Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< April 11 >

Purge server cache

April 12

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desi bandari

edit

Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus (default to keep). --Nlu (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Strelchik

edit

Delete. I think that this article deals with someone who, while likely a very nice person, is not publically significant enough to justify a page on Wikipedia. Strelchik is a failed political candidate, and, according to the article, a rights activist in Thornhill. However, his article is so overwhelmingly for him, that it makes me dizzy. Whenever it is changed to make it at least somewhat neutral and acceptable, these edits are reverted. But even without this, there are many more 'important' people, and I use the word lightly, who are better suited to a page on this website. I even created this article, but now realize it was wrong. Theonlyedge 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Strelchik for prior debate. Bearcat 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: How long does an article go through this process before it is deleted or kept? Theonlyedge 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One week. Bearcat 15:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you thinking of Save the Children? Free The Children sounds like a good charity, but they're not the same. Mangojuice 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commenthe means what he said Free the Children not Save the Children. Freethe children is one of the top humanitarian organizations in the world and Strelchik was one of the founding directors.--69.158.181.37 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article arlready won the deletion debate to keep, also, the nominater is Theonlyedge is Alan Shefman (pm_shef's father and former opponent of Strelchik in the 2000 municipal election) --67.70.150.98 23:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, above is this user's first edit on Wikipedia. User's second edit was to place a defamation of character warning on Theonlyedge's user page. Mangojuice 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the user's edit history (iPod? Prime Minister of France? Eric Reguly?) and userpage bio ("I live in Toronto"), I don't buy that. I also find it highly unlikely that a politician would willingly write up Wikipedia articles about his own electoral opponents. Show some proof or retract the assertion. Bearcat 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are lots of connections as theonlyedge either being Alan Shefman himself or a sockpuppet of Pm shef, first the name "edge" is the same name as shefman's company, they both were attack the same oppenents and have info that only they would know, appears to be politicaly motivated. being from the vaughan area myself they both (if not the same person) have been doing similer practices outside of wikipedia.
Let's try this again: Theonlyedge wrote this article up in the first place. Can you give me one remotely convincing reason why Alan Shefman would willingly write up an article about one of his political opponents? Bearcat 22:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you must be very frustrated with all the non-sense but the reason he originally wrote it had to do with 1) the federal election and 2) when the Alan Shefman article was up for deletion to show an opponent that he beat had an article. It is a real shame that the wike admins. don't have all the info. about this group. I don't think you realize, the non-sense that this group that the shefman's are in, causes here in vaughan. Mark my words, one day soon, you will read about a major scandal coming from Vaughan area politicians that not only include shefman but also there "king pins" De Biase, Kadis, Sorbara, Bevilaqua and there realife puppets, like shefman, ferri and many more
The only other activity from this IP is accusing user:pm_shef and user:Theonlyedge of being sockpuppets of each other (with no evidence). I am >95% that this is the same user as User:67.70.150.98 who has voted above. Thryduulf 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only edits are here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia

edit

Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has Lostpedia related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10? Try 21,000 unique Google hits. 156,000 total. 67.180.162.75 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Lostpedia receives 200,000+ hits/day, has over 156,000 Google references, grows at ~20% per week. Go ahead and delete it from the wikipedia, but it is one of the most popular Lost related sites on the Internet. 67.180.162.75 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen better? Where? Lostpedia is by far the most complete Lost resource on the internet. 67.180.162.75 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOST Wiki

edit

Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has LOST Wiki related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall yards

edit

Deprodded. I'm in favour of keeping articles about all natural geography and geographical precincts (suburbs and municipalities), but this is a specific housing project, and could possibly considered as real estate advertising.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They haven't broken ground, and it looks like they have some problems. From an article in today's paper [1]: "Spokane Mayor Dennis Hession on Monday announced the formation of a City Hall team to guide creation of a large housing and commercial development on the North Bank of the Spokane River. The team will be responsible for helping developer Marshall Chesrown obtain approval to build the first phase of the Kendall Yards project west of the Monroe Street Bridge." Add Crystal-Ballism to the nom. Fan1967 03:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio, but a re-write in an original, English version is welcomed. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panteion

edit

Greek text, untranslated at WP:PNT. Possibly the same thing as el:Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο, but not the same article, so not an A2. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if new evidence or a translation surfaces. Entry from WP:PNT follows. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Greek. --Allen3 talk 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Greek, and there is one line in English at the bottom: 'Famous proffessors of Panteion University' and a list of names. ColinFine 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough AltaVista Babel Fish translation:

The Panteios University has history of 75 years. A history creative, ascendant course that was connected not only with the course of Maximum Education and the growth of Social Sciences in Greece, but also with the more widely social transformation in our country. It deserves for this sees no one closely how it was created initially as Faculty and how it developed until today. Two persons connected their name with the arrest of idea, the foundation and the first steps of Faculty. G.Fragkoy'dis, of synjdryti's Panteios University the one was the Cypriote Gew'rgjos P. Fragkoy'dis (1869-1939), that came from historical family of Lemesoy'. It legally studied in Athens and Political Sciences in Paris. Kosmogyrjsme'nos, afterwards his return in Greece dimosjografoy'se and poljteyo'tan. In December 1923 was elected attorney Athens and Piraeus. In in the National assembly he was head of team of reformers. It published a'llwste - with the Koytoy'pi - the newspaper the "Reform". Existed friend and collaborator of El. Venjze'loy and G. Papandreou. Al. Pa'ntos, donor and synjdryti's the Panteios University second was Alexandros J. Pa'ntos (1888-1930) from wealthy family of Volos. Studied also he Legally in Athens and later Political Sciences in Paris. It coincided also the two men they watch - in different however each one season because difference of age - courses in the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". This Faculty, as free step of scientific knowledge and expression, practised big influence in the intellectuals. However, the streets of two men were not crossed never! They had however a common vision. This vision was the foundation in Greece of Faculty of Political Sciences, as that of Paris. The first, Fragkoy'dis, some moment made this vision work of life. The second, Pa'ntos, dying gave the economic possibility is completed the vision, after it left entire his almost fortune for the foundation in Greece of "Faculty of Political Sciences" at the system of "Free Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". Promoting his reforming ideas, the Fragkoy'dis founded in 1924 the Company "Educational Rebirth" locating thus in the Education and in particular in the "Maximum" space of necessary reforming changes. As repeatedly djeki'rytte: "If he is true that via the education and only it is possible anadimjoyrgici' Greek patrj's, the foundation of Faculty (it later means the one that he became Panteios) dw'si the sign of national reformation via the creation of hearth of studies of national questions and step of superior reforming teaching". For the realisation of this objective, the G. Fragkoy'dis through the "Educational Rebirth" founded the Faculty of Political Sciences. It aspired constitutes this for Greece what was the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences" that existed hearth of reformation of French Administration and world importance Institution. Justifying little later her foundation, it wrote: "With tojay'tas thoughts was founded the Faculty Political, Economic and Social Sciences, to opoj'an edj'daskon men between the most excellent Greeks and which will turn out superior Academy of moral education and regeneration". On 2 January 1927, the chairman of Democracy admiral Pavlos Koyntoyrjw'tis placed the foundation stone of central building, that is found today in the avenue Syggroy'. Two chairmen of Greek Democracy existed excel professors of Faculty: the M.Stasjno'poylos that djete'lese and first Dean of Faculty (1952-1958) and the K.Tsa'tsos. And other of course her professors were elected in academicians, while a pleiad from them they kept occasionally or keep still important leading places in the policy and generally are distinguished for their important role in the public life of country. The first building of Panteios Faculty the construction of her first building did not stand easy. The G. Fragkoy'dis in order to it finds the necessary money made repeated calls in the interior and abroad and it was forced to travel also the himself in order to it convinces the fellow countrymen of America mainly, they strengthen their work. The courses begin officially stjs 18 November 1930 with the presence of Prime Minister El. Venjze'loy. the himself aspired he is the first professor of Faculty and existed her first donor. At the same time, the death and propanto's the last will of Al. Everywhere, that died in June 1930, came it helps decisively. Wish his was with the bequest that left to be founded Faculty of Political Sciences. Charm in the persuasiveness and the enthusiasm of animator of idea G. Fragkoy'di, but also the perspicacity and the readiness of El. Venjze'loy that as Prime Minister was executant of will Everywhere, the bequest with the building of "Educational Rebirth" they incorporate in 1931 in the "Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences". Thus the initial vision of two men becomes reality. The Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences functions as NPJD and her first regulation is voted 1933. With this is created two departments: 1) The Politician, that had ten tactics and six extraordinary seats and 2) Socio-economic that it had nine tactics and five extraordinary seats. The study is forecasted three-year. The Faculty grants degree and also is forecasted also the handing-over of doctoral diploma. The wealth of courses and the distinguished professors that constituted the first instructive personnel (A'mantos, Eyelpj'dis, Kalljtsoyna'kis, Keramo'poylos, Kanello'poylos, Koyge'as, Koytoy'pis, Loy'varis, Sgoyrj'tsas, Seferja'dis, Sjde'ris, Tsa'tsos k.a.) contributed in is established fast the Faculty, in 1936, as self-existent Institution of Maximum Education, equivalent to the Universities and the other Maximum Faculties. In 1937 are nominated in Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and function as NPDD. Her aims, as they are reported concretely, are: A) The benefit of superior political education and the national and intellectual constitution of leading executives, with conscience of mission and responsibility of these, via the prosperity and progress of in general Homeland. V) Friday of public employees, via the growth of policies, economic and social scientific knowledge. C) Of further training of public employees as well as graduates of Law, oj'tjnes it is djda'xwsj to the High schools and the Urban Schools "the Elements of Right and Policy of Economy" D) the dj' of eklaj!keytjkw'n lectures, studies, garages erey'nis and other educative means policy of population education and enlightenment on the government owned aims and objectives, the awareness of need of discipline, solidarity and collaboration of various social classes, the culture of spirit of sacrifice thanks to general good, the reinforcement of patriotic belief and the fighting of partisanship and in general atomistic and egwjstjkw'n tendencies and ideas... ". M.Stasjno'poylos, dean 1952-58 in 1939 the Faculty is renamed in Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Employees. Above in these constitutive beginnings it tried walks the Faculty, rendering intense her existence, not only in the space of Social Sciences but also the wider social space. The public debates in Panteios for subjects of more general interest constitute henceforth delivery for the Faculty, beyond the scientific congresses that are organised in this, in tactic almost base. It deserves we report here, one from the first public debates, with which Panteios was established as free step of expression of ideas, as him had envisioned her founders. It is the eminent discussions on the parliamentarism that became in her rooms in the 15,1 7,19 and 22 May 1932. In that discussions they took part distinguished parliamentary, as the G. Papandreou, minister of Education then, and other distinguished scientists, many from which they were already professors of Faculty, as the Svw'los, Sgoyrj'tsas, c. Tsa'tsos, Kanello'poylos, k.a. as well as her a lot of students. Wing M.Stasjnopoy'loy Sample from other of her social sensitivities and progressive her character existed also the establishment from beginning afternoon and evening hours of courses, so that they can him watch the workers. Also they could be written also women in the Faculty, while was forecasted by the regulation even the organisation of students in association. The students her first time of operation were 205. With the N.540/43 the Faculty recovers her old name Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences, with which it functioned up to 1989 and it acquires the right to grant doctoral diploma. With the same law in the Faculty is founded "Department of education of journalists aim having the preparation via the journalistic profession and metekpaj'deysin the already workers of journalists". The operation of Department they would be regulated with special Decree, which however was not published. From 1951 is imported the traditional Academic organisation in the Faculty. The Administrative Council is replaced by the Dean, the Senate and the General Assembly of Professors of Faculty. K.Despoto'poylos, dean 1978-79 in 1963 the study is fixed four-year and the Departments of Faculty is named: Political Science and Public Administration. Afterwards the reformation of maximum education with the application of N.1268/82 the Faculty katate'mnetaj, in 1983, in three Departments (P.D.462/83). These are: a) the Department of Political Science and International Study, v) the Department of Public Administration and c) the Department of Sociology. From 1989, accordingly with the P.D.377/89 it was renamed in Panteios University Social and Political Sciences and included the following Departments: A) Department of Political Science and International Study V) Department of Public Administration C) Department of Sociology D) Department Urban and Regional Growth E) Department Social Political and Social Anthropology ST) Department of Communication and Mass media Z) Department of Psychology I) General Department of Right Then the Department of Political Science and International Study, katatmi'cike in the Departments: A) Of Political Science and History V) International and European Study while the Department Urban and Regional Growth were renamed in Department Economic and Regional Growth and the Department of Communication and Mass media it was renamed in Department of Communication of Means and Culture. Today the Panteios University includes ten (10) Departments: A) Department of Political Science and History V) Department International and European Study C) Department of Public Administration D) Department of Sociology E) Department Economic and Regional Growth ST) Department of Social Policy Z) Department of Communication, Means and Culture I) Department of Psychology C) Department of Social Anthropology J) General Department of Right. In the Panteios University function 13 Postgraduate Programs: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1. P.M.S. "Public Administration" 2. P.M.S. "Finances of Production and Intersectorial Relations" DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY 3. PMS "POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY" DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAÚKWN OF STUDY 4. PMS "INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAJKWN OF STUDY" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY 5. PMS "SOCIOLOGY" 6. PMS "H MODERN CRIMINALITY AND the CONFRONTATION" ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH 7. PMS "ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, MEANS AND CULTURE 8. PMS "CULTURAL POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATION" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY INTERDEPARTMENTAL 9. PMS "Social Change: Dimensions Social Political and Social Anthropology " DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 10. PMS "ORGANISATIONAL AND ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY" 11. PMS "PSYCHOLOGY AND SME" (INTERDEPARTMENTAL WITH DEPARTMENT EMEP) 12. PMS "POTENTIAL COMMUNITIES: KOJNWNJO-PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS " GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF RIGHT 13. PMS "Right and European Unification" In Panteios also they function: Three (3) Inquiring Academic Institutes A) the Institute of Regional Growth V) the Institute of International Relations C) the Institute of Urban Environmentof Potential Ten eight (18) Inquiring Centres, which were founded with proposal of Departments and decisions of Senate. Four (4) Laboratories which contribute in the better conduct of courses.

