of correspondence students), I am unable to find any reviews, discussions, or other

Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per my above comment and per nom.
  Fram 11:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete, but this is because of concerns over sources that indicate notability. --SunStar Net 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, the school is registered with California for the bar exam [25]. It is also my understanding that Newport students can take the California licensing exam in clinical psychology and family counseling. Second, there are reliable sources available for the school, for example the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah (pay site) [26]. Third, whatever you may think of these types of schools, people are getting degrees from Newport and sometimes working in positions of authority. That can cause controversy. Stanley Blondek, an expert witness and California prison youth counselor who claimed a masters and PhD from Newport (but repeatedly failed the California licensing exam) is an example (pay site) [27]. Fourth, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive reference work. We should be doing articles on all schools, accredited and unaccredited. Our
  List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a very limited start but provides no real information and is unsourced (but does include Newport). We need articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1) Registered with the bar examin means what? According to that page, "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." So your link means the bar has heard of this place before, but it doesn't know if its reilable.

• You seem not particularly well informed of the requirements for admission to the bar in the state of California. Schools must fully adhere to bar exam rule XIX related to law study in unaccredited shools [28]. This requires state licensing, inspection, a qualified faculty, classroom study, library, etc. The requirements are not easy to meet. --JJay 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review [29] and feel free to provide [WP:RS]] for each criteria. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??? California sets standards for allowing students from various institutions to sit for the bar exam and in the case of unaccredited schools, bar exam rule XIX is applicable (as indicated in my previous post). It is not up to me to "provide WP:RS for each criteria". The school is listed on the California bar exam website, meaning they have passed inspection and adhere to the clauses of rule XIX. Pretty simple really. If you believe that is not the case please enlighten us. --JJay 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people can walk in and take the test. Does American Bar Association accredit law schools: YES. Does Newport have accreditation: NO. Has this been called a diploma mill: YES. Can the California Bar Association say this provides an good/quality education: NO. Does this place meet the standards for the California Bar Accreditation[30]: NO. Does California of Bar Examiners approve or accredit correspondence schools: NO.[31] Have you given any reason why this for-profit place meets WP:CORP: NO. Arbusto 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed the school is accredited. That is not at issue. Your statement that "people can walk in and take the test" is false. The school has to be inspected and must adhere to a series of requirements. That is why few schools are on the list. Your comment that the school has been called a "diploma mill" is completely unproven. Provide proof of that statement. The California Bar's non-opinion of unaccredited schools is not the issue here either. Finally, WP/Corp is a guideline that should not apply to schools for obvious reasons. The interest of these types of articles is to have background information on institutions of higher learning that are awarding degrees to people that sometimes achieve positions of authority (in this case potential lawyers, social workers, psychologists). That is inherently notable and supercedes WP/Corp and its fixation on stock prices. --JJay 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have two sources that question its academics, and no one disputes its for-profit nature. 1) Here. 2) In an article in South China Morning Post Stella Lee's article "Overseas university under investigation in Hong Kong" states "The Newport University of California which is not accredited by the American education authorities, started offering courses ... through distance learning courses." This was in relation to Newport's "classes" which "are not in the form of instruction, we just ask the students to raise their questions and discuss them with experts." This again is a trival mention in the paper, but leads use to question Newport's seriousness as a "school"

You still haven't offered any sources as to how this business meets

WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You cearly haven't read the first source, which never calls the school a diploma mill. Nor does the second source, apparently. The only person making that claim is you, but without proof. If you question Newport's "seriousness" take it up with the Bar association of California. --JJay 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Your insisting we keep an article for a ten year old Salt Lake newspaper that calls this place a diploma mill is more of a reason to delete. That is, no one has provided any criticism in the article about its ppor quality of instruction. Thus, your link makes us more skeptical about the article meeting WP:V. The article says nothing about criticism, which is very misleading per your one article. Readers, right now, get the false impression that is place's academics aren't questionable per the one source you mentioned.

3) Lastly, as you have been told just because I added this to the

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean we keep it. We kept WP:V and notable unaccredited schools. One article from ten years ago does not prove notablity. Arbusto 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1) While the school is not accredited, the fact that several state bodies do provide some level of recognition to the school is not only evidence of verifiability, it also goes a long way to establishing notability in the context of a university. 2) The source is independent, reliable and verifiable. There is simply no criteria that the source must be recent OR that it must be positive. "Non-trivial coverage" is timeless. As the source is provided, readers can make their own impression of the article's characterization. 3) A reminder that a school's presence on the

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning doesn't mean it should be deleted. 4) The time has come to address the evidence of notability and get past the fact that it is unaccredited. There is simply no standard whatsoever that makes an accredited school notable OR makes an unaccredited school a non-notable target for deletion. Alansohn 04:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1) Its on a list for california's consumer division with 1800 of other unaccrediteds; hardly notable. Review WP:CORP. 2) You have one article from ten years ago. Review WP:CORP. 3) Yes. No one said otherwise. 4) Yes, notability is important. How does it pass WP:CORP? Arbusto 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the arguments and research provided by Fram. 10-15 graduates per year is insufficient justification for an article. -
  ave) 05:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Note to closing admin. no user who voted to retain this has provided evidence of it passing WP:CORP. According to this "university's" website ten to fifteen people "graduate" this place a year. We have no independent or verifable statistics or facts about anything. This has serious WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but that is false. There is no information regarding student numbers on the school's website. The link provided by User:Fram shows eight law school graduates in 1993 and is from a California education site. The school also has numerous other programs. Finally, WP:Corp is a guideline. It is entirely debateable whether it should apply to a school. And numerous valid reasons have been given for keeping the article. Regarding WP:V, as indicated above, sources exist that confirm the school, its programs and that students are eligible to sit for the bar. There are no WP:V issues, serious or otherwise, with the basic facts of the article.--JJay 00:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is for-profit.[32] How does it meet WP:CORP?

2) It is NOT accredited by the California bar as I noted above. Allowing people to take a test is different than accreditation.

3) According to the org. you are citing "The Office of Admissions [of the bar] cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools."

4)[33] One source describes "Newport" as " A couple of clunker cars sit in the driveway of a 40-year-old brick house, which sits squarely in a commercial zone: a hardware store in back, an equipment-rental company in front and a McDonald's expanding up the street. The back yard has an old cedar fence, a rusting clothesline and an overgrown shade tree. Inside the house, a secondhand desk, some office chairs, bookshelves and a pair of torch lamps are assembled in the living room. Welcome to Newport..." Also note the title of the article.