It's apparently about a non-notable university. Delete. Royboycrashfan   01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge then delete. See also talk:Intel processor confusion

Intel processor confusion

edit

There are multiple reasons this page should be deleted. For one, the title is horribly, horribly POV. For another, this information is redundant; it's all present in a variety of other articles (List of Intel microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors, and List of Intel Core microprocessors, as well as the individual processor pages come to mind). It also violates WP:NOT, as this is a classic example of "an indiscriminate collection of information". Processors are added for the sole reason that the article's original creator finds them "confusing". Entire product lines are skipped solely because of an author's POV. Jgp 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Superman-strong Keep, since no response to the above question, regardless of article content. It borders on bad-faith to renominate an article so quickly, simply to try and reverse an unwanted result. Deleting an article under these circumstances sets a bad precedent- should not be renominated unless there have been significant deleterious changes to the content or context in the interim since the last save. In this case, there have been none at all. Badgerpatrol 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, newer pages have been created. They have been linked in the nomination. These newer pages are not POV and actually have a focus, unlike Intel processor confusion. Second, you should vote based on Wikipedia policy and not based on politics. Jgp 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You do not specify in your nomination that these pages are newer, or that the information has been recently merged into those pages, as per the consensus of the previous AfD. If that is the case, then why is the article listed here again? After the merge, it is now a candidate for Speedy D, surely (after a brief opportunity for discussion on the article's talk page)? Secondly, you incorrectly opened this discussion on the previous archived AfD without specifying that this was a re-nom. Thirdly, from WP:DEL: "There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated, but some people are likely to state 'keep' for the reason that it was already discussed last week." Please point out the passage where the deletion policy instructs us that we may not vote 'Keep' for a quick re-nom. Not unexpectedly, this AfD debate is turning into a carbon-copy of the first- all a bit of a waste of time really. Badgerpatrol 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename "confusion" to 'statistics', it may be useful to see the data in a table like this rather than how its set out like a list at the other articles. The missing product lines should be added -- Astrokey44|talk 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least one reason for re-proposing this is that User:Jgp has created pages for lists of particular families of x86 microprocessors, so merging into those pages is a new option - and, I suspect, what Jgp has in mind. Guy Harris 07:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think he's now finished merging all the stuff from this page into those lists, so the Merge part is already done, and this page is redundant. Guy Harris 23:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think anything that might have been present in Intel processor confusion that wasn't present in the lists is now in the lists. Now, there's even less of a reason to keep this page around. Jgp 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have deleted the extraneous information that I don't think anyone wants. (If you think this was presumptuous of me, please feel free to revert the change.) The article would still have to be moved/renamed and the missing processor lines added, but what do you think now? Armedblowfish 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It beats the heck out of what was there before, and I think it was entirely correct to blow that stuff away, as it's all in the new processor list pages. Of course, once the page is renamed, one could argue that the old "Intel processor confusion" page has, in effect, been deleted (its content was moved elsewhere, and no page has that name any more), and a new page, giving a summary of the family "brand names" Intel's using for various x86 processor lines, was created ab initio. Guy Harris 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. :) Of course, "Intel processor confusion" should redirect to the new page. What about the new name? How about "Comparison of Intel processors" or "Comparison of Intel processor lines"? Armedblowfish 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hectic netway

edit

Non-notable internet cafe. 49 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation, so it goes here. Delete. DMG413 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adina (Biblical name)

edit

Delete this extraordinarily obscure biblical character. Mentioned precisely once in 1 Chr. 11:42, available, among other places, here. WP does not have articles for any of the other hundreds of NN dudes mentioned in that book. Prod remover says, "biblical figures are presumptively notable". You decide! - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Instead, to challenge the results of the 3rd AFD, please use deletion review. NSLE (T+C)(seen this?) at 01:28 UTC (2006-04-12)

Daniel Brandt

edit

As this guy does not want an article about himself on Wikipedia, we shouldn't have an article on him here. Disrespecting this guy by having an article on him when he clearly doesn't want one is a personal attack and is against Wikipedia policy. Please don't vote for keep because you think Daniel Brandt is notable. It's not about notability, but about whether or not the person this article is talking about wants an article. 9A 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by MONGO with summary (just an ad). -- JLaTondre 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skiffplane

edit

Non notable- google shows only 86 matches, essentially all are wikipedia related WolfKeeper 01:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Beyer

edit

Non notable [2], probable vanity

Tony Bruguier 01:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yell-Down War Hell Ride

edit

It's an extension of his vanity page. There are pages for lists of wrestling moves, if it were notable enough it could be included in there Illuminattile 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Travolta

edit

Non-notable. Being related to notable people does not make one notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't seem to have been a main member of the group (see [3]), so maybe she acted as a stand in or back up at one time? Arniep 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been another Sunshine Sisters around in the 60s of whom Sharon Peck was a member [4]. Arniep 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Aint no Travolta that matters but John Travolta. All others should be deleted because they all hangers on and shadow riders. Aint no love. EraserX 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was burn and delete. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock burning

edit

Sounds like a hoax. Author claims it is popular, but "can't find Internet references for it". I remain skeptical. Choess 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death dogs

edit

Nickname for hot dogs from a regional chain of gas stations. Hardly seems notable. Choess 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kerner

edit

Original prodder, but User:Monicasdude objected, User:Strothra put it back on, so here we are. Written three novels, they all have amazon ranks > 150,000. Seeing as this is a novel, we are probably going on popularity, as critical acclaim or academic skill appears not to apply. In which case, 150,000 doesn't seem very good.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is judged by readership not publisher. Just because a good publisher published the works does not mean that the work is read.--Strothra 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Understood, I was just indicating that the publisher was not a self-publishing company, as self published arthurs usually are not notable.--TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I moreso challenged the prod because I believed that it have been unfairly removed without discussion. I feel, however, that this individual is a nn author and fails WP:BIO. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." This may be an interested vote. --Strothra 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the section of WP:BIO quoted above. Author is published by a mass-market publishing house (Tor), which would be indicative that 5,000 copies of at least one of her books have been sold. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Publication does not imply that a book is being sold. Books may sit on shelves months without ever being sold. There's no proof that simply because it was published by a mass market publisher that people actually purchased it. The proof, once again, is in the readership not the publication.--Strothra 04:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please note that Amazon rankings also do not indicate how many of her books have been sold. Also (if it makes any of a difference), Barnes & Noble, on the other hand, ranks her book at #16,490 [6]--TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but she has three books published by the same company; I don't think they'd have brought her back for the second unless the first had some measure of sales success, and 5,000 seems modest in that regard. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The books were published in 1997, 2001 and 2004, so current Amazon sales rank is not a good guide. Worldcat shows 365+ libraries hold the last book of the series and 555+ hold the first. Thatcher131 16:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. There were merge suggestions and some mergeing appears to have been done. If there is still useful content that hasn't been merged request a temporary undeletion at WP:DRV. Thryduulf 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One stop phone shop

edit

Current article is an advert, not clear if the subject could be notable. DJ Clayworth 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • for a start it's a company and is owned by the Carphone Warehouse which is notable. Secondly, you refer to a 'subject', what is it you're refering to? thirdly if this is an advert then every wikipedia article on a company is an advert...
  • "not speediable but certainly worth of afd)" I have no idea what you mean by speediable, this word isn't even listed in the wikipedia dictionary. I'm also a little perturbed by the fact that originally you deleted this article with no word to its creator whatsoever. Supposed 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole attitude on here in regards to articles like this escapes me. Not only are there plenty of articles on companies in wikipedia but this article is drawing attention to the cashback trend in mobile phone retailing, , the positive and negative aspects associated with it. Supposed 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. A bit of explaination for the original poster seems to be needed. While Carphone Warehouse may be big enough to be noteable, its brands and products normally should appear only in the main article for the company. Notable products, like the iPod, may have articles of their own, but non-famous products and names of subsidiaries belong in the main article. Understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Any article that could be construed as an ad is a likely candidate for deletion. Because so many companies, people, and bands try to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, the people who watch for this tend to be a bit curt with promotional attempts. This can be confusiong to newcomers. Write an article on something you're not selling and you'll receive much better treatment. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly John I'm not selling anything, I know you can't' be sure of that but do you think it's likely? OSPS (the company) was bought by Carphone Warehouse some time ago, just like epinions and dealtime (now shopping.com) was bought by ebay which both have their own articlces. I suppose OSPS is now a brand but that brand has an image, which is best displayed in an encylopedia which takes a neutral point of view.Supposed 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the original article is a bit critical, and could be more so. Search Google for "one stop phone shop" and "complaints". They've been cited by the Advertising Standards Authority twice, and many customers report that obtaining the promised "cash back" is very difficult. Apparently the company is only eleven people in Crewe, so this isn't a notable company. Suggest merging into main article of parent company. --John Nagle 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ok with the article being merged, along with e2save which was also bought by CPW but has suffered less complaints. Interestingly this is not going to help CPW's image, I stress this is not my intention in creating the article but problems experienced by customers are noteworthy. Supposed 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. You can go ahead and do the merge yourself, then say here that you, the creator, are OK with deleting this article, and it will shortly disappear. --John Nagle 05:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take back that assertion, the award was given to the Carphone Warehouse for customer service!, what a wonderful company :-). Supposed 05:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge then redirect to Carphone Warehouse

E2save

edit

Questionable notability, but for now, it definitely is an advert. dcandeto 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Miller

edit

I nominate this page because I suspect this is an autobiography. There is only one main author who also edited a topic about Miller's field. This person may deserve an article though. What do you guys think? Tony Bruguier 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnimA (JK2)

edit

This article appears to be a vanity article. Bobryuu 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was 'delete all

Think of Me

edit

nn songs in a musical. Pertinent information has been merged into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), some pages contain BLATANT copyvio, some involve a non-technical recreation of the score. Unnecessary MusicMaker5376 05:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Other Pages Also Nominated[reply]