5) Hence serious

WP:V issues. Arbusto 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It doesn't matter whether the school is accredited or not. It exists and someone cared enough to write an article about it, therefore is worthy of an article. If it is a diploma mill, put this in the article. Actually, articles on diploma mills would be an excellent public service, since it would out them as such to any potential student who doesn't realise what the institution is. If it is a diploma mill, that makes it more notable than if it were just a small, unaccredited college. *jb 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to wikipedia. However, you failed to offer sources for WP:V. Can we properly assert it is a university or a for-profit diploma mill? No one has offer evidence for either. Thus, academics aside this is for-profit. How does it meet WP:CORP? Do we have enough sources to write a NPOV article about this business? I don't think so. Arbusto 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete — No verification on university's "status" - delete per the
  WP:V issues mentioned above. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as we're apparently unable to independently verify the noteability of this institution. It should not be deleted merely because it is unaccredited but that does it make it much more difficult to establish noteability as it's not listed in IPEDS. --ElKevbo 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and per nom's convincing rebuttals to all counterarguments raised. Also, Delete because no schools are notable! :) Xtifr _tälk 11:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it seems as though everything wrong with this article is that it's incomplete. So why are we here yapping about it? ST47Talk 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point if we can't find WP:RS and WP:V then we don't have enough to write an accurate article. And inaccurate articles should get deleted. Arbusto 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per Fram and
  WP:V. I believe this one is noteworthy, but that's no good if we can't verify through independent sources, and it seems as if we can't. Shimeru 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio from [34]. MER-C 10:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ... and deleted as empty and unexpandable due to verifiability issues. Guy 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Online University

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Unnotable, unaccredited "school." Anyone even attend this place? Anyone even know what city this place claims to be in? Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination
• Delete per
  WP:CORP. Couldn't find anything about the site on Alexa.--TBCΦtalk? 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete TBC edit conflicted to say essentially what I was going to say. To expand slightly, using either
  WP:CORP this institution is non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  T | C) 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete, per

Robert Turkel

Robert Turkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Wouldn't this be a "Move" instead? Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, technically yes. The point in calling it a merge was that the article should primarily be about the ministry with the merged material being, well merged material. JoshuaZ 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:V. The only sources sited are either Web sites belonging to the subject or his critics. What we need is a few neutral, unbiased sources to establish notability. As of now, the article fails to assert that subject and the ministry are adequately notable. Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete How does the ministry meet
  WP:Web? What are all the non-trivial sources? How is it an independent web site? If someone can improve the article, and make it obvious why this is notable, I have no problem with it staying. If not, delete it and the ministry entry. I don't see anyone writing scholarly pieces about Turkel or the Ministry, but again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs
  )
• Keep or at least Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Holding is clearly very well known to both Christians and antitheists. 58.162.2.122 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - There was RECENTLY a vote on this whole matter and the vote was to keep. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JP_Holding

Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding

3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!

I cite:

Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )

Holding returns the disparagement here:

Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html

4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.

I cite:

"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)

Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml

5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.

6) Holding has been published.

7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding. ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

• • Comment first of all, if over a year ago is "recently" then yes, there was a "recent" vote on this. Second of all, due to full disclosure provisions, I will note that ken created this article, and is the main contributor.--Andrew c 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to note that the nominator, possibly after people suggested a merge, did an out of process blanking and redirect of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Sorry, you can't bypass AfD by redirecting articles (if that was the intent). --Andrew c 16:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Additional comment. A correction to Andrew's post. I did create the article but about half the article was created by other Wikipedians by their additions to the article because JP Holding is well known among many atheist apologists and Christian apologists. ken 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
      • I apologize if I mischaracterized ken. I just wanted to make sure AfD Wikietiquette was being applied (regarding Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.).--Andrew c 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Impressive Guy. Well referenced and presented. nascarfan1 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. Also note that the user account is User:Nascarfan1 while the user page is at User:NASCARfan1. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How does this meet
  WP:BIO for the keep people? So we have 3 votes for k two are new users and one is the original author. I should have speedied this as it doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — If you ask me, this article fails
  WP:V, and the entire article seems to exist in order to promote JP Holding - not to present it in an encyclopedic manner. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This guy is only notable inside his own head. Laurence Boyce 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient reliable and verifiable third party mainstream references presented to establish notability. Edison 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Science

International Academy of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No independent sources and no claims of notability. Vague description of what it is does not directly assert is goals or importance. Arbusto 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Look at the list of founding members. Anything founded by them and chaired until the end of his life by Linus Pauling is clearly notable. --Bduke 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unaccredited school [35]. No verifiable evidence that pauling had anything to do with it (according to the IAS's homepage it was founded by Roger Billings in 1985, so Pauling could not have founded it in 1980). Has a snazzy name, though. --Charlene 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vote should be reconsidered, as it is clearly not related to a school, a subject that several individuals seem to confuse, including the nominator. If this vote is not recast based on the fact that it is an organization, it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Charlene and nom. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per new info presuming that the claims can be sourced. JoshuaZ 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, advertising. Sandstein 06:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Keep after the confusion with the school has been cleaned up. Sandstein 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Khoikhoi 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --
  T | C) 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Take a look at History of IAS. I think you are confusing two quite different things - an unaccredited school and an International Professional Society. That link is off the one on this article and it is presumably where the author of the article (not me) got the information about Pauling. Or are you all saying this web site is a fraud? --Bduke 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify further. The school web site is here. It is mentioned above but not given. It is even more confusing. There is also International Academy of Sciences. Note the plural "Sciences". And then there is World Academy of Science. We are discussing [36]. --Bduke 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If so, we should probably have an article about the legitimate IAS here with a one-line note about the school. JoshuaZ 07:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a notable NGO, with numerous Nobel laureates as members. It's a big deal. The problem here is the confusion between the NGO and the small unaccredited school in Missouri. COGDEN 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per COGDEN, to delete this would be a mistake. Silensor 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It needs cleaned up and sourced to be kept. Arbusto 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm deeply uneasy about this one. There seem to be a lot of these obscure institutions claiming large numbers of Nobel laureates as members, and all claiming to be terribly important and prestigious, but curiously they run out of PO boxes in places like Eichstaett or Huddersfield. Looks to me more like self-aggrandisement than anything else. Weak delete, though I could be persuaded otherwise. WMMartin 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization is not one of them. This is one of those organizations that Nobel laureates put on their resume. See, for example, [37], [38], and [39]. The problem is, the Missouri organization has not actively discouraged people from confusing the two organizations. See this site from the Missouri organization, which has a big seal and a picture of

Neils Bohr, and says "Current Membership: 11". O 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep A notable international organization. The fact that it was founded by Linus Pauling, John Kendrew, Alexander Todd, Andrei Sakharov, Konrad Lorenz and Ilya Prigogine, would have to be one of the clearest and most concise claims of notability possible. A Thursday night poker game founded by this group would probably be notable. Cleanup to explain that the other organizations are NOT affiliated with this one, would go a long way to clearing up confusion for potential readers of this article and for this who have voted to delete based on an incorrect understanding of what this organization is. Alansohn 05:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide

WP:RS. Arbusto 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I am almost certain we already deleted this once under another title. I seem to recall that the claims are all down to letters form the illustrious supporting the idea (but not actually doing or promising anything), and the balance turned out to be unverifiable. Guy 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall something too, but I recall it being an article on the unaccredited school. However I can not find it. --Bduke 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. There was an article about the Missouri organization, now deleted. COGDEN 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri). Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The IAS is certainly notable, and it looks like the school confusion has been cleaned up in the article. ~ BigrTex 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no major edits have been made since I opened this afd. Arbusto 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Arbusto/oo created the original AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Science (Independence, Missouri), the fact that he still believes this article to be for a school is baffling. IT'S NOT A SCHOOL! It's an organization that was founded by several world-renowned scientists, including the odd Nobel Prize-winner or two, and BigrTex is trying to point out that you either seem to be terribly confused or just plain vindictive that an organization with a similar name exists to an article you had earlier deleted. Stating in your excuse for nomination that it makes "no claims of notability" and "does not directly assert is goals or importance" is directly contradicted by the simplest reading of the text of the article. This nomination should be withdrawn. Alansohn 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Where did I call this a school? 2) Your bad behavior and attacks of various people is a violation of

WP:CIVIL. --Arbusto 07:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Virtually every delete vote seems to believe that this is an article for a school, the usual and customary target of your attacks. You have never clarified this to any of those who have blindly followed your nomination, and your confirmation that you had deleted a school with the same name never mentions that THIS IS NOT A SCHOOL, IT'S A SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION. The individuals who switched their votes did so upon realizing that this AfD is not for a school. While I cannot assume in this case that you are operating in bad faith, the fact that you have never clarified the nature of this AfD leaves this nomination and your motives in question. Alansohn 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't admit you were wrong. Your recent comments to new users and myself are out of line. If you can't follow

WP:CIVIL then don't edit wikipedia. Arbusto 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Arbustoo, you have stood idly by allowing others to be misled into voting to delete an article on the assumption that it's a school. When are you finally going to clean up this mess and clarify that this is an article for an organization and not a school? This whole AfD is starting to appear deliberately fraudulent and just a casual mistake. Alansohn 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I starting to see a trend. Helical Rift 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectw

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Projectw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marked as a speedy, which was then disputed. I'm not sure, they get a reasonable number of google hits but then again that number will be hugely inflated for these kinds of sites. No vote. --fvw* 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats true but they do boast a membership of over 300,000 registered members in just about 2 years. I believe that is a large enough pool of people to permit us to make a wiki about it. It is one of the largest players in the warez scene and i have seen much smaller boards have a wiki. -Zabzu

• That assumes that they aren't lying. Or creating thousands of fake accounts, which is the same thing, really. Either way, every single source I found on google was either a primary source, a blog, a personal website, or just using their email addresses to recognize contributions. Fails
  WP:NOTE because of lack of multiple reliable secondary sources, thus delete. -Amarkov ^babble 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete Though the article does seem to fail the criterias of
  WP:WEB, an Alexa ranking of 2,047 is quite impressive. --TBCΦtalk? 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • exactly, just give it a chance. The majority of the sites members are european and its the middle of the night there. Give it 12 hours so they can see the wiki and respond accordingly.

-- note that the above unsigned comment was left by user Zabzu --

• Delete per nomination. I don't hold an Alexa ranking, especially in this context, above
  WP:WEB. This article is non-encyclopedic, doesn't cite sources, and reads more like a poorly written review verging on masturbatory spam -- wtfunkymonkey 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nothing special here; any forum that requires that users register to even view the forums is bound to have a high membership count, but that's definitely not a useful number for active posters. --humblefool® 03:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this page has been linked to, with instructions on how to post to it, on their forums. I left them a note discouraging that. --humblefool® 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectW gains over 500 new members a day. It has 2347603 articles. I have seen much smaller sites have wikis and i think you should give our a chance, the site can only grow. We have members from almost every single country in the world. As soon as the Admins get on i can access the tracker info to show you how large and well represented projectw is.

You're entirely missing the point. You must have reliable secondary sources to get an article. We don't keep articles because their subject is big, without reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^babble 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources to back up the content? Warez boards are usually not officially listed as warez but i can prove that it is one of the 20 largest phpbb boards.

omg! all this discussion... ok, but to come to the point.. can we have the article or not?

here is a source, on of the 20 largest warez board, in fact projectw would be number 9 http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=phpBB,all&sort=members they refuse to lost Warez boards and other adult content but in fact if you sort by members ou will find projectw fits into 9th place

• OK. 9th largest warez board. We'll assume it's true.

1. Is projectw notable for that reason alone? 9th isn't all that impressive.
2. If not, is projectw more notable than any other big warez board? If so, why?

If you can't answer these questions, the article will likely be deleted. humblefool® 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More important is this:

1. Are there reliable secondary sources on which to base the content?

If there aren't, the article will almost definitely be deleted. -Amarkov ^babble 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i still do not understand what you mean by secondary sources. IS big-baords not a secondary source?

And no projectw is also notable for the fact that It is the largest warez forum on the internet. When people download warez they have two choices, a bittorrent client or a forum and the number one forum is Us.

Also ProjectW beats the other warez competition in the fact that we have almost double the members of our two competitors and we are affiliated wiht other large warez sites such as katz.ws

• Now wait. Are you the largest warez site, or 9th largest? You've claimed both. Also, Bigboard's rankings are based on self-reporting by the sites, which is unreliable at best. Has the site been mentioned in the media at all? Size *alone* isn't a reason to have a Wikipedia article. --humblefool® 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Largest Warez Board and the 9th Largest phpbb board. That clear? Also this is the most reliable way to track the size of these boards.

It. Does. Not. Matter. You. Need. Reliable. Secondary. Sources. NOTHING which mechanically gathers info is a secondary source, nor is something that just blindly uses what's been reported by the primary source. Please, read

WP:V. For that matter, you really should just read all the policies and guidelines. -Amarkov ^babble 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete fails
  Kavadi carrier 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, blindingly obvious web forum vanity. Please discount all puppets. JIP | Talk 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent sources cited means it does not pass
  WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete - This is one of those cases where lots of g-hits does not imply notability. Any site devoted to the Warez scene has the potential to be drastically over rated by the google test as a result of top100 lists, leech sites, mirrors, and content hosting sites. In very rare cases (such as the Pirate Bay) outside media attention makes a pirating site notable. In this case, the article reads like a teaser for the forum, and I honestly don't see how a well formatted NPOV article could say anything beyond "ProjectW is a warez community with a good number of members". -bobby 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Very Very Very Strongest and hardest delete Nothing else to say. Just delete. --SkyWalker 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely no
  verify anything
  . If we remove everything that is unsourced or unimportant, this is what we are left with:

ProjectW is a 300,000 member strong warez community. It's currently in the top-20 largest phpBB boards on the web --Wafulz 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it and protect the page - Warezcruft! Just what we needed. Fails
  WP:RS. Trifecta. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the thing delete - I don't see anyone saying that the group is not being used by the number suggested. As such it is notable whatever anyone thinks about it. The article is very badly written but that is no excuse to delete it - if people don't like the article then well and good tell the writers to improve it or make it a stub - an AfD is a decision on the name in the Wikipedia space not about the contents of the article. If the contents are bad, but the name is encylopedic then the proper action is to ask for it to be improved not to delete --
  Mike 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It is not the obligation of those in an AfD debate to prove something is not notable. It is the obligation of those seeking to keep an article to show multiple independent mainstream coverage of it. Claims of how many members there are from the website itself are not verifiable or independent. I found no mention of "Projectw" in a database of 4,000 publications, but I did find numerous articles about the persons operating such sites getting convictions for software privacy. Warez is notable, this one site is not so far. Edison 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the article makes a claim, I'm afraid the onus is on those deleting to make the case that it is a false claim (or that having requested proper citation to verify no verificaton has been produced). However, based on your own evidence of a lack in 4000 publciations, I satisfied there is clear evidence of non-notability - thanks! --

Mike 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Because of
  WP:NPOV ~ BigrTex 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. --