  • Merge into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)--TBC ??? ??? ??? 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the synopsis in The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) is sufficient.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion applies only to the initial article, not to the supplementaries added after the initial nomination.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyvio; unnecessary articles. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decouple, and consider each case separately. I think Think of Me should have its own article, though the current is worthless, and could be deleted without prejudice to a new article. I'm not going to review each and every article, and doubt many will. So each needs its own AFD. --Rob 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't decoupling imply the need to review each article separately? They're all songs from the same musical; they all contain more or less the same information -- information now contained in The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). Some are tried to be made larger and more important by including such non-necessary information as key, meter, number of measures, etc. -- MusicMaker5376 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bulk merges are fine. You can use {{mergeto}} and talk page discussion to do that. Bulk deletion is not ok in this case, as it involved the permanent removal of information, and requires individual attention. Also, if you did a true merge (e.g. kept signficant amounts of content), then deletion isn't even allowed (though I suspect you meant facts not actual content was kept, which isn't really a merge). BTW, why have you listed Masquerade, a disambiguation page, for deletion? Masquerade (song) was merged in June of 2005 (after a prior AFD). Also, I think The Point of No Return is an ok article, that has information not in the main article, and it should be kept as a stand-alone article. It has information not in the main article. Also, while these were all written for the stage musical, they could evolve to properly discuss the 2004 film, which, it is my understanding, has the same songs, but with certain notable differences (I don't know for sure, as I only saw the movie). Many comparisons would be to detailed to note in the main articles, but could be mentioned in each song article. --Rob 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point of no Return does, indeed, have information not included in the main article. However, it still fails all fourteen criteria on song notablilty here. Furthermore, the information it contains is not necessarily important to the plot of the play or the movie, nor is it otherwise musically signifigant. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think we should have sixteen different pages to discuss the differences between the play and the movie in excrusciating detail. The differences in the Phantom's costumes between stage and film versions are certainly non-encyclopedic and should be left to a fansite. MAJOR differences between the play and the movie can certainly be tackled in one article in the future. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You missed my entire point. If I wanted sixteen stand-alone articles, I would have voted "Keep all". I didn't. I said I wished to decouple, and consider them separately. The easiest thing to do at this point, is redirect all of them (without deletion), and then, in the future, anybody may undo the redirect, and expand the article. Do you oppose a redirect? If so why? What is the need for deletion? I think you're under the false impression, that if we don't delete all of them now, we we'll have stand-alone articles now. That's not so. You need to explain what purpose deletion serves, that a simple redirect does not. --Rob 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redirecting these articles would simply point them back to the article from which they're being linked. In every instance (save one slightly misguided link), the only articles to which these articles are linked are either other articles up for deletion or the main Phantom of the Opera article. Several of the articles link to the next song in the musical, forming an unnecessary chain of related articles. -- MusicMaker5376 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Circular linking can easily be fixed by delinking where appropriate. If somebody types in "Think of Me" in the search box, what do you want them to see? Should they be redirected to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) or should they get the message "No page with that title exists. You can create this article or request it". I prefer the first result. --Rob 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't really think someone would be apt to search for "Think of Me" before they search for "Phantom of the Opera", which, of course, hearkens back to the notability issue. Should someone first search for "Think of Me" and come up emptyhanded, their next search would be for "Phantom of the Opera" or "Andrew Lloyd Webber" -- both of which would eventually direct the search to the POTO page. Furthermore, it was my impression that we're trying to reduce the number of redirects out there. -- MusicMaker5376 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added: Another advantage of stand-alone articles, is it includes the ability to link from multiple articles. A song article could be mentioned in the bio articles of the lead singer(s), the stage musical, and the 2004 film. Somebody may be interested in all the Phantom songs sung by Butler in the 2004 film (with comparison to his stage predecessor), but not the other songs. Rather then give a detailed descussion in Butler's bio, give links to the songs, for more depth. Generally merges make sense when the information only relates to one central master article, but I don't think that's the case here. --Rob 08:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand your argument, here. The songs sung by Butler in the film are almost exactly (and I say "almost" only because I'm not 100% sure) the same as in the stage version. However, the above proposed differences between film and stage versions article would almost certainly answer that question. -- MusicMaker5376 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Removed Masquerade. Not up for deletion.
  • Delete, copyvio and merge to The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). --Terence Ong 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per MusicMaker5376. -- Kjkolb 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as copyvio and redirect all to the opera article. If an encyclopedic article can be created at a later date on any of these songs, the new redirect can be undone and the article written. -- Saberwyn 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as now merged. Offer editor a new user some support though. Funky Monkey 00:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good idea. I went over and offered some words of support too. Mademoiselle Sabina 01:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just removed the link for Phantom of the Opera -- it is the page for the book and is not up for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

I, the nominator, withdrew this nomination over 11 hours ago [11]. The result is Keep. I'll discuss more on the talkpage concerning the purposed merge. -ZeroTalk 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyung-Jae

edit

Completely non-notable person, fails the standards set by WP:NOT and fails the consensually accepted guidelines for WP:BIO. ZeroTalk 06:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging and discovered he's a scootch more notable than the regular mook. He's claim to stardum concerning the first to be killed is intriqing. I've withdrawn the nomination and apologize for my haste. -ZeroTalk 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Telekom Malaysia. Redirects are cheap. Mailer Diablo 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamyx

edit

Non-notable broadband service from a Malaysian internet provider. blue520 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete NOTE: the probable meatpuppet votes were ignored, resulting in 4 delete to 1 keep.

ARENAscape

edit

This is a non-notable website (or MORPG) as it fails WP:WEB. Additional, this was actually voted to delete once and is so a recreation of deleted material that hasn't gone through deletion review. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google test resulted in: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,600 for arenascape

Thus it is not really considered as trivial.

Furthermore, there are many active community forums on tip.it which are about Arenascape.

It is thus not so trivial, if you will really consider this as trivial, than what about those minor towns that you will never see once in your entire life? If this is really trivial, than what about the thousands of other trivial page?

We should not discriminate against this page just because it has been deleted before.

Listing this page is not being a web directory, neither is it advertising for anything.

From Wikipedia:Notability This article is not an obscure article, there are many people actively playing it, and there has been enough editors editing it for this article to actually grow to this length. Also, the article contains a large amount of valid content.

I think that we should spend our time fixing those even less notable pages instead of deleting this Mindtempest 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the tip.it forums houses it's official forums. And that's got roughly 50,000 articles. A fair bit considering the number who post on the forum isn't even close to the number who actively play. Dw rick 07:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Above user has very few edits and may have just made an account on Wikipedia to vote here. J.J.Sagnella
      • Reply - For the record, I already had an account to make the (now deleted) DarkWebz article. Why the username / password kept failing I don't know (former un: rick`). So I made a new account. Dw rick
  • Keep - Well i think you shouldn't delete Arenascape because there are thousands of members for the game, yeah it might have a few bugs but they will be fixed, it is a fun game to play and well it shouldn't be deleted, it has over has pver 80,000 google hits, it is very popular across the world. -- Q10_ross 05:20 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Above user has very few edits and may have just made an account on Wikipedia to vote here. J.J.Sagnella
  • Keep per nom; There is an active community for ARENAscape at tip.it, one of the most popular Runescape fan sites. Weezcake 00:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Above user has very few edits and may have just made an account on Wikipedia to vote here. J.J.Sagnella
      • Reply It is true that I am a new user at wiki, but I did not make an account for simply this purpose. I've contributed some edits to Tekken articles about three weeks ago and I've used this site without a username for quite a while (I just signed up recently after seeing some mistakes). I am the moderator at the tip.it ARENAscape forums, and will try to prevent the page for ARENAscape from being deleted.Weezcake 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I will not place a vote I will warn you, a wave of meatpuppets are about to arrive. Try and deem invalid their votes. Here is the link on the forums urging people to vote here. [12] J.J.Sagnella 22:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over 85000 google hits. Over 5000 active player accounts in the highscore list. Major fan game based on the major game Runescape. --Lodev 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese squabble

edit

nn vanity advertising pschemp | talk 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Goertz

edit

nn criminal in the recent news. did some graffiti and burglarities. It may constitute an attack page. It should be deleted in any case.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article needs editing and possibly slight censorship, it is relevant in today's world and hasn't been properly represented, as you can tell by the references the author has made. The artist "Borf" who was charged in Washington DC had a lesser sentence then Mr. Goertz and about the same media coverage.

Maybe to you living on the opposite ends of the country/world the artist isn't notable, but notability for a controversial artist always comes after they're dead or when they achieve world-wide fame. The author plans on contributing more to Wikipedia in the future, everyone has to start somewhere.

Is there something that can be done about the personal attacks I recieved because of my vote? [13] [14] ccwaters 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend plainly ignoring them. Sarg 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a place to take note of notable individuals after they have achieved notability in the real world; it is not a platform for promotion or self-promotion in an attempt to achieve that notability. -- Curps 21:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy St. Clair

edit

Is a trading card game player, no matter how "top-rated," truly notable if there is nothing else notable about him? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To Quote WP:BIO "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." The question becomes, is a TCG a sport? If it is determined it is I would be inclined to keep, and if possible expand the article. EnsRedShirt 07:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - otherwise we will soon have to include champions at Starcraft, Quake III, all manner of computer games and card games like Magic, ie gamercruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HiDownload

edit

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not download.com. Reads like an ad, and the author has linkspammed the product. Haakon 07:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford Town S.C.

edit

I had previously contacted User:O1ive, on his talk page 16 days ago about the lack of notability, but he has not responded, despite logging over 300 edits since. This is a suburban swimming club. Its website has no evidence of any athletes competing at national competition, let alone international. It does not appear to be particularly big, so doesn't seem to be notable in the sense of community impact, either.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herne Bay Lifeguard & Swimming Club

edit

A suburban swimming club. I contacted User:O1ive about this 16 days ago, but haven't gotten a response -he has 300 edits since. Looking at the club records on the webpage, nobody has come within 12% of the WR, and are in no way competitive at British national competition let alone international selection. This is not notable sportingly; it is not notable for large community impact either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanet Swim Club

edit

another nn suburban swim club. Also contacted User:O1ive 16 days ago - no response. He has made 300+ edits in the mean time. The club records on its website are 15-20% over the WR. Hence none of their swimmers are remotely close to even doing anything at British level, let alone international level. Doesn't appear to be notable for its social impact.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faversham S.C.

edit

A suburban swim club. Contact with author User:O1ive yielded no response, 16 days ago, and he has posted 300+ times since. This club has no webpage, and a google search doesn't link it with any swimmers of any first-class note, or with winning any British level awards, let alone international athletes. Does not appear to have notable social impact either.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to The King's School, Canterbury. Mailer Diablo 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings School Canterbury

edit

A suburban swim club. No website, no google evidence that any of their swimmers have done anything at a national level. Doesn't appear large enough to merit inclusion on grounds of social impact. Correspondence with author User:O1ive 16 days ago received no reply - he has done 300+ edits since.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOS Records

edit

no google hits, non-existent, possible hoax and even if there was a real label by that name, then not notable. So I'd say Speedy Delete as possible hoax --Arnzy (Talk) 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Leaf

edit

Non-notable part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe; as a benchmark, this is less notable than the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep strike. Contested prod: page author asserts that it should merged somewhere, but there really is nowhere sensible to merge it: it's nowhere near notable enough to be mentioned on the main Warhammer 40,000 page, and doesn't fit into Warhammer 40,000 species, which is for the playable armies in the game. Pak21 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Kingdom

edit

Delete. Vanity page. Full of nonsense. soUmyaSch 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - Added speeedy delete tag. Author added more junk and removed it. --soUmyaSch 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Singh Sarao

edit

Not notable enough[15]. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mokona modoki

edit

Delete. For starters, the title of the article is incorrectly formatted. Special:Whatlinkshere/Mokona modoki shows no other articles link to this one. This character had an already existing home at Characters in Magic Knight Rayearth#Mokona, (maybe a merge at best). But personally, I feel it's just another minor character that doesn't need it's own separate page apart from it's series (Tsubasa: RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE), per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Ned Scott 08:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West 2 Productions

edit

Non-notable. Low google hits. They haven't done anything notable. The claim on their website ("We are students and former students at Columbia International University") gives it all away. The JPS 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was {{deletedpage}}. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not One More!

edit

Created by a member of the group (obviously) and not stated in neutral terms, but mainly there is no evidence that the neutrality of this article can be properly verified from reliable sources (i.e. it is not notable). Deleted twice via WP:PROD as failing to establish notability, deletion is contested this time round so bringing to AfD. I have to say that an anti-Iraq-war group formed in 2005 is running a little behind the curve. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mellel

edit

advert, really, software gives no indication of being specially notable, and if anything would be better aggregated in a WP article on word processors, which exists Midgley 11:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAD Data Communications

edit

Tagged PROD: "This article has had an advert tag for more than a month; yet nobody has tried to make it sound more encyclopedic, or added any indication that the company satisfies the WP:CORP guidelines. This imples that it is probably not notable.", however on reading it quickly and on reading the talk page, a reasonable case is present that this doesn't warrant summary deletion. AfD can work its magic instead; those advocating cleanup might make a little bit of effort given the PRODding... -Splashtalk 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its a revenue range of $100m-$1b. Even so, I don't see revenue as one of the WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. Gwernol 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! — FireFox • T [11:09, 12 April 2006]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orvis Jordan

edit
    • Keep and improve. I believe I did not assume sufficient WP:AGF regarding this article. User:Parkridge1998 makes some valid points and I am sufficiently convinced that Jordan is indeed a notable figure in the Community Church movement. If this AfD results in keep I will undertake to work with other interested editors to improve the article and provide sources. If this cannot be done I will personally relist it for AfD by June 1st. 2006 gwernol 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

do not delete Jordan is mentioned in Melton's Encyclopedia under the ICCC article. He was also the president of two national orgainizations, the CCW-USA and the Campbell Institute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkridge1998 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Hi, I did a quick search on Google and couldn't find any mention of Orvis Jordan in connection with a Campbell Institute or the CCW-USA. As I'm not familiar with either organization, can you provide further information about them so your claims can be verified? If you want to make a compelling case for keeping this article, then please add verifiable sources for his notability to the article. Also, I assume "Melton's Encyclopedia" is [17], correct? Many thanks, Gwernol 05:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what: if it is that important to you to delete my article, go ahead and delete the article. The entry on ICCC, CCW, and Jordan's role in the CCW is in Melton's most recent ENCYCL. OF AMER. REL. You may have to dig a little in hard copy books to confirm OFJ's role in Campbell Institute. A google reference to his listing as "heretic of the week" in an old CHRISTIAN STANDARD journal used to be on the web. Jordan wrote an article disputing the historicity of the Jonah story. This will be my last attempt to ever write or edit wiki. Parkridge1998 (signed)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! — FireFox • T [11:16, 12 April 2006]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (recreation of several other deleted pages). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J Barreiro

edit

Non-notable biography, also recreation of material twice speedily deleted under Jonathan Barreiro. Contested {{db-bio}}. Speedy delete or speedy userfy. Weregerbil 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jonathan has done a lot for the community, and should be recognised. His contriutions are obviously not all accounted for in this entry, but when his formal written biography comes out, it will be much easier to elaborate on the matter. This article will be usefull to raise awareness of wikipedia within our community and encourage greater participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.12.199 (talk • contribs)
  • Jonathan has done many wonderful things for our community and his contribution's should to be noted. - Daniella Birch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.62.152 (talk • contribs)
  • Although Jony is Uruguayan, he's still a good bloke. He got four questions correct in last week's (8 April, 2006) SEN Four Diego's Useless Trivia Quiz.