Jason Pierce

Jason Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet

• Strong Keep. Pierce was a member of two notable bands, Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized, both of which have released albums on major labels [40] [41].--TBCΦtalk? 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disagree with the nominator that this subject fails to meet
  WP:MUSIC guidelines. This subject has in fact gone on a national tour in Britain. For more information, please view this this webpage. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep. Clearly notable - Spacemen 3 were one of the more influential British alternative groups of the late 1980s, and Spiritualized have enjoyed chart success in Britain. Spiritualized alone satisfy most of the criteria in the "Musicians and ensembles" section of WP:MUSIC, and Pierce himself satisfies most of the "Composers and lyricists" section. Frivolous AfD - people should really do some research before whacking tags on articles. Tpth 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I had never heard of this artist or his bands, but upon review of his page and the page for Spiritualized it is clear that the notability requirements are met. Eron 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Spiritualised is clearly notable and thus the individual in question is too. Xdenizen 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, he meets the notability requirements though I've never heard of him before. His albums have enjoyed success in the UK charts. --
  T | C) 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep
  Catchpole 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - definitely notable enough to have an article of his own outside of his 2 notable groups. Ac@osr 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - I actually tried speedy keeping this one, but another user thought I was a bit quick in my decision. Either way, Pierce clearly meets
  notability guidelines per what everyone above is saying. →Bobby← 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per commenters above, the subject meets our
  WP:BIO notes. Yamaguchi先生
  06:09, 9 November 2006
• Keep Spacemen 3 and Spiritualized are incredibly influential and J. Spaceman (Jason Pierce) is a contemporary, working songwriter/composer/performer. 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was merge. W.marsh 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. James the Fisherman Episcopal Church

St. James the Fisherman Episcopal Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

disputed PROD for NN-local church delete DesertSky85451 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:N, no more notable than any other church.--TBCΦtalk? 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge to appropriate diocese or locality. Unfocused 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC and nom. There is nothing to distinguish this church from any other church. JoshuaZ 05:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn church, nothing more. We should introduce the places of worship criteria sooner or later. --
  T | C) 06:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge - to here or here. While the church is not notable enough for its own page, there is no reason to delete a decent article when it would greatly improve either of the two relevant pages I mention above. -bobby 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If merged, it should be with the article on the community. Articles for the dioceses of the Episcopal Church don't usually include mentions of the individual parishes of the dioceses. The cathedral parish is an exception; I can see an exception for a very notable parish, but this isn't one of those. -- Bpmullins | Talk 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn parish church, parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Islamorada, Florida (or to the diocese page as mentioned above). Doesn't need its own article but that doesn't mean that the information can't be useful elsewhere. If anyone's interested in expanding the article, I'd be interested in knowing why it changed its name so often. JYolkowski // talk 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, nn ~ BigrTex 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --

Five Miles From Woodstock

Five Miles From Woodstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article fails

• Strong delete. It seems a bit strange that a band that is supposedly "seeing a rise of 500% [record sales] on last year and requests for a gig in Italy" only has thirty relevant results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and mySpace.--TBCΦtalk? 02:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - that 500% increase could be pretty easily explained if thier previous sales figures were in the area of two. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as NN and almost definite vanity. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The Band is does not meet WP notablity standards and this article does compromise the integrity of WP. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no verification, and no claim to satisfy
  WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I am a member of the band, and this article has only just come to my attention (it has not been written by us). It is largely incorrect and I will fix it ASAP. First, a few of the comments below need correction. The news article about Alex Milner-Smith's survival of a plane crash DOES mention the band, please read it properly. The main results from Google are not Wikipedia and MySpace, but the band's official page, [42]. We are also featured on current West End Les Mis actor Gina Beck's website: [43]. The sales figures are made up, I will edit them. We currently are under contract with EggNog Records and TuneCore Distributors: our album "Trash Talk" will be on sale from all digital music stores (including iTunes) from December 2006. We have toured France and Italy, I will post up articles ASAP. Thankyou for the comments.--ED

• Comment - I did read the plane crash article, and I stand by my original statement in the nomination. What the article states, is a quote from Alex Milner-Smith

He would also like to return to playing in his rock band: "I'm a guitar player but luckily I play the drums as well. I might have to play those for a while until my fingers heal."

This provides nothing in the way of verifiability. In any case, the article is a poor choice for reference as the article is not about the band, but about the victim of a plane crash. For the refernces that you are adding, please review

WP:MUSIC as there are the criteria being applied. -- Whpq 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Fair enough, sensible point. I'm not advocating that this article should be kept on, by the way. I have no idea who wrote it. I will supply the correct information and then leave it to your sensible judgement. All the best. -- ED.

• Delete, fails
  WP:V. Additional notability metric: no listeners on Last.fm. Maybe after the album hits the market.--Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Be careful with
  reliable sources. If you have recieved reviews by music critics in newspapers, trade journals, magazines, etc., PLEASE PROVIDE THEM. Make sure the reviews are a) extensive and b) from reliable sources (click the link above for reliable sources) and the article becomes inherently keepable. In the absence of such evidence, it will be deletable. I will change my vote when and if the evidence of notability arrives. --Jayron32 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Though reading like an advert currently, an article on this band should be on wikipedia. One band member is famous in New Zealand after their plane crash, and many articles can be found on himin the NZ press. Also the motion from the JCR of Brasenose College, Oxford to make them the college's official band makes them a legitimate article. (Though should be made to read objectively). TGHB
• Delete Sorry, the band has not demonstrated enough notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --

Vox Imperium

Vox Imperium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable online game. Looks like it fails WP:V and WP:WEB as there appears to be no reliable independent coverage. Delete as such. Wickethewok 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Article creator here. I vote Keep, as this page grew out of and enhances the
  List of Multiplayer Browser Games. This game meets the threshold of notability established by this list, though this could be indicitive of a need for a wider cull. However, the list has survived at least one deletion attempt based on this logic, so instead I expand it. Isotoad 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Unless the
    List of Multiplayer Browser Games entry deserves to be deleted, I don't see any reason why this entry shouldn't stay. WP:WEB seems to have been seriously eroded by these online games. Probably should address the root of the problem. I vote Keep. --Valeyard 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment is mentioned here as an alliance with
  EVE Online, but I'm not sure if that is the same Vox Imperium. T Rex | talk 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not the same one; that's an in-game group. No vote. --humblefool® 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, as a player of EVE Online, that's a (defunct, as far as I know... my alliance fought their last remnants half a year ago) in-game alliance. Never heard of the game mentioned in the article: I'll vote delete as it appears to fail
    WP:WEB. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. I would have voted keep if I thought it was notable, but it has such a low Alexa rank that it doesn't even come up on traffic rankings. There are easily ten thousand browser games out there that should get articles before one can be justified for Vox Imperium. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your comment has merit, but the notibility of this particular browser game is not contained simply in its Alexa rank. The tens of thousands of games you mention are largely uninspried clones of Gangwars. What caught my eye about Vox is its graphics -- it is one of the few games that is attempting to do something other than text. Look at the screenshot attached to the article. Much of Vox's notibility comes from its use of new web technologies. If this was just a Kings of Chaos script, I never would have made the page. Isotoad 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication of meeting WP:WEB, no third-party sources. It's hard for anything on the web created in "late August 2006" to be notable by now. Sandstein 06:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - faile
  WP:V, and no notability established. -- Whpq 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Wow, never heard of this game idea before. Why delete this article? Because the game sounds like about 10,000 other non-notable free broswer based strategy games going round the web, many of which try (or have their fans try) to get articles on wiki to drum up extra players. The Kinslayer 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What
  talk) 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamerNode

GamerNode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Website/company/forums that appear to fail

• Delete - per nom. --wtfunkymonkey 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Xdenizen 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - independent media coverage added. --Yeldarb 2 06:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to be a press release, which is not independent at all. Wickethewok 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The source, PR Newswire's Brian Anderson, is an independent source, according to the WP guidelines. Since the article was neither written nor circulated by the subject of the article, that seems to fulfill the criteria.--Yeldarb 2 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PR Newswire looks to be essentially an ad/PR agency of sorts - basically a company hired to make press releases. Wickethewok 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to PR Newswire's own site, "PR Newswire is the world's leading corporate news distribution, targeting and monitoring / measurement measurement service." The article in question was written independently of GamerNode's influence in an earnest attempt to raise the profile of the website. The fact that it was written and circulated by a PR distribution service does not dilute its independence. Additionally, I have added more information to the entry, including distribution info for both a magazine and several websites.

You'd trust a company that publishes press releases to assert it's own notability?

I wouldn't. (P.S. PR Newswire is actually a notable company.) MER-C 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• What I'm saying is that GamerNode didn't publish or write the release. PR Newswire regularly writes and circulates profile stories on businesses it considers noteworthy. The only participation GamerNode had in the creation or dissemination of the profile story by Brian Anderson was accepting the interview request from PR Newswire. PR Newswire simply does not write press releases on the behalf of its clients (which, according to the company directory accessed on 6 November at 11:30 PST, does not include GamerNode.com, GamerNode, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries). While the article certainly appears to be a press release, it is not.--Yeldarb 2 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per independent coverage added. --MrBlondeX 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- apbsniper 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) No such user; comment was actually written by 68.209.233.89 (talk · contribs). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reasons stated above. --Varsindarkin 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - look, accountless sockpuppets! PR Newswire gives press releases. I used to send them press releases when I worked for Gateway. "PR Newswire is the world leader in the electronic delivery of news releases and company-to-press information directly from companies, institutions and agencies to the media, financial community and consumers." Spare me.
  WP:CORP failed. Nice site thou.Very weak keep - Site asserts at least some kind of notability.--Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per independent coverage added. --xkesterx 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) — Xkersetx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - on first inspection, it seemed to have passed
  WP:WEB, but all the references are just brief mentions of the site... sites like IGN mention hundreds of smaller websites in rumor-esque articles. --- RockMFR 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Even if the sites mention it in passing, shouldn't having material published each issue in a magazine which is not connected to the site count?--probescusv2 Note: User's first edit. --NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Non-notable website that fails the
  WP:WEB criterias. Numerous sockpuppets don't help the situation either.--TBCΦtalk? 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Website's main claim of notability is that it provides hosting for the
  WP:WEB. This doesn't mean it's a bad site, just that it isn't encyclopedic. --Alan Au 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete WP:WEB failed. WP:RS failed. WP:CORP failed. I actually don't mind the sock and meatpuppets, since the Admins aren't gonna be fooled for a second and AfDs aren't a hand count. I'm finding it funny to watch mentally hilarious people (retards) thinking they are being all cunning and sneaky by posting 'keep' and not signing their post or using a false name when we can just click 'history' and see who ACTUALLY made the comment. Do the orderlies know these cretins are using the computers unsupervised? The Kinslayer 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd lay off on the personal attacks. That being said, it is useless. Sock/meat-puppetry, especially blatant cases like this, usually end up backfiring by annoying other users and making them vote to delete the article anyway. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the comment is really aimed at those that have come, said 'keep' and are never coming back, so I doubt there gonna complain! I agree about the puppetry backfiring though, it happened at the AfD for Empires once the meatpuppetry and canvassing started. The Kinslayer 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, site does not show any notability per
  WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Shrieking Harpy. Garrett^Talk 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia policies state that there is no limit to articles, this is not a paper encyclopedia. Where else is someone suposed to look up information on these guys? If they are small, say so in the article. Get to the truth of their claims, and share that truth with the world. *jb 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums. That aside, no evidence was presented that this meets

Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable online community failing WP:V/WP:WEB. I request sources on the talk page for the article, but haven't gotten anything besides blog links or trivial mentions. Only 14 unique Google hits. Delete. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails the criterias of
  WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 95, 237--TBCΦtalk? 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. The
  WP:WEB outweigh the general guidelines and that this site is eminently notable in its small field, which is sufficienty notable for wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • But are there any reliable sources than focus on the website instead of briefly mentioning it? Also, being notable in a "small field" does not always make a subject notable enough for Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am of the firm belief that in this case it does make the subject notable enough. Obviously there is disagreement, which is why there is this AfD, but as someone who works IN the profession, although I cannot add any of my own commentary as that would be
      WP:OR, I do feel that my opinion on this is not without merit . I would ask that people look at the article, the subject, and the context before making a decision in this case, because of the small niche that actuaries hold. Thanks. -- Avi 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Instead of a seperate article, couldn't an external link or brief mention in the actuary article suffice? Though I personally don't think the website is notable, I do admit that it seems to be a great resource for those interested in the field.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is exactly what people find so chilling and laugable about Wikipedia and why I avoid participating more than a few minutes here and there. Some dude whose contributions include write-ups about every video game imaginable, which I personally don't find notable or contribute to society at all (so let's remove those!), and who has no knowledge of actuarial science, comes along and says "delete". And those are the kinds of people in charge. Hmmm, so actuaries and other interested people have to constantly defend this article against attack from people outside the profession. That's just odd. They don't have time for that foolishness. This'd be like if I went over to some random engineering field and started nominating stuff for deletion. I wouldn't know what I was talking about so I'd stay out of it completely. Sources have already been quoted from two of the main actuarial societies in the world. The UK's society discussed the Outpost in an article as well and it's somewhere on their the-actuary.org.uk website. And assuming that Google is the be-all end-all source of discussions and articles about the Outpost is silly. There have been print publications mentions of the Outpost that never made it to the web, too. Surely this is at least as notable as "Super Play Action Football". How many third-party mentions is notable enough? Also, one would think that such forward-minded people such as those editing Wikipedia entries would accept that bloggers discussing the Outpost *is* notable. This is a tiny profession. Sorry it isn't as big as Super Mario Bros. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
          • TheActuary, instead of resorting to
            assuming good faith first before claiming that those who disagree with you are "forward-minded people". --TBCΦtalk? 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
            ]