Jony olé. - archie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.14.146 (talk • contribs)

  • Through his input in the community Jonathan has contributed to making the outer-eastern suburbs of Melbourne more enjoyable for everyone. With his toothy grin and wholesome Whitehorse values, Jony not only deserves his mark in wikipedia but a statue in the centre or Mitcham in his honour, which will preserve his explosive spirit in the suburb for years to come. (Plans for the statue have already been submitted to the local council) - John Stowell, prominent member of the Blackburn community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.122.222 (talk • contribs)
  • Jony should remain because, even after his country was spanked by the Aussies to qualify for Germany, he didn't commit suicide or stab us. He is a hero to his fellow citizens, therefore his story is of the upmost value to your site.

Cheers - SJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.160.15 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Jony: I think you should look into myspace.com. They have better tools for writing your home page, they have "friend" features, I think they have chat forums, etc, lots of stuff. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not nearly as good a tool for your web page as myspace. Weregerbil 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not fair! George Bush gets an article, and I dont! I dont want a chat feature, or a blog. I want an autobiography. It is my constitutional right under S78 (Australia). I have as much significance as any other leader or person, I have people who want to read about me. Please dont delete the article, give me a week to update my auto biography. If its no good then by all means delete. Jony.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Brettschneider

edit

NN bio, Google doesn't turn up any hits at all for the company name. My German is pretty poor but it seems there was an article on the German Wikipedia for the same person but now it's just a boilerplate message. Dismas|(talk) 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it: www.ferienwohnrechte.com I am surprised. It is very high ranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datacenter25 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 April 2006


Hey! I also found it! google.de Keyword: brettschneider ferienwohnrechte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datacenter25 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2006

Note The above has to be the lamest attempt at sockpuppetry I've ever seen. Fan1967 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi! I am from Spain and I know this company. please visit: www.hapimag.com But I can not help more or answer questions. Pedro


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn your prayers have been answered. Kotepho 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"maury deutsch"

edit

First of all, the article's title would need a change. Putting that aside, the subject of the article is, as far as I can see, quite non-notable on its own. Sarg 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the added links, and more soon to come, it is clear the Mr. Deutsch is a notable individual, deserving of a place on Wikipedia.

How does one go about changing the title? And what would you reccomend?

Try 'googleing'... Music Compasition and "maury deutsch", he has got hundreds of articles about him.

  • Ahh, the article is much better now, so I'll have to change the vote to a keep. I see the title has also been changed to a proper one! Could someone now remind an old wikipedian how to withdraw a nomination from here? ;) Sarg 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find striking through the nomination, adding a line to the end of the discussion calling for a speedy keep and early close, "as nomination is withdrawn and all votes are to keep", and offering a prayer fora ttention to the Powers That Be via the edit summary is usually effective
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schenker

edit

Advertising NathanV 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the current article is of poor quality, but this appears to be a multi-national company, with operations in Thailand, Malaysia, and Britain (Google Search). Lankiveil 13:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, and clean up. While the article reads like an ad, Schenker is a notable company. (cf. Panalpina for a similar company) Delete per copyvio noted below. Eron 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Advertising for a fledgeling company. Dismas|(talk) 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this article is not so much that the company, but once i finish writing it, will be more about the new concept of this law firm, it is something that has never before been done by a UK law firm due to Law Society restrictions (The.griffter 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Ghetto

edit

Original research Manufracture 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Kinšer

edit

Not notable, google returns nothing. Dijxtra 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, getting your kit off does not make you notable. Lankiveil 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chochmat HaLev

edit

I'm really not sure how big this "Center for Jewish Spirituality" is. Delete? GfloresTalk 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Flowerparty? 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Nlu (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofor

edit

per WP:CORP, maybe even WP:VAIN (see username of the original author) Dijxtra 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Incidentally, article was entirely unencycopledic. Jkelly 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadender

edit

Prod'ed as a neologism, prod tag removed by original contributor and edited; but it reads like nonsense. Speedy tag then placed by another editor and removed by original contributor. Accurizer 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is a direct copy from [19] and probably copyvio.--blue520 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gröûp X

edit

This is an internet phenomenon and nothing more. We have already deleted Futuristic Sex Robotz for the same reason. Urthogie 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people honestly don't know what that is. We do, they don't.--Urthogie 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's "we"? 1 billion people use the Internet worldwide. That's everyone and anyone who ever comes on the Internet to hypothetically look up information on the Internet, like on Wikipedia. It's a safe bet that if people are acquainted with Internet trends (and a huge chunk of that billion you could say are), they'll understand the media appeal of the group. Very notable acts like Lady Sovereign started straight off the Internet. MOD 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of wikipedia nerds haven't even seen it. If that's the case, do you expect the world to think its encyclopedic?
The majority of wikipedia nerds don't know the four members of G-Unit. Does this make G-Unit a non-entity? MOD 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but normal people have heard of G-Unit. They've had hit records. AYBBTU has absolutely no recognition factor outside internet geeks, and the penetration there isn't huge. If you stopped people at random in Safeway and asked them who G-Unit were, and what All your base... meant, do you really think the latter would be better known? -- GWO
I fail to see the point. Stuff that random people at Safeway don't know about isn't automatically non-notable. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's needed is a policy or guideline. I'm gonna start working on one, and I want you guys, and everybody to help.--Urthogie 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless comment. If you stopped people at random in Safeway and asked them what Sierra On-Line, Mip-mapping, FSAA or Cat 5 is, or who Tim Berners-Lee, Alexey Pazhitnov and Anders Hejlsberg are, they wouldn't know either, yet that doesn't qualify those respective pages for deletion. As stated above, stuff that random people at Safeway don't know about isn't automatically non-notable. If we only listed stuff that people already know about, there would be no point in maintaining an encyclopedia. --82.92.150.193 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Software programmers actually effect things. This is a meme.--Urthogie 12:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badger Badger Badger was kept on the basis that:
"An old fart like me needs this sort of stuff. This is hilarious!"
"I love the flash animation"

Perhaps it should be afd'd as well... in fact... I'm gonna go do hat.--Urthogie 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, cite a fan enthusing about the animation. Oh, and your ass is currently being handed to you on that AfD. Really not seeing the point of these last few AfDs, feels more like a desperate power trip than a level-headed suggestion. MOD 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a fairly accurate Google test places the Group's visibility around 293,000 hits. The Last.fm page of theirs lists them as having 6,041 listeners. So 6,000 people are wrong is what you're saying. MOD 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fact that those fans voted just because they liked it goes to show that noone votes based on policy when it comes to stupid internet shit. And no, an AFD isn't a way of strongarming-- its a way of putting something before the community-- if the community rejects my proposal, then so be it. The only time I get kinda pissed is when people vote to keep it on the basis that it was funny.--Urthogie 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was kept on the basis of a little more than just that, and you know it. Don't present half truths to get your point across.--82.92.150.193 11:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how a band who have 2 albums, a live DVD, and who still tour can be considered an internet phenomenon
We already know its an internet phenomenon. The question is whether its notable because of that.--Urthogie 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what was meant is more like, "I don't see how [they] can be considered merely an internet phenomenon". - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can release albums. All you need is a CD burner. Unless you shift a hell of a lot of units, or are signed to a notable record label, its just a vanity release, and it doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
Haha, this is vanity. right. Wikpedia:Vanity guidelines The porblem with vanity articles is that there aren't enough people to edit them so they are inherently POV'd. Look at the number of people saying keep - there is lots of recognition here. SECProto 15:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per community consensus... Nomination withdrawn so as to avoid WP:POINT.Urthogie 17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sure they're a cult phenomenon but they're a reasonably well known cult phenomenon and their popularity extends far outside the internet. If you delete Group X, you might as well go and delete every other cult phenomenon that you're not privy too. --gwax UN (say hi) 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gröûp X isn't just an Internet phenomenon. They've had their songs aired on radio stations, and not just for one-time gigs either. --Tokachu 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gröûp X are more than just an internet phenomenon, as mentioned earlier. They are also exactly the sort of thing that people will want to find information about because the whole idea behind the band is so puzzling. And even -if- the band was only known on the internet, why does that automatically make it non-notable? YTMND is an internet phenomenon that random people in the street don't know about. Yet nobody would delete the YTMND article.--82.92.150.193 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. (what more would i need to say?) SECProto 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yugguy

edit

This page was created to troll a member of Pistonheads.com, who is engaged in a series of acts of vandalism on Wikipedia, and is without merit Jononon 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chase skrzypek

edit

Delete. Could not verify any of the information in the article. The article does not give any references, nor does googling churn up relevant hits. Seems like hoax to me. soUmyaSch 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything on IMDB about any actors with that name, and I found no movies under the titles mentioned. The user's contributions, [[20]], only lists this page, and of the movie titles mentioned "Ich Bin Dumm" translates (according to Babelfish) as "I am stupid". That just altogether sounds fishy, no? --AshyRaccoon 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats why I said the whole thing seems hoax. --soUmyaSch 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barlimaconiwagalania

edit

Was nominated as {{prod}}: this was contested by author. Sticking to the letter of the policy, I have brought it here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Thryduulf 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madakkavil

edit

Delete - this term has 5 results on Google. Hoax...? Wickethewok 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - just because a term does not have enough results on google does not mean that it is a hoax. if you read the article you realise it is from the state of kerala in India. there are a lot of terms, places and historical events in India that are not on google. The reason being that internet is not easily accessible in most parts of the country.

This article is open to debate but definitely not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep On wikipedia I have read thousands of pages that are of no relevance to anybody outside the US. maybe not even to all people in the US. Do I then assume that Wikipedia and such sites are only meant for US and the western world?

India is a country of more than a billion people. 95 percent of these have no access at all to the internet. Which means that there are hundreds and thousands of communities that have no representation. But is that the way it should be? I thought the internet is an open, democratic forum ensuring equality for all irrespective of their geographical location. Why I wonder people would want a harmless page like this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment - you really don't seem to undersand the issue here... The point is, that you created an article without any references or outside sources of any kind. WP is for articles of all kinds. However, just because a subject is from outside the US, does not mean it gets special treatment. As I'm sure you agree, a geographical bias would harmful to Wikipedia. Wickethewok 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to comment - I do understand the issue. I have not asked for any special treatment. You said there are no outside references. Please go to the page called 'list of nair tharavadus'. That has a list of tharavadus like the one I mentioned on the page. Most of them have no 'outside references'. Probably we need to have a reference that people in North America understand. I guess that would satisfy all queries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)
        • Reply to reply - I'd like to point out that the list you are talking about features almost exclusively red links. I'd also like to point out that several of the few that actually have articles are up for deletion as well. You really can't add things to Wikipedia without sources - if you do, it is indistinguishable from "original research", which is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. Citing examples of articles that don't follow this policy is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Wickethewok 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • why delete?