• Strong Keep. This article has already been nominated for deletion before and passed the test. As a credentialed actuary as well, I can say that there is no other resource like the Outpost on the internet. You didn't receive "trivial sources" and I question your motives here. 14 unique Google hits is laughably untrue. The article is self-explanatory. I believe there are archived discussions on Avi's page that document prior dubious arguments for deletion. -- TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Being nominated before does not make an article immune from being nominated again. Also, the result of the previous AfD was no consensus, not keep. As for your comment on Wickethewok's motives, I suggest you please
    assume good faith. --TBCΦtalk? 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • TA, TBC is correct, it was not a straight keep. As for me personally, I believe that
      CIA), almost everybody knew each other, and people were afraid to speak about what they really felt about certain political issues fr fear of reprisal on the job. This forum almost single-handedly combatted that, from what I understand. TA would know more about this, he's been an actuary longer than I have. -- Avi 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Those are quite the claims regarding the importance of this forum. Can you provide something backing them up? Wickethewok 05:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, only my own experience, which is
      reliable sources. The actuarial field is not one in the news spotlight, as a professional society it has no union magazine, and the trade publications have mentioned it, but not done a piece on it as a whole. I guess I can try and get some of the editors at the CAS to do a featured piece in Future Fellows or something, but that wouldn't be out for months . What would you suggest, knowing that the entire field is not "sexy" and is not going to be in any major news outlet? -- Avi 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Unless we get some proper sources. Proof by assertion isn't going to cut it.
  Catchpole 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • change to Keep now the article has better sources.
    Catchpole 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Let's play Good Idea / Bad Idea! Ok, I'll go first! Good Idea: Writing an article with sources. Bad idea: Writing an article with sources but the only sources are the forum itself. Let's face it, folks, when your references section includes things like (“Lucy”'s response to “Brad”. Actuarial Outpost forums), you know the article's in deep trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add some references. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Hi! Tom here, the webmaster / moderator of the Actuarial Outpost. I've noticed several votes for deletion and I've managed to find a common similarity. They are all more than likely, not members of the outpost, not actuaries, and have never taken an actuarial exam.
  • Since the transfer of the administration, the site has grown to over 10,000 member and 1.8 million posts. Those numbers represent a large actuarial community that has been helping students pass exams for over 7 years now. The Outpost may seem insignificant compared to Wikipedia, but they share a common goal; spreading knowledge and helping students succeed.
  • Since the creation of the Actuarial Outpost, we have helped numerous students pass exams. I saw the mention of "Only 14 unique Google hits" as some sort of criteria for recognition on wikipedia, but if you do a search on our site for "I passed" or "woo hoo, I finally passed" or perhaps "I passed! Thanks everybody for the big help. I couldn’t have done it with out you guys!" you might notice that you get a few more than just 14 hits.
  • So what. . .Why should it be on Wikipedia, you ask? I travel to all of the SOA and CAS meetings and even go to the smaller club meetings around the US such as the IABA and just last week I went to the Chinese Actuarial Clubs annual Karaoke Party (I sang some Tony Bennett). There are two thing that I notice at all of these meetings: 1) People who come up to me and thank me for all of the hard work we do to help actuaries pass exams and keep them informed on the latest current events and 2) people that say "Actuarial Outpost . . . what's that?"
  • What I'm getting at here is even though we have a large group of actuaries that use the Actuarial Outpost, there is an even larger number that have never even heard of it. Wikipedia is well known amongst students for finding information and wikipedia has the opportunity to give them the inside scoop on a tool for learning, that's made just for actuaries. If wikipedia is not in the business of spreading information and helping people learn, then by all means, push the big red button, but as far as I can see, this article should stay, according to the philosophy that I have perceived Wikipedia is run by.
  • P.S. As a moderator, I realize how time consuming it is dealing with all of these little issues on a daily basis, but I assure you that this issue I take dear to heart. My main goal when I took over responsibility of the Outpost was to help students continue to learn and pass exams, and that is the only reason Glenn & Traci were willing to give me control of the site. I like to think they have been happy with what I have done.—The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Outpost Tom (talk • contribs
    ) 00:11, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm afraid I'll have to debunk your common similarity as I am an actuary (albeit of the UK variety). Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to advertise your website.
      Catchpole 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment I understand that this may come across as an advertisement to some, but I think that may too broad of an accusation, since it's not like we're selling tee-shirts or something to that effect. To the contrary, we spend a lot of time and money making sure this resource is available to the actuarial community as a service. This is a non-profit venture to facilitate learning, just like Wikipedia. The wikipedia page was not created by me, nor ever edited by me, but rather by a member who felt that it was information worth sharing. As for my assumption of the common similarity, my assumptions only tend to be 97.5% correct with an error of +/- 2.5%, which I feel is actuarially sound .
      • The Actuarial Outpost Foundation is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, The Actuarial Outpost relies on the donations from it's members and actuarial companies to run its vBulletin-based projects.--Outpost Tom 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In most cases, being a good resource does not make a website any more notable. See
          WP:WEB.--TBCΦtalk? 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
  • A sampling of reliable third party sources demonstrating notability were added at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_Outpost#References TheActuary 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources added include references to the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) and the Society of Actuaries. If the CAS's candidate liason (candidates are people taking actuarial exams who have not received their designations) is specifically tasked to monitor the AO as the barometer of candidate feeling about the society and the exams, I think that is a very strong proof of notability. If you disagree, please explain. Thank you. -- Avi 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:WEB HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Numerous third party authorities in the industry have now been cited in the article, including some from one of the organizations that administers the actuarial designation in North America. Last time this article was submitted for deletion other references were provided as well, including references in the New York Times and other publications. There's plenty of external authoritative publications referencing the site in question. [User:Waterwheel]

• I must disagree. Half of the references listed barely mention this forum/website at all. The other half of the references are to posts on the forum. Wickethewok 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You made that point clear when you nominated this article for deletion
  WP:WEB itself above). -- Avi 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• STRONG Keep It is a core policy of Wikipedia that you do not delete things for simply not being notable. Wikipedia has pages for individual Star Trek episodes. It is ridiculous to keep an episode summary, and then to delete an entire community. *jb 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core policy? Where? Can you link to it? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under official policies, [44] - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is official policy, as opposed to simply a guideline. If you are going to start enforce notability, then you should begin by proposing the deletion of all pages for Star Trek episodes that are not individually notable (which would be all, except for maybe the one with the first interracial kiss, but even then that would be better in the main Star Trek article). *jb 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that policy does not say that you cannot delete things for not being notable. It says we have more latitude than other encyclopedias, not that we have to include everything. It does not invalidate consensus any way here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, the existence of the subject of the article is eminently verifiable per WP:V; the only worthwhile deletion criterion in the nomination is that it fails WP:WEB. I argue that WP:WEB is the wrong guideline to decide the notability of this community. Yes, it is a community with a strong web presence, but as the website itself is not innovative as a website (it appears to be just a community blog and a vBulletin), the governing guideline should be
  peer review than AfD. (And I heavily encourage the principal authors of this article to put it through a peer review, where I might provide a more thorough criticism.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fun Fact Reference Oh yea, forgot to mention, one of our members (with 0 posts) is a screen writer who is using our site to do research for a character in an upcoming movie that will have an actuary as one of the characters. Does that count as reference? Will there be partial credit? Outpost Tom 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete established. W.marsh 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology

Redundant, articles already exist seperately on science and technology. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on Talk:Science and technology ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. we don't need an article for every combination of words and/or practice under the sun. -wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to "Relationship Between Science and Technology". The scope of the article should be changed to explore the relationship between the two terms, which is a very relevant one, and not to just listing their definitions. After all, the development of technology is related to the development of science and vice-versa.--Lobizón 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the role of encyclopedia articles to merely explore the relationship between two terms, unless there is a specific and notable history of the particular phrase in question (such as "cloak and dagger"). Perhaps that is the case with "science and technology," but this isn't conveyed in the current article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why I think the scope of the article should be changed to reflect this relationship, rather than delete the article altogether. Technological and scientific progress go hand in hand, and there are a lot of academic works, historical or sociological, explaning the historic relationship between the development of both.--Lobizón 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is why we properly have articles on the academic disciplines studying these two terms: science and technology studies & history of science and technology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, purely redundant. --
  T | C) 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete These concepts should (and are) discussed in two seperate articles. This article is not needed. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I think we need to be carefull here and it might be best to see how the article develops for a while. As is pointed out on the talk page the term "Science and Technology" is used frequently as in "S & T Studies", "History of S & T" etc. This make it a likely search term on WP. It is not just the sum of what is on two different articles. I would much prefer to have time to argue this out on the talk page rather than at AfD. --Bduke 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (also for now). The article is not to explain the term "science" and the term "technology." It is for the term "science and technology" which takes on a meaning other than the sum of its two parts. I am the first to admit that the article in its current state is weak. However, I am not the right person to write the final article and it was my intent to put a clean-up tag on the article but I did not move fast enough and the speedy delete tag was up before I found my tag. It may turn out that nobody is able to bring this up to the desired standard, but at least give the article a couple of months to show where it can go. Cheers -- MCG 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the article does not establish any insight of merit that is not found in the primary and secondary articles on science and technology already. This is not to say that it couldn't do that, but that it does not right now. --Buridan 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there is merit, why delete it as opposed to fix it? It has been pointed out that there are several articles incorporating this term (which is more than its two parts). Additionally there are categories that do this as well; in a quick search I can find Category:Science and technology by country (and this is full of many other sub categories of science and technology) and Category:Science and technology studies. If you delete the article Science and technology, it will eventually be re-created. Why not deal with the content of the article now instead of later? -- MCG 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Main article has been trimmed significantly to essentially stub-status. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The question of alternative approaches and the benefit of
  Mike 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep But please add a scholarly source for the claim that there is more to the Gestalt "Science and Technology" than to the conjunction of "Science" and "Technology." Otherwise, even though I believe the claim in the introduction, this looks somewhat like original research. Edison 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a bit sad that this article is all we have to say on the subject of Science and Technology in the general sense. Surely there can be more flesh added to these bones along with some nice cites? Robovski 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep... it is sad.. but that is why there are around 40 other articles covering this material. this article at best should be a category at best, and you know what... it already is.... so this article is moot. --Buridan 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But it is not already a category. Category:Science and technology -- MCG 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --

Hybrilog

Hybrilog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be a neologism, as a Google search reveals only fifty results outside Wikipedia. Additionally, the way the article is written appears to indicate it is copied from another source. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like it was created by the creator of the concept, as seen here. --humblefool® 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete per above. Also, have a look at the creator's userpage - single-purpose account. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:OR. Article has been published by the original author Pedro Andrade/Pandrade here. Caknuck 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Neologism and apparent original research. Xdenizen 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  T | C) 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is not a commonly used term and the article seems to be OR. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism, personal essay. JIP | Talk 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HNC Network

HNC Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group of hackers or something that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:V. Looks like mostly vanity and original research. Pretty much all of the "references" make no reference to the subject of the article. Only the ABCnews article even mentions the subject, and even then, only a couple times in some passing sentences. Delete as failing any reliable independent coverage. Wickethewok 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Sources

The definition of reference:

(ref er ence –noun ) 1. an act or instance of referring.; 2. a mention; allusion.; 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.; 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.; 5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.; 6. reference mark (def. 2).; 7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.; 8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.; 9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.; 10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.; 11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age. –verb (used with object); 12. to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references: Each new volume is thoroughly referenced.; 13. to arrange (notes, data, etc.) for easy reference: Statistical data is referenced in the glossary.; 14. to refer to: to reference a file.

Being that EACH article in the references, specifically references the moniker(s) of the HNC Network and also some of those formerly involved with it, said reference is therefore verifiable and legitimate as it is relevant to the entity in which it refers, no matter how major or minor said reference is.

Now, not withstanding this article has a ways to come, but even a quick search across any major search engine offers several substantial clues to why, where and when this group existed. Let alone the group seemingly has a current effort underway at www.thereformed.org, of which the group could obviously be contacted for a first-hand account or pointers towards other verifiable content. Perhaps this is a case of someone not wishing to help in finishing the homework?

The disturbing thing is this, your lack of willingness to assist in clearing up this article's potential misgivings and your history of requests in attempting to axe many well-laid articles simply due to your impatience with those lacking MASS quantities of referencial materials. Your contribs speak for themselves, play God on another Wiki, leave this one to those that can be objective and helpful in creating a incredible Internet resource of new content while paying tribute to the heritage and of those that walked before it, such as this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References for articles necessary for inclusion into Wikipedia are defined differently than those on a normal dictionary. See

WP:RS for more info.--TBCΦtalk? 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Be that as it may, has anyone attempted to explain, assist or correct the author? There seems to be no due process on Wikipedia anymore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia has never had due process as

Wikipedia is not a democracy.--TBCΦtalk? 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. The subject of the article hasn't been subject to "multiple non-trivial published works ". Also, "legitimate" references are not always
  reliable sources, especially if said references are not independent of the site itself.--TBCΦtalk? 04:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I disagree - your Delete is considerably an injustice when a site in the same category spells contains NO references and provides only a handful of external links to substantiate their presence - see l0pht . Does this not make Wikipedia a biased publishing source if it doesn't effect the rules against all offenders? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due process is not a procedure relevant to just democracy, FYI. You'll also notice in the

Wikipedia is not a bureacracy

it states clearly:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Yet this has been anything but. NOONE apparently has attempted contact with the original author or the other contributors, which there seems to be a substantial few to attempt to correct this article and refine it..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently, this nomination is being obscured by a lot of smoke and mirrors. Although the Anonymous Contributor's concerns about the nomination process might be valid, that's neither here not there at the moment. Consider the article itself: it makes quite a few claims, but precious little to back up most of it. The big names it attempts to associate the group with never seem to actually touch the group's own reputation - there's an implied noteworthiness, but no explicit proof of anything. Everything is described in great detail, but where's the beef? Although I hate to vote to delete an article that has obviously had a great deal of effort put into it, there's no assertion of notability that I can see. --humblefool® 05:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per humblefool. Whilst it seems to be thoroughly crafted there is, never-the-less, a distinct lack of moo. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Humblefool. This article tries, through both its length and its "references", to imply notability, yet fails to show it. yandman 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The anon editor's horibly illogical, and unsatisfactory arguements notwithstanding, the subject does not seem to merit ANY mention in Third Party references. If specific citations can be found in several third-party references, I will change my vote. The ONLY third party citations are reprints of the SAME article from CNN and Computer World that mention a different group of white-hat hackers. The litmus test for worthiness on wikipedia is references in THIRD PARTY sources. We have none yet. Thus, I vote delete until this situation changes. --Jayron32 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should not be deleted. I'm a former member of HNC and this is actually the only source of information about HNC we have now. Sure, some references are questionable, but instead if deleting this article we should rather edit it. People are references too. Do we want another incident like this one: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061106-8161.html ? Before we delete we should be able to edit this article. --xen ix 01:38 07.11.2006 (CET)

That wasn't an incident, it was the justified removal of an article on the grounds of notability. And so is this. yandman 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You get to keep the article if you can provide third-party references (as in, outside of the group itself) that talk about it, as expressly spelled out in the 2 cornerstone wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia is not the place for information like this. Many places exist on the web to promote your group. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll bypass the blatant ignorance by my counterpart of above and move along to the bits. Taking it upon myself to contact one of the former members, since it seems noone else did, there apparently is historical, third-party articles that were indeed written(including a published book mention of the group, several interviews with NOW media, an interview with ZDNet UK, an interview with ABCNews apart from ViXeN900 and some other odd and ends), but unfortunately the archived links that were relayed via correspondence no longer hold data although their architecture is within scope of others in the same independent sites (apparently sometime between 2000-2002 many online new agencies expunged these records?). Secondly, it appears that this member had no knowledge there was an article posted on Wikipedia about the group, but upon reading it, had suggested to posssibly remove for edit and then resubmit at a later date for an article tailored to their history - he did however confirm that the timeline was incredibly accurate. He also questioned whether a full upload of all the tools to an independent external source and of course the HNC Video made in Las Vegas would help in validating any future entry? I was unsure of what to say, but I didn't think it would hurt since it was a published, commercial product produced in partnership with an independent post-production house. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.174.248 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Tired

Teddy Tired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is about a neologism, "teddy tired", which has not gained common currency. A google search for "teddy tired" came up with very few relevant hits, all of which seemed to be from blogs. No reliable secondary sources were cited in the article. I could not verify that the Hoodoo Gurus wrote a song lyric about "teddy tired" with a variety of google searches. The article itself says this neologism is specific to a particular industry and goes on to point out that it is more of a one-man campaign than a common expression in Australia or elsewhere. Teddy Tired fails