I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extent to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 (talk • contribs)

          • yknow... - saying that Americans are closed minded is a poor argument to keep a Wikipedia article imo. I suggest you present some sources as requested rather than go on about how prejudiced the US is if you want your article to be kept. I've recommended hundreds of articles for deletion on the grounds of original research/no references/no google hits. Your article is no different. But if you like to think that your article is being deleted because its about a non-US subject, you are welcome to believe that. Wickethewok 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ushdknow

This isn't a debate about American's being close minded. I am not an AK-47 carrying supporter of Osama who hates Americans. We in this part of the world are also english-speaking, college educated, liberal people like I expect you are too. My point was and is that just because there were only a few google hits or because you have never heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant. The point is there ARE Google hits which will grow in number. Anybody can create web pages ... many web pages and give them as external sources. If this was a hoax, believe me, there would've been a number of external links to prove that it is not. Without sounding anti-american I will still say that if you were in this part of the world you would not be arguing on these lines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - Ummm, so you are saying that because there are no sources, that proves that its true? That makes very little sense... Wickethewok 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and tag with {{unreferenced}}. Read WP:BIAS. Assume good faith. Let editors familiar with the subject matter do what google failed to do. --Dodo bird 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Don't you think the editor could at least provide a reference to some sort of written material, such as a book or periodical that contains information on this? Given its supposed association with important positions and people, should it not be referenced there? I would like to know if this subject has been written about before, because otherwise it seems to be original research. Wickethewok 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Dodo bird; better to assist new author on relevant issues rather than press for summary deletion -- initial prod tag added six minutes after user began article, while he was still writing it up! Monicasdude 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete then redirect

Night elves

edit

Contested redirect. Seems to be an article about a non-notable band. Speedy delete and redirect back to Night elf. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian political violence

edit

Palmiro and Arre suggested back in March on the talk page that the article be deleted as it is biased, inaccurate, and just generally "absolute crap." Not much has changed. I suggest we delete the article and start a new one with the correct nomenclature of Palestinian terrorism. Wikipedia is not ruled by the EU. KI 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they're biased. We delete them because they're not notable or original research or vanity or POV forks. Speedy keep.--Urthogie 14:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this title. The idea that the term Palestinian Terrorism is somehow more neutral and less prejudicial that Palestinian Political Violence is utterly moronic. -- GWO
Delete, and delete almost-equally-bad Zionist political violence as well, and all articles created in order to show that group "x" or ideology "y" is evil. That said, this is my ideal vote, but several other people noted on the talk page that some or all of these articles had been nominated for deletion previously and survived. Nevertheless, even if other such articles survive, this one still doesn't deserve to exist. It combines factual inaccuracies with whopping POV and original research issues. I agree, however, with Gareth Owen that Palestinian Terrorism would not be an improvement. Palmiro | Talk 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the article is biased, why don't you edit it? If you don't like a sentance, discuss its modification or deletion the talk page. If you want a new sentance, add it and source it!----Urthogie 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject? The article, as it stands, is trying to draw a historical parallel between political - and not-so-political - violence perpetrated by Palestinians across various different points in history, and it is full of bias and errors. As for Zionist political violence, it looks rather like it too was created to help prove that Zionists are evil. Wikipedia can certainly do without articles that only exist to prove a political point. Palmiro | Talk 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been named at various times, Palestinian terrorism, Palestinian political violence, Palestinian militancy, and Palestinian terrorism and militancy. What is the subject? It looks to me like it's Palestinian terrorism. I think that's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, under whatever name. Tom Harrison Talk 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris Solar Car Racing Team

edit

Delete. No assertion of notability, self-promotion, the only edit by the author, no third party recognition, no Google hits except external link to Turkish website. Slowmover 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Birch Kapuscinski

edit

Unverifiable [21]. See also a comment on the talk page of the article. Prod removed with no explanation. - Liberatore(T) 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article, but strong voices that this does not need a separate article. I am calling this a merge with Daniel Brandt. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch (2nd nom)

edit

This is a non-notable personal website, started six months ago by one individual. Alexa shows that after a blip in December, traffic has fallen to a trickle [22]. The site fails WP:WEB, and the author himself is of only marginal notability (the site is already covered in his article).

A previous Afd attempt ended without consensus. However, if this website was about anything other than Wikipedia, its article would certainly be deleted. Since we avoid self references, the fact that it is about us should not influence the decision. Wiki-community noteriety =! general notability. Yes, Brandt is infamous within Wikipedia, and yes, this website 'names' a number of wikipedians (including myself), but that does not make his every action worth an individual article. The detailed blow-by-blow content of this article, describing the history of the website would simply not be tolerated in any other web-related article. The article exists only because of a perceived battle between Brandt and Wikipedia, but actually it only serves to feed and exacerbate that same silly foolishness. It feeds trolls, and it is, in itself, basically trolling. --Doc ask? 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional reason - read it - it's just Brandt's blog) note to closing admin - I'll go for merge as a second choice--Doc ask? 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Brandt doesn't want publicity from wikipedia, that argument is a little weak. --Doc ask? 09:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Brandt wants publicity was not a concern of mine. --HK 06:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Duplicate of Brandt's page. Andre (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is very notable Yuckfoo 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. No reason to have a separate article. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a brand spanking new article entitled "A List of Websites which Daniel Brandt is Affiliated With", and then merge the contents of both this article and of Google Watch, plus that of information on Yahoo! Watch, NameBase and Wikipedia Review, into the new article. Then, delete all personal information about Brandt (Age/Gender/Location is one thing, but I seriously doubt people were going in 1947: "Good Lord! A Child has been born to missionary parents in China! Let us visit him!" Equally, I seriously doubt there is anything else within his "Background" section that he is notable for. As far as I see it, he is notable only for his contributions to those 5 websites) and then merge what non-personal information there exists left from the Brandt article (including the Seigenthaler stuff) into the new article. This way, several birds are killed with one stone: We cannot complain that Brandt is over represented in his articles in Wikipedia because he will only really feature in one as this proposal details; it will end the controversy in the Criticism of Wikipedia article over the inclusion or not of Wikipedia Review because now we will have information about it; Brandt will most likely cease to complain because what he feels to be "private matters" will no longer be on Wikipedia for everyone to see; and it can stop this bitter war that exists between Brandt and Wikipedia: Brandt can be left to his own devices and Wikipedia can finally have a Brandt article free of controversy and one which they can be truly proud of.. Besides, let's remember that Wikipedia Watch is actually a very notable website because it appears that every single time Brandt's name is mentioned here, friends or foes of Brandt will mention Wikipedia Watch. Whether you agree or disagree with Brandt's politics, what cannot be denied is that people who are either pro-Wikipedia or anti-Wikipedia cannot stay away from it. Plus, Wikipedia Watch is notable because it is directly linkable from Google Watch until the title: "Google Loves Wikipedia". Jonathan 666 13:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::User's first edit. Almost certainly a sock of some banned user. But perhaps the suggestion does merit some discussion. --Doc ask? 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Please assume good faith. --Doc ask? 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Jonathan 666 may be a sock puppet, or whatever the term is, but what he says actually makes a bit of sense. Merging is easier, though. Kimera757 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland Tourism

edit

Advertising for a site; doesn't exactly state about tourism in Switzerland. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911 Commission Report and Saddam-al Qaeda Conspiracy Theory

edit

The 911 Commission Report is on Wikisource; no other content. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkingPhoneNetworks

edit

Non-notable company, vanity (prod contested) Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Mom!

edit


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

The result of the debate was merge Nutz to The Colbert Report. Thryduulf 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutz (Stephen Colbert)

edit

Excruciatingly minor joke on one episode. Tysto 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to be clear, the deletion vote is for Nutz only, not Stephen Colbert. --Vossanova 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and weapons of mass destruction

edit

Change title or delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction, which is misleading since it automatically forces the conclusion that Iran has got such weapons of mass destruction. Although Iran does have a nuclear program, started in the 1950s, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran possess WMD. As there are very real threats of a US "pre-emptive" attack on Iran, I do not think that Wikipedia should advocate this position using titles good for propaganda. Read the article carefully: the first section on chemical weapons deals with... the Iraqi use of chemicals! The part on the nuclear program is well treated in the specific article concerning it. What else is there? Whatever the effective content of the article, such a title automatically leads to the confusing conclusion that Iran does has WMD, ready to use for today. After the Iraqi War and the proved conclusion that Iraq did not dispose of any WMD, I think everybody should be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Satyagit 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The tilte does not insinuate anything. It does not read "Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction", which would make the previous stance correct. The tilte effectively seperates the two ideas of "Iran" and "WMD" but at the same time seeks to explore the relationship between the two. It shows both sides (the Iranian view and the U.S./E.U. view) and links to support both theories. User:Brian Steeves 00:22, 12 April 2006

  • Speedy keep. We have dozens of "X country and WMDs" articles (see template:WMD) which are meant to discuss all aspects of a country's alleged or denied WMD development; the title does not automatically imply anything, it is meant to be an article about Iran and WMDs, which could just as easily be about how they don't have them. As for "being careful", I don't think Wikipedia article titles had any effect on the Iraq war. The article also contains discussions of Iran's chemical weapons history and their having signed the biological warfare convention; it is not limited to nuclear issues. The overt attempt to use AfD as a forum for a political issue of this sort ("vote for peace?") is inappropriate to say the least. --Fastfission 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as Per Fastfission (ironic name). bad faith nom. --Mmx1 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mmx1 --Kalsermar 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mmx1 Carlossuarez46 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and add lead summarizing the current state. For example, see Canada and weapons of mass destruction: "Canada does not possess any weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them. Canada ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1930."--Yannick 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mmx1. This article exists to separate WMD claims from Irans civilian program. --Uncle Bungle 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mmx1. A leading summary, such as that proposed by Yannick, is an unnecessary disclaimer (since the title insinuates no possession of WMDs on the part of Iran). However, it should be added in the interest of neutrality, since it is present in every (or almost every) other article entitled "[country] and WMDs".--Clownboat 07:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Fastfission. Dave Kielpinski 12:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant Keep I agree that we should be neutral towards Iran, and that people are only worrying about them because they're Middle Eastern. However, many people think opposite me, and they also have to be respected. In that sense, we should have an article discussing those allegations, whether they be true or false. The title doesn't necessarily say that Iran has WMDs, it just says that some people think they do. Later, zappa 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the title says neither of those things and I think if Iran was located on an island off Antarctica inhabited solely by Polynesians but with the same policies then there'd be an article just as much.--Kalsermar 13:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - we have articles for all credible potential nuclear powers and former nuclear weapon powers (see List of nuclear weapons). Iran surely meets the criteria of being credible potential, and has for some time. NPOV requires labeling known fact and speculation appropriately, but the article is clearly justified. Georgewilliamherbert 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I do not feel the title simply implies that Iran has "weapons of mass destruction", but could also rather imply the relationship of WMDs and Iran. This could also include Iran's stance on them, such as treaties they've signed into, their position toward each type of WMD, etc. Provided enough information, all countries in the world could/should(?) have an article titled "<country> and weapons of mass destruction"; think "United States and weapons of mass destruction". I do, however, believe that the template on the right-hand side of the page, titled "Weapons of mass destruction" is very biased, implying that a country on the list currently has WMDs; it lists both countries that currently have WMDs and countries that used to have WMDs at some point in history but not at present. Maybe the template should read something like "History of WMDs by Country"? --Farnkerl 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The template also lists countries which had some tangental interest in WMD technology, or aborted or potential WMD programs (Taiwan, Brasil, Canada, Netherlands; it should include South Korea, who briefly had a nuclear bomb program in the early 1980s, but doesn't right now). Inclusion in the list does not imply current posession, as any review of the template list entries will show. I understand the knee-jerk reaction that inclusion presumes them guilty, but objectively Iran clearly does qualify for inclusion on the same basis as many of the others. The list should actually be significantly longer (see [23]). Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Travolta

edit

Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Arniep 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This wasn't actually created by a Travolta family member (also Salvatore died 1995). Arniep 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, he was a semi-professional football player. Back in his youth, that was essentially the highest you'd go, as no one ever played full-time, they always had side jobs. I don't know what team he played for, but Margaret has yet to inform me of any details regarding her parents. -- Zanimum 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he was a player for a big team surely it would say that in the biographies? Arniep 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you have to be notable yourself not just by being related to someone who is really famous. Also, I note you have very few edits, all of which have been to Travolta articles Special:Contributions/Paramountpr. Arniep 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user Special:Contributions/EraserX seems to be believe that John Travolta is the only person with the name Travolta notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is not clear who you are suggesting that they are a sockpuppet of. Arniep 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Kotepho 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woten's Day

edit

Doesn't seem to have any information which is not already on wednesday article --PhiJ 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. grafikm_fr 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep seems to also be just shy of a WP:POINT nomination. With a 100% consensus for keep I am closing this early.  ALKIVAR™  00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Badger Badger

edit

I don't much expect this nomination to succeed. But let me make something clear. I know people love this. I know it's fun. I also happen to know that it sets a precedent for all these other unnotable internet phenomena which barely effect anyone but a percentage of the bored internet population. Please vote with the encyclopedia in mind. Thanks, Urthogie 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: I totally disagree. Consider how long it's been since it started, and the article is still being actively edited and cleaned up nearly every day. You make it sound like there's only this tiny minority of netizens that are enthusiastic about it, and nothing could be farther from the truth. The number of parodies alone is indication of how widespread and popular this thing is. There are dozens of flash toons on the weebls-stuff site, and hundreds to thousands of somewhat-popular flash toons scattered among other sites, but this one has shown incredible staying power. If this was a print encyclopedia on a bookshelf, where space is precious, then I might understand simply giving this one line on a list of popular flash toons. But this is Wikipedia, dynamic and expansive, and the popularity of the toon, as well as the "craze" surrounding it, make it worthy of an article. To put it bluntly, nobody's being hurt by this article existing, there's really no good reason to delete it, and such a deletion would seriously disappoint (and possibly piss off) a lot of people. - Ugliness Man 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and a Google test reveals the "phenomena" to score a 149,000, non-inclusive of any variations and spoofs. MOD 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment there.--Urthogie 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. This AfD page was rather hard to follow, and I think that the article was changed part way though. So if anyone still wants it deleted, then this closure should not preclude a second nomination. Thryduulf 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

37signals

edit

A company with seven employees, not publicly traded, whose major claim to fame is apparently a blog. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP . Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: apparently at some point this was vandalized to the version below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A company with seven em ployees, not publicly traded, whose major claim to fame is apparently a blog. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP as I can't be bothered to go to their website and follow the link to a mighty impressive array of press articles [37 signals press]Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) with sentence completed by Davebrooky[reply]
At least I have the wit not to add snide meta-comments to the article itself. Seems that you couldn't be bothered to follow the links to the style guide. Oh, wait, it's only us rouge admins who have to follow links, isn't it? Meanwhile the company still only has seven employees, of whom only one is notable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have articles on Heinemeier and RoR. This can be treated encyclopaedically in the Heinemeier article, I'd say. Just zis Guy you know? 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruby on Rails is replacing Java in some areas. If you delete this page you need to delete Sun Microsystems as well. Only reason for deleting them would be bitterness or jealousy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davebrooky (talk • contribs) .
  • What a ludicrous statement. If I use a text editor I wrote myself instead of Notepad does that mean that either I must have an article or Microsoft must be deleted? Just zis Guy you know? 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - NO the fact there are several articles every week on java.net about whether Ruby on Rails will replace Java, and a whole book 'Beyond Java' on the subject then it does. What a ludicrous analogy. 'ruby rails versus java' (don't put the quotes in the search box as it will treat it as one phrase dear) brings up almost a million hits on google. How could you possibly be so ignorant if you work in IT? It must be bitterness. Davebrooky[reply]
    • But we aren't voting on Ruby on Rails article, now are we? RoR is important sure enough, and as a result, their maker should be mentioned. We can cover their makers under that article too. The question here isn't that. The question is whether or not we need a separate article for this small company. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes you do. As they have several widely known products and technologies, and who is producing them and how is relevant, and it is better to link to one page to describe this company than reproduce it on the page for every one of their technologies and products. A basic principle of hypertext is to seperate out duplicated information into its own page, and include a link to it. Davebrooky
  • For values of "several" and "widely known" that may encompass "a few" and "widely known to a small number of poeple" :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - um errr WRONG ... look at this list of press articles [37 signals press]. Presumably to qualify as an adminstrator you need enough common sense to follow the link from their home page to the press articles page :) Davebrooky[reply]
  • Keep Just because they're not a huge company, does not mean they are unimportant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.210.122 (talk • contribs) .
  • Deleting a company because it is small is not democratic. I think Just zis Guy you know? should be deleted, let him take his bad temper illness out somewhere else. I have read dozens of press articles about 37 signals, in independent publications such as the Financial times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davebrooky .
    • Wikipedia isn't "democratic" in the way you describe, because we do have notability criteria. We regrettably can't include every small company... I agree 37signals has got some recognition though, and as such should probably be kept in some form (at least discussed briefly in either Rails or Hansson articles, or something like that). And I can hardly say JzG is having a "bad temper" here - they're just saying what the article says and then stating the company fails the notability criteria we have... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't fail WP:CORP as it has been mentioned in the press many times. Even so WP:CORP is just a guideline, and in its current form not appropriate for emerging technologies and the small agile companies that produce innovation. What notability criteria are you referring to? and who is we? If Wikipedia isn't democratic and doesn't serve to be better than conventional encyclopedias by including more current and new information then its significance will diminish. And why can't we include every company? Is server space running out? If inappropriate links to an article appear in other pages then it is detracting from wikipedia. If a page is only linked to from relevant places then how can it be deemed to be detracting? I do think there must have been an element of jealousy, bitterness or temper in the attempt to delete a company which in the technology community is regarded as perhaps the most significant up and comer of 2006. I looked on JzG's page before making the comment, and it said he worked in IT , so he must have been aware of their significance. It seems very unlikely to have been an honest mistake. Davebrooky
        • OK, if it doesn't fail WP:CORP, the article should be made to point out the reasons the subject is notable. Lots of stuff gets nominated for deletion because it doesn't explain its significance (which may be hasty, agreed, but at least it hopefully get concerned people off their butt and do something about the article), which then gets added during the deletion discussion period, and in the end, everyone agrees the site is notable enough and shouldn't be deleted. The CORP criteria was what I was referring to, "we" as in "Wikipedia". Hope this clears things up.
          As for reasons why there is a notability criteria, one of the reasons is that there's awful lot of stuff out there that just gets in the way. In the end, the really important stuff gets shadowed by tons of stuff that some kids invented one day. (Really, hang around the AfD, you see a lot of Things Kids Made Up One Day getting nominated and ultimately deleted...) Would you really want an article for every two-minute shell script MP3 tagging hack, for example? Or every school club? Because if you don't draw the line somewhere, that's what you get for articles, too.
          As for WP:CORP being a guideline, yes, it's not a policy, but it is a thing that gets considered during deletion and it does represent the opinion of quite a many editors, and as such it does carry a lot of weight - if you disagree with the criteria, voice your objections and discuss about it, though.
          As for jealousy, please assume good faith. Some AfD nominations do get shot down because they are bad faith nominations, and it's okay to point them out; if they truly are and you can tell why if it isn't obvious. But if you can't demonstrate it, it's shaky. I, for one, think JzG's point was well argued (in which case it doesn't really matter whether or not it was in bad faith or not), and haven't seen JzG going around doing too many frivolous nominations, but don't listen to me, I need a coffee to tell for sure.
          And then, what jealousy and bad faith? Almost everyone I've seen seems to agree RoR is the best thing since sliced bread, and are glad to provide facts to those who disagree, and not resort to accusations of jealousy - the things speaks for itself! I'm a rabid Rails user (one of the primary authors of Rails article, in fact), and I agree 37signals is a small company. I think it's borderline notable, but not much hotter than that - a couple of interesting products and some media mentions and awards. But if I told them "hey, you're a small company", I don't think they'd say "you're just jealous". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Some links to press articles might have helped. I am not sure I agree JzG's point was well argued. The top paragraph seems like a rant, not a carefully considered opinion. However there is one point I want really press you on. How does stuff get in the way, unless there are superfluous links to it? The people that weren't interested would never see it. Thats the beauty of an electronic encyclopedia as opposed to a paper one. So if an article about an mp3 hack of extremely limited application was only linked to from a page discussing that limited application area, what harm would it do? The debate should focus on linkage policies, not page deletions. If a page about fibre optics had links to loads of manufactures sites that would get in the way. If a page about fibre optics had a link to a page listing university research departments and leading manufacturers, then only those seeking that would find it. A policy focussing on linkage policy and polluting general interest articles would also solve the spam problem, as the search engines work on a linkage principle. So you could have full coverage, serving the needs of those interested in the leading edge and idiosyncratic detail, without problems. Does that make sense? Davebrooky
          • The problem would still be how to find the appropriate topic from the sea of links, most of which are kind of related to each other. You need to pick what to do: spend time picking what's notable, or spend time arranging stuff. (Kind of like my experiences with MySQL and PostgreSQL manual tables of contents, but that's another tale.)
            Anyway, I think this discussion isn't the perfect place to discuss WP's notability and linking criteria; there are better places for that. Like the talk pages of the notability and linking, or something? Also, believe me, your ideas are hardly new =)
            And still back to JzG's point - the AfD nominations tend to be to-the-point and blunt. You see this a lot. It's probably intimidating, and may not be the most friendly way to get the ball rolling, but it does its job. There's a couple of hundred deletion nominations every day; few people want to read gigantic nomination texts, especially if shorter text does the trick. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • JzG was hasty, to the point, blunt, and incorrect. It doesn't fail WP:CORP. There is nothing in WP:CORP to say the article has to include the links to the independent press articles, it only says these independent articles need to exist. So unless WP:CORP is changed, the onus is on the editor to do his research before recommending an AfD. If JzG clearly admits his mistake, i.e. not doing his research, I'll believe that the process is objective. He need only have visited their website and followed the link to press articles [37 signals press]. Its a pretty impressive list, including front covers, businessweek, wall street journal etc etc. With a list like this JzG has made a laughing stock of the deletion process. Whata mistaka tomaka Davebrooky
            • Actually JzG was correct: The article doesn't have any evidence of the company's notability. In its current state, it makes the whole company look like a two-guys-in-the-basement New Media operation. Please add the mentions of the articles, etc to the article now that you've pointed out the notability in the AfD debate. Please improve the article and tell why the company really matters.
              And don't vandalise AfD nominations. That makes you look very silly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • IT DOESN'T NEED EVIDENCE WITHIN THE ARTICLE FOR WP:CORP. Please read WP:CORP. The criteria you are INVENTING would mean every article being strewn with links to press articles to justify its existence, and press articles often get deleted after six months. Following a link from a companies home page to press articles is not rocket science. I'll repeat it in case you didn't get it IT DOESN'T NEED EVIDENCE IN THE ARTICLE FOR WP:CORP. The company satisfies WP:CORP. However so as not to look as lazy as JzG I have added a compliance note to the bottom of the 37 signals article. I suggest you go about adding a similar note to every other page on wikipedia. Guilty until prooven innocent right? Davebrooky
              • Of course no article needs evidence of notability in article. However, if an article lacks any such information, it's more likely to get nominated for deletion for exactly that reason, and if such information doesn't materialize during the deletion period, it's likely to also get deleted. Of course, it might have been nicer if JzG would have tagged the article with {{notability}} for some period of time, but it's too late to argue about that now that the article is on AfD. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the article had had such information in the first place, now would we? I'm not saying "guilty until proven innocent"; I'm saying "The subject looked really insignificant and without knowing better, I would have arrived to that conclusion, too". Just because stuff gets nominated for deletion doesn't mean it will get if people can present evidence against that.
                Now please calm down and handle the case a little bit less hot-headedly, okay? It's not making the case look any better, you know. Over the time, I've seen a lot of people get leaning toward deletion also because of inappropriate behaviour by proponents of keeping the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Would you have looked at the company homepage? Would have done any research before nominating the article? Bad behaviour is not having the decency to say 'It was a mistake. Sorry. We'll be more careful in future'. People can clearly see I signed the extension, so people will judge for themselves whether it was vandalism or humour, and whether the bad behaviour is on your part for not just admitting the mistake, or mine for insisting that the mistake is admitted to and hopefully won't happen again. If you start inventing a moral code and declaring it universal as well as inventing criteria I will get hot-headed. People have seen many a false argument propped up with statements like 'I've seen' and 'a lot of people' and 'Now please', so you aren't helping your case by resorting to hand waving. However I was young once too, and I remember assuming ones own opinions to be universal truths was a characteristic of the age. Anyway I'm done. I have already had to repeat myself. Davebrooky
                • I would have tagged the article with {{notability}}. Or first used {{prod}} to see if anyone really contests its notability (and take some workload off the AfD). You can dismiss my comments as handwaving for all I care. I'm just stating something I've learned from watching the AfD discussions over the past six months or so: Specifically, there's a lot of behaviour that isn't going to work in AfD discussions. Excessive arguing about policy rather than the subject's notability isn't working too well, I've seen, nor are accusations of other users working too well either. Don't worry, AfD sure looked a lot more confusing back then to me too... =)
                  Also, believe it or not, people do get picky about the talk page and AfD protocol. It's difficult to converse if someone is literally twisting what you've said previously, now isn't it? Thusforth, we have a thing called talk page etiquette. Specifically, the rules about not touching other people's comments (aside of refactoring/reformatting, and perhaps simple spell/link fixes, even when some people get upset if you do the latter), and not modifying the AfD nomination text, which should only be amended by the original nominator. Technically, you didn't sign your comment either (please use "~~~~" in future, or use the signature button on the page edit toolbar. People who don't get their morning coffee might view "Finishing someone else's sentence" not that funnily and revert it with anger coursing through their brain, and tell you under no circumstance ever do that again. Others just laugh and revert it back and tell you not to do that again, with a friendly smile. I tried to do the latter. I hope I succeeded to at least some extent.
                  Believe me, over this discussion, I've just trying to give helpful advice on how I've seen the AfD process works. I had a hunch that you didn't know too much about the AfD process - now it turns out you have got the account only a few days ago, and nobody even gave you the usual newbie sermon. I hope the comment I added to your talk page is sufficiently informative.
                  And all I'm saying right now, as a hopefully helpful advice, is that we Finns have a lot of weird folk sayings, one of which happens to be "it's too late to cry when the milk has already been spilled all over the floor". The article got to AfD. It's time to fix the article and voice your concerns. It's no use to argue about validity of the nomination unless there's clear evidence we're dealing with a bad faith nomination. There's no need to apologise after AfD nomination either, because AfD nomination is not a personal attack, it's a voice of concern. View this AfD as a last-resort call to improve the article to meet the quality criteria. Not sure if this article will be kept, but keep this in mind for future in either case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you accept not visiting the company website (linked to from the article) before nominating for Afd was sloppy? Is this likely to happen again? Davebrooky 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It might have been sloppy not to do so. I did. I saw a list of product which have recently been linked (often incorrectly) into very spam-prone lists. Like basecamp, for example. I fixed the links to point to the company article, did some basic checks, n oted that one user had added it in a blitz to a load of other articles, and decided to let AfD have a look at it. Right or wrong, my experience of AfD is that it usually results either in confirmation of my judgment or in a speedy fixing of the content (which {prod} and {notability} don't in my experience, but things change over time of course). As pointed out above, life is much easier if people go the extra mile (well, the extra coule of yards, really) and tell us what the company is supposed to be famous for. It is a very small firm, after all, and not publicly traded. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Agreed - prod & co. are along the lines of saying "we'd really appreciate this would be fixed, you know, no hurry though", afd is like saying "please fix this mess and explain why it's existence is justified, or we need to take out the big guns. You have a week." For better or worse, it gets people moving fast if there's, in fact, no question about the real notability. (I know it got me running around like a headless chicken when someone AfD'd an article I had been working on, like, "Where do we get the numbers? And speaking of which, where the heck did the nominator get the idea there's only a handful of users?"... Nom withdraw. Keep. =) And in case of this particular AfD, apparently the single person who cares about pointing out the notability hasn't bothered to do much constructive stuff. A shame. Looks like there'll be some bits of merges and in my schedule in near future... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In a purely hypothetical case, yes, it might have been nicer to tag the article before hand, but now that it got AfD'd, it's too late to complain. From my experience with AfD discussions in general, it happens, say, quite a few times every week and every day, so I believe the answer to your second question is a resounding "yes". Again, I restate that I personally believe in {{prod}}ing rather than bringing articles to AfD straight away, because AfD is overcomplicated as it is.
                    Why are you asking me all this stuff, though? Never done such thing in my whole life, and I certainly was well aware of the company's significance, which is why I voted Keep or failing that Merge. Perhaps you should not try to argue with almost completely unrelated passers-by who already agree with you, and instead either divert your energies to fixing the article (now that the information is there, it isn't apparent, and is whiny in tone - for examples of two articles whose notability concerns I've cleared up, see PlaneShift and Legend of the Green Dragon), or complain to the people actually responsible if you really want things done. Go on. If you get the nominator to reconsider the thing, that's good for you. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Interesting you should say that. A lot of cultures have trouble with the British sense of humour. Even closely related cultures have trouble. The Aussies call us 'Whingeing Poms' and the Americans have to have all our comedy shows like 'The Office' translated into American versions. The British have a stereotype of Finns as having no sense of humour, but what that probably indicates is that the Finns have a particularly hard time understanding the British. Probably better on an international site if you preceed your comments about tone with 'As a Finn it comes across to me...' rather than 'the tone is'... I probably ought to use more :) signs ... again as you get older and experience more things you'll become less absolute... Your vandalism annotation at the top is hysterically funny to someone versed is stereotypes about Finns Davebrooky 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I actually do have a sense of humor. I merely try to conduct myself in a manner appropriate for a serious, somber occassion (which an AfD discussion is, in theory, supposed to be), and I don't want to be spewing out quasi-humorous stuff in front of a newbie who is obviously misreading my intentions. Seriously, if I got an almost hostile response for just trying to give helpful advice, I was terrified about the idea of even imagining what effect humour might have had! I had an irresistible urge to add "...but this usual newbie welcome template message is obviously unnecessary since you already know everything about Wikipedia policies" to the message I left on your talk page, but I backed down - after all, injecting some Sarcasm to an already tumultuous topics might have bizarre results. I wouldn't want the admins to go all Ironic on my rear.
                      By the way, we Finns are also funny in the way that we have this intriguing concept of "old jokes", and the proposed EU-wide prohibition of them is one of the positive side effects of Lex Karpela. Some government ministry somewhere tracks down and lists all jokes that, in the immortal words of one of our notable humorists, "so old that even the Pharaohs found them ancient." Your little bit of editing tomfoolery to the deletion nomination was, when passing through the FICIX router somewhere, automatically filed under "this has so been done before".
                      In other words, if you thought you were a veritable source of utter hilarity, you failed to account for the fact that someone might have beaten you in this little game of yours. Please, please consider the implications of that. If you try to be funny in Wikipedia, at least be familiar with what's not considered the height of hilarity.
                      Now let's not talk about me. We're Wikipedians. We have no identity or personality. We're all just impartial Editors of neutral, objective Collection of Information. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, by saying it is likely to happen again, you have admitted that the wikipedia policies don't include following the link to the homepage before complaining about an article. So how can you claim they are to be taken seriously? By not simply having the honesty to say 'Yes he should have followed the link to the homepage' you have shown your lack of character, beyond all reasonable doubt. My character isn't wonderful, but at least I don't take myself seriously, unlike you who continually goes on in a self righteous and sanctimonious manner even after having been clearly shown to be in the wrong, and making futile attempts defend the indefensible. One minute you say you would have done the same thing as JzG, you gradually back off from that by saying you would have done something slightly different, and then eventually say you agreed with me all along anyway. Why not just have admitted he was wrong right way? And all jokes are old jokes, because human nature never changes. And humour is just our way of dealing with the failings of human nature. A country without old jokes is therefore a country with no jokes. Is that Finland? Davebrooky 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • In Wikipedia, everyone's entitled to nominate an article for deletion if there's severe doubt about the notability of the subject, whether or not groundwork for that has been done - though to bolster the deletion claim, it's always nicer to show that they've done some groundwork (as in in a purely hypothetical example, "the company is privately held and has seven employees"). Personally I see deletion proposal part of verification: If an article has been nominated for deletion and survived, it's a precedent about the subject's notability. If it has been deleted, it's a precedent against. "Follow a link to homepage" doesn't mean damn; the article is supposed to give all interesting information about the company, and that by definition includes all important achievements and all unique features. And I am, by the way, pretty sure JzG did visit the company's home page and still thought the company was not notable. Or maybe he didn't.
                        If you want people to take you seriously, behave seriously. (Some wise guy somewhere probably said that. I couldn't possibly be bothered to find a proper quote so here's a random paraphrasing from a random moron.)
                        And let's make something clear: There's one thing I agree you with, and it's that the company may be borderline notable. It may grow in future and as such meet the notability criteria at later time. Right now, perhaps not. Personally, I think you should do some more research on how Wikipedia's notability rules are practically applied and how the deletion process really works, since you don't seem to have a clue. Go on, do that - it's quite interesting, really. One day, you'll see this discussion and laugh about how clueless you seem in retrospect.
                        And I didn't mean to say Finland has no old jokes. What I meant to say, we know an old joke when we see one, and we don't automatically dutifully laugh at them. There's a big difference. We may even consider people who tell old jokes major bores and even, horrors, Annoying.
                        In closing, please consider other people and, I might add, also try to find out about this "logic" thing that's all the rage these days. The AfD discussion will probably be closed soon; when an article you care about will be AfD'd next time, I really hope you rather fix the darn thing rather than spending time pointing fingers and diverting discussion. And also, it might be a good time for you to finally learn to sign your posts properly. Would this also be a bad time to note that in AfDs, newbie votes get less weight? (Surely you knew that, being a veritable veteran of AfD debates...)
                        And since the AfD is closing soon and it's already triggering length warning, I'm not going to comment further on this AfD. Please reply on my talk page if you really want to continue this debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The case is not borderline. It is irrefutably in compliance with WP:CORP clause 1. The article should never have been complained about if the Wikipedia procedures had been properly adherred to. They are available for all and sundry to read. You do not need experience. You just need to be able to read the policies. The WP:CORP policy says that a company need to meet one of the criteria, not all. So meeting 'independent press articles' is a legally sufficient condition. I have edited the article as logically as I can to point this out. Davebrooky 21:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ruby on Rails. The nominator is quite correct that this little company does not merit their own article. Davebrooky should be careful with his rhetoric or he will be found to be in violation of WP:CIVIL and sitting out a block while this discussion continues. Johntex\talk 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep. The original nomination was completely proper since the article made absolutely no claim to notability. Davebrooky wasted a lot of peoples time by complaining and trowing uncivil accusations rather than fixing the problem. The article now makes a proper, verifiable claim to notability and it should now be kept. Johntex\talk 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to create a stronger narrative about the company and included links to outside assessments that have considered the company notable. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*clapclapclap* Bravo. Would have done this sort of stuff myself but didn't care enough and thought it would have been better to merge in any case. But in current state, this is definitely keepable material. A high time we had a sane response. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Keep the current content. Kudos to Dhartung for fixing the article - much more productive than simply argufying about it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And everyone, my sincerest apologies for arguing above. What started out as an attempt to give a hint to a newbie got a little bit out of hand.. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done Dhartung. However I do still contend your are creating a sad situation if every article has to justify its own existence. In its current form the article reads like a company press release or the back of a book cover. What if people want to do some intelligent and objective critical analysis? I'll stick to the Britannica personally. Good luck all. Bye.Davebrooky 11:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your reasons, but the result is a bit of a tradegy. Within the current structure of Wikipedia I can't think of a way of eliminating spam without the result that every article reads like a piece of self-marketing. So yes, my brief experience has convinced me this isn't the project for me. Maybe the approach now being taken by the Wikipedia founder, his Digital Universe project, where there are expert editors to keep everything in order will work? They will know if something is notable, so the contributors will feel free to write a balanced critique. Anyway, good luck. When you have all had time to think, maybe you will accept some of my points were valid, even if not expressed in a manner to your tastes. Davebrooky 12:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry you feel that way, Davebrooky. I think notability per se is not objectionable as a policy. I had not previously seen the WP:CORP guidelines and I think they are a bit too strict, which is a different issue. You may want to read up on wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism and see why this is pretty much an unavoidable source of tension on Wikipedia. I know I'm more inclusionist, and sometimes the deletionists get on my nerves, too, but see how I chose to improve the article and address its deficiencies. Even if the article is still deleted, I know that I've done the best thing I can to make the article, and Wikipedia, better. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhartung, I understand fully you were doing your best to save the article in the circumstances, and a mighty good effort it was. I hope I did not imply any criticism of your efforts, just the circumstances that forced you into such efforts :) Davebrooky 20:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the point of this fascistic policy of anti-information? Do you actually want Wikipedia to contain as little as possible? It is completely obvious that 37signals should be mentioned on Wikipedia, so the only real issue is whether it needs its own article. If you don't think it needs its own article, be bold and merge it. Don't piss around with these retarded deletion polls, please. You people are fucking up a great project. --Mikael Brockman 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ask anyone within the web application community; 37s is without a doubt notable. For a small 7-man firm they do seem to give their share of seminars and attract their share of attention. If you're going to go around AfDing articles on useless criteria like "company has 7 employees, not notable" while failing to do even the most basic background checking, you are nothing but an irresponsible editor. If you don't go ahead after this and AfD every worthless anime fancruft article on grounds of nonnotability, you are also a hypocrite. -66.92.130.57 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last two comments are completely unnecessary. This is a discussion, not an inquisition. The nominator put something out there for people to comment on, and people have commented. Nominating something for deletion isn't an attack, it's a proposal, and as long as we're willing to abide by the results of the discussion--which JzG, having been on both sides of lots of these discussions, no doubt is--everything is copacetic. It appears that the discussion is moving in the direction of keep; the process is working fine. Flinging around accusations of fascism and hypocrisy is more damaging to the project than an otherwise civil AfD discussion. · rodii · 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if there is anything not covered in RoR article, merge as applicable. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate 37 signals so much. I hate web services. I hate their smug attitude. I hate their retarded rants about simplicity. But do you know what I hate more? Wikipedia's idea of web site notability. In 10+ years when people do actual research about websites do you want them reading a bunch of blogs? Wikipedia can be so much better if you just drop this deletionist attitude. Wikipedia is about what people know and what they want to record and inform others about. For instance I wanted 3rd party objective information on the American Nihilist Underground (anus.com) (hell I've had admins reverting my requests that such a page be made), but I checked wikipedia and couldn't find any object information because it was subject to some anti-troll anti-website circle jerk of admins. This is crap, I want objective NPOV information about websites and blogs I visit. Websites are notable, especially this one. Use all your lame google and alexa metrics you want. 37signals pisses people off and is notable enough to be the object of hatred and trolls. Stop with website deltionism. --ReptileLawyer 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is room for a Controversy section. I have not added one, but you are right that there are people who don't like them or disagree with their philosophy. That would provide needed balance to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above in reply to your comments about notability, you are the one person that comes out well from this. Your efforts were heroic, and you are still thinking about what is best for the article. Amongst all the egotists (I'm in that category) there are selfless people. Davebrooky 20:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those words are truer than you think. But you really are investing this subject with vastly more significance than it has. It is, after all, only an article about a small firm in an online encyclopaedia. It's not like it's important or anything. Just zis Guy you know? 21:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:NMG and WP:VAIN among other arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High-C

edit

no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Author (who is the subject of the article) asserts that since this music is "underground", no reliable sources are neccessary or available. Friday (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why open with a blatant lie, Friday? Jason Gortician 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:VAIN. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked page at Mindfield Media states: "When Brian was in college he started a small DIY record label (imbalance records) along with a few personal studio projects (pyroclastix, guntgrutcher)." (Emphasis added.) WP:MUSIC states: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." (Emphasis added.) I'm aware that it's easy to put out your own indie releases, and it's easy to distribute stuff by copying tapes or burning your own CDs. That doesn't mean that everyone who's ever copied a tape or CD is notable. --Elkman - (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This comment. Merge, Saddle Creek, Tooth and Nail, KRS, Drag City, Secretly Canadian, Asthmatic Kitty, Matador, Barsuk, Dischord, Jade Tree, Bar/None...the list goes on off the top of my head, but here's a reference if you need it. T K E 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Artist is outside mass media traditions as discussed on [[WP::MUSIC]]. Lyrics are not a copy vio due to permission given by the artist. Suggest we add music-importance tag and give people a chance to clean it up, as Friday proposes it for deletion every day and a half. Perle 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High-C was the first nerdcore rapper on the Internet (see citation in the Nerdcore hip-hop comments). Also an alternate person of Jason Gortician, a notable artist as well, for being very influential in the metal scene, if nothing else. Are any nerdcore artists released on "more important indy labels"? If so, which?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Gortician (talk • contribs) (Oops, got into something in between edits) Jason Gortician 01:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this to be addressed. If High-C is an analog of Jason Gortician, and Jason Gortician can easily be established as an artist of note, then the High-C page should remain. A quick peek in the hip-hop newsgroups would also show that High-C is more well-known than just about any other nerdcore artist out there. This whole discussion is petty. Jason Gortician 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most? That's two. I'm amazed at the snobbishness exhibited here. "This label is more notable than that label." They're tiny indy labels. Furthermore, I'm stunned at how fiercely Friday and others police the nerdcore page, without contributing anything of value. How would Frontalot have gotten anywhere with people like this cock-blocking him? Jason Gortician 01:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't go through the whole list because two seemed sufficient to rebut your point and I didn't want to pile on. Would it have really added that much to the discussion if I had also pointed out that 2 Skinnee J's were with Capricorn Records, or that MC Lars was with Nettwerk? As for Frontalot, I expect that he would've been just where he was today without a wikipedia page, since one of the many things that Wikipedia is not is a promotional tool. Penny Arcade, on the other hand... -Colin Kimbrell 02:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imbalance Records also has a listing at discogs.com, which is a guideline site just like AMG. The label is now defunct, so asking about the size of the label today is a bit disingenuous. Jason Gortician 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Frontalot got to where he is. I think he found a better way to promote himself than posting an encyclopedia article about himself, and he released his recordings on a label that hasn't gone defunct. --Elkman - (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The label was never major, not even when it was still viable. The quote from the label's founder on the page you linked clearly says as much, as Elkman pointed out earlier. Even the discogs.com page you're citing[24], is nearly bare, containing no information whatsoever about the label and a discography with exactly one release (a 1997 cassette with two tracks by "Pyroclastix", a band with no AMG page and only one other discogs credit, a track on compilation album with another label). -Colin Kimbrell 02:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC Deli nk 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Released two albums. Important in the history of nerdcore rap. No copyvio.--Primetime 03:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've tried to be extra patient and nice here, but my patience is exhausted. The author of this vanity article has been quite rude, accusing editors of snobbishness, calling me names, and accusing me of having a "blatant lie" in my Afd nomination. Just because I see no evidence that his article about himself meets WP:MUSIC or WP:V expectations. He's now claiming that his other former band makes him a significant musician even if High-C does not. He thinks his own postings on usenet are verifiable proof of his influence. He doesn't show any interest in wanting to understand WP:V, he just wants to rudely insist that his self-promotional content needs to be kept. That's not how we do things here. My suggestion is no longer just delete, it's delete, salt the earth, and encourage the author to find another venue at which to promote himself. Sorry for the rant, but damn, this is annoying. Friday (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I swear to Og, I read Pitchfork and other related internet music sites as much as this (usually at the same time), and I have never heard of nerdcore rap. T K E 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We cannot verify that this passes WP:MUSIC. It should also redirect to Hi-C. Grandmasterka 07:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 12:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Friday is really getting pissy. From WP:Music "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Gortician fits that requirement. High-C is an alternate persona of Jason Gortician.
From WP:Music "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre." I was only doing it four years before Frontalot, at least... Jason Gortician 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not independently sourced" is only true if you ignore the links I've provided... Jason Gortician 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sat in my room and made music on my Amiga too, when I was a kid. This in no way involved establishing a tradition or school in a particular genre. If Rolling Stone says you were the the first nerdcore musician, you've got something. If you say you were the first, and there are no sources to back it up, you've got nothing. Your own assertions of the tremendous influence of your former unsigned metal band are hardly credible. Friday (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mheh. Friday, you're really clued into both the nerdcore and metal scenes, aren't you? ; ) Gortician outcharted major label acts with boombox tapes, have had songs written about us, founded the Death Metal Music Association, were one of the first extreme metal acts to play live online (@ KCUF.org), are credited with influencing other acts (Benalto, for one), have a race named after us in Space War online. I could go on and on. Just because you're ignorant of these things doesn't change reality. Carry on. Jason Gortician 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't find any of those things particularly persuasive, as Benalto, the DMMA, and Space War Online all seem pretty non-notable themselves. What was the name of your metal band? -Colin Kimbrell 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, you don't know what band you're even talking about? Try reading more slowly, next time. Out-charting major label acts with boombox tapes isn't note-worthy? Funny, it meets wiki's criteria for notable bands. Oops, maybe that's why you ignore it? 65.13.184.164 17:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the band in question is named "Gortician"! I had assumed that you were just speaking about yourself in the third person. They seem equally non-notable, so I'm sticking to my opinion. -Colin Kimbrell 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a chart for boombox tapes? I didn't know that. Maybe you could point us in the direction of this chart, instead of yelling at us for being ignorant. Also, try WP:CIVIL. --Elkman - (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no chart for boombox tapes. Why ask such a silly question? This was on mp3.com, back when they mattered. Link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.184.164 (talk • contribs)
This IP is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Jason Gortician, editing around a block. -Colin Kimbrell 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Beautiful Disaster

edit

Suggest Delete Per:WP:NMG Non Notable new band. Original Author removed speedy deletion tag. Orangutan 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JesseW. Rory096(block) 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Island Project

edit

Only 183 google hits for "The Long Island Project" + film and only a few of those hits are about a film of that title. The only links I see are imdb and myspace, and the "official site" is on geocities. This seems like a use of WP as promotion. Delete. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite that easy. EZZIE 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The film is independently produced on a small budget. As with the producer's previous movies the film has failed to go mainstream, yet is important and highly revered in limited regions. The expectations for video sales and rentals are projected to surpass ticket sales. The film has yet to have its worldwide release, yet it is already coveted by fans of the director and actors and those who have been lucky enough to have an early screening. Modern cult classic is an oxymoron and is used to describe a movie's expectations rather than its current standing. Those who want to delete this movie's listing because they haven't heard of it are being bias. A majority of artists are not famous while they are creating their art; only mainstream blasé is. Cadebro 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This movie may become a cult classic loved by millions. It may land with a thud and be quickly forgotten by the few hundred who see it. No way to know. Wikipedia does not list people or things which may become popular. If in fact it does become notable, the article can be freely recreated at that time. Fan1967 14:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. This film is going to be released soon, right ? If the film becomes famous, then this page may be moved out of the subpage of the author's userpage and quickly get its own wikispace. We'll find out soon. The director of this film, a fellow Wikipedian, is advised not to contribute too much to this page, though, as per WP:VAIN. -- PFHLai 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Come to think of it, it may be okay to have this out as a wikiarticle when the promotion and advertising begin. Should be soon, eh ? -- PFHLai 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting against recreate would probably be a good idea. Fan1967 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Flagging of This Article

edit

I would ask the administrators on this site to reconsider the deletion of this article. The existence of the subject can be varified at the links below. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest and is the reason for its existence on wikipedia. Please reconsider. EZZIE 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I refactored all of that information to the Talk page, where it belongs.  RasputinAXP  c   14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I refactored all of the massive discussion back to the talk page again.  RasputinAXP  c   00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ver-Tex

edit

Non-notable company, no claim approaching WP:CORP. Contested prod. Weregerbil 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Forums

edit

Contested prod, nominated as failing WP:WEB. Delete TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum was recently restarted, has had over 1000 members at a time. Would have to get over 20 unique hits as there have been more members posting at a time then that on April 1st. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavenM (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2]

edit

bad article IJK Principle 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burn_of_the_river

edit

This is not encyclopedic, and is probably a vanity page EvilOverlordX 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was weak-consensus to delete, but I don't forsee any objections to someone writing a section on this in the Not in Our Name article. For the record my final vote tally was 37 delete, 20 keep, 11 merge, 5 merge and/or delete, 2 merge and/or keep, discounting anons and very new users. I based the final result on the comments as well as the numbers however. Thryduulf 22:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

edit
Comment "any opinions or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith." quoted from WP:DP. Trawling for participants as you have done, including rueing the fact that they didn't vote the way you hoped, [27] I simply put the notice up to alert the people that you have been directing here in the hope that they will vote according to your wishes. Luckily, the user in question above voted the way they personally thought best. Please don't leave "invitations" to vote on user pages. That doesn't generally influence people to vote in good faith, they think they have to because of your invitation. Ansell 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in fighting with you. Cheers and happy editing! Morton devonshire 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off it is not improper, 2nd, it is two months since the first nomination, not one. Xtra 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It is improper, but that doesn't stop anyone. Ever. Failed eletion votes have literally been followed up by another attempt only three days later before without the admins involved saying a word. Rogue 9 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look first off I'M not the one who voted stacked! Please talk to User:Morton devonshire about that. I don't even know this guy. I don't go around and start asking random people to go a vote delete because I'm a bush supporter or whatever. Aeon 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Propaganda -- Wikipedia is not a soap box Morton devonshire 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How does WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox apply? Might that not be better applied to[28]? Шизомби 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Propaganda Morton devonshire 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment How is it propaganda? Can't the article "report objectively" on this subject? Isn't this a POV issue, not an AFD one? Шизомби 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • COmment. Simply repeating the word is hardly persuasive. · rodii · 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I can't speak for the whole delete side, but I can tell you my own thoughts, which are this: (1) the BCC is an extremely small, partisan off-shoot of another already small partisan group (Not in Our Name), and as such, doesn't get much notice from the press, so there's no way to verify through reliable sources what it is that they say and do; (2) because of this lack of notability, almost anything that's said about them is original research or POV pushing from persons that agree with the political slant of the group; (3) because of (1) and (2), the article doesn't attract enough editors to keep it NPOV. As such, the article will always be dominated by NION and Bush Crimes Commission supporters, endlessly pushing their POV. In my opinion, it's better to delete those kinds of articles because they will never be encyclopedic, and therefore don't belong on WP. I would say the same thing about any highly political article where the ideas presented in the article are non-notable and stridently advanced by a small group. Wikipedia seems to be replete with those kinds of articles. I don't think that WP will truly work as a project until we have found a mechanism for controlling advocacy