• The Hoodoo Gurus bit is bogus per this, and I distrust anything that can be said to spread like wildfire. Delete. --humblefool® 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the ghits are completely unrelated. This would fit better on urban dictionary. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. This is nothing more than a dicdef/neologism. -bobby 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Wareq 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Hoodoo Gurus song was "Waking Up Tired" which lyrics databases show didn't contain this term. Ebbsco's Australia New Zealand database comes up with nothing on this. Real verifibiality problems with this and if it was verified it would be a dictionary definition. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I distrust neologisms when they're being spread by people with nicknames like "Mikey", "Jono", or "Totters". Lankiveil 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom --Michael Johnson 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 12:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect. Article already included on Hawaiian Airlines main page. Not enough content to warrent its own space. -bobby 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Airlines destinations

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

150.135.180.195 added this info into the main Hawaiian Airlines article today. Honestly, I think Hawaiian is small enough that it's not a big hindrance to have this list maintained in the main Hawaiian article as opposed to having a separate article to list their destinations. Hawaiian717 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a separate article follows the form of United Airlines destinations, American Airlines destinations, etc. Keep, no reason to delete. --humblefool® 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I brought up the size issue. Horizon Air and SkyWest Airlines are examples of having the list on the same page (though those may be long enough to be split; Aloha Airlines on the other hand seems clearly short enough to keep where it is). American and United serve many destinations worldwide and having the list on the main article page could easily overwhelm the article. I don't think this is an issue with Hawaiian. -- Hawaiian717 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that articles should follow a standard format; the "...destinations" seems to be the standard, and should be kept throughout all airlines articles. In any case, even if you merged it into the main article, it would still be ineligible for deletion, because edit histories need to be retained. --humblefool® 04:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect seems reasonable to me. -- Hawaiian717 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds fine to me. --humblefool® 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hawaiian Airlines. I think common sense should rule here. If a list of destinations is too bulky for the airline's main article (à la American Airlines destinations), then it merits its own article. For regional carriers like Hawaiian with a smaller list, inclusion in the main article is less obtrusive. Caknuck 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Caknuck. Someone has already copied into the main article and it doesn't make it too long. --Steve 05:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, does not have a long list of destinations, so keeping it in the main article should be fine. --
  T | C) 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. --

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnotable accreditation mill. When this was created I looked into this and found only one article from a magazine (its the one source cited). It is not an approved accreditor or tied to any credible school, and I noted it accordingly. Thus, since it is not recognized by the Department of Education it must pass WP:CORP. I see no evidence of that. What city is it in? What country is it in? There is not enough material for an article, and as it stands it is an article about what it isn't. Therefore, not wikiworthy. Arbusto 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the article has been edited over time to completely dismiss it's subject as unofficial. The council fails
  WP:CORP --Steve 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It appears to be an organization trying to establish notability through the use of wikipedia. That puts the cart before the horse. Sorry, unless proof of notability outside of wikipedia can be established, it must go --Jayron32 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I agree that it may not pass WP:CORP, I think it's important to keep it for people to find credible and factual information regarding what they claim to be. While one can infer a lack of credible information to mean the organization isn't credible, I don't think most people would see it that way. Should we delete information on
  Snake Oil just because they were charlatans? Isn't it important that other people not be fooled? While i've disagreed with the wording of the previous article in its professionalism, I have agreed that it should be noted for it's attempt to decieve people.12.207.87.61 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'm going to ammend my position above. After reconsideration, if the organization doesn't meet WP:CORP then it should not have it's own entry. However, it should remain on the
  List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning.12.207.87.61 11:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah-win's Law

Allah-win's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barely-coherent quasi-POV OR attempt to create a corollary to

• Delete. Seems to be
  original research, as evidenced by the few results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and blogs.--TBCΦtalk? 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — looks to be OR and kinda nonsense. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ick. --humblefool® 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  point of view problems. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, NN, OR, and POV --Steve 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Egregiously POV, and largely rubbish. Xdenizen 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb.
  Danny Lilithborne 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, pure nonsense, POV fork. --
  T | C) 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all. Shimeru 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. JIP | Talk 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  brings Nazis into this discussion... uh, nevermind..--Isotope23 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Who is Allah-win and what exactly makes this "law" his or hers? Delete as only the Third Reich would want an article so devoid of context. Puerto De La Cruz 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely neologistic OR veiling a rant. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron dagan

Ron dagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Only source cited is own website. Piece was originally spam/fluff, author asserted notability but "sources" provided barely mention the guy and are not notable or reliable regardless. No new sources have been provided so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge not ruled out. W.marsh 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior (proposed state)

Superior (proposed state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Certainly an amusing proposal, but this smacks of original research or an outright hoax since the only sources are A) a blog and B) a book that appears to not really exist. Also might have something to do with the Colbert Report... that should make it fun. Anyway, if someone can produce reliable sources confirming this topic great, but otherwise this article needs to go. --W.marsh 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, might be worth a
  WP:BJAODN, and pray it's not Colbert related. --humblefool® 05:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • New evidence, new vote. Keep, but cleanup. Still BJAODN-worthy in my opinion, though! --humblefool® 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also weaseled its way onto
    Upper_Peninsula... --humblefool® 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

And

Historic regions of the United States. All 3 references will need to be removed if a reliable source doesn't appear... I will most likely take care of it. --W.marsh 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as unsourced per A) and B) above --Steve 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) So some sources have been found for up to the 70s when this movement seems to have petered out. Oh, and 4 minutes of news coverage from 1971 is hardly notability enough for an article. I'll change to a Redirect to Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and flesh out the section that is already there. --Steve 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and send it to
  BJAODN - per nom I'm changing my vote to neutral.--andrew|ellipsed...^Talk 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Keep[reply]
• Delete, per nom, nothing to say, this is lame. --
  e Ong _{(C | R)} 02:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per norm. If Colbert did propose such a state (something I could see him do) then a mention of it ought to be placed on his article. But this looks like a... well, a joke. Merge Alright, the movement might be real, but not serious enough to justify its own article. This debate should be turned into a mention in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The map appears to be a complete invention. The references provided in the article at present are extremely weak. But there was a genuine, semi-serious effort a few decades ago to form a state of Superior led by the prominent local politician Dominic Jacobetti. Better references are certainly needed. The effort is briefly mentioned here in the biographical notes for the collection of his papers at NMU. AFAICT, most present-day calls for secession are intended as either humor or an expression of dissatisfaction with downstate government. I don't think anyone takes it seriously anymore, but there does seem to be some kernel of truth to the secession proposal. In 1978, Jacobetti introduced a bill in the state legislature for separation, but it never came to a vote. [45] And here is a pretty good account of the proposal to separate, although perhaps too much of a personal essay to be a reliable source -- though it does provide a general outline of events that could probably be verified from other sources. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra Strong Keep Living in Northern Michigan, I heard this idea widely and can attest to it not being complete BJAODN. Vanderbilt University has an archive for a NBC newscast in 1975 that corroborates that this is real. link to vanderbilt After reviewing this link, I suggest that others retract their votes. FWIW, my google method was searching on "Superior" and "51st state" [46] MPS 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        free information on the Internet, data may be used by
        non-commercial entities, as long as this message
        remains on all copied material. These electronic
        pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
        or for presentation by other persons or organizations.

        Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
        for purposes other than stated above must obtain the
        written consent of the file contributor.

        This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb
        Archives by: Tina S. Vickery <[email protected]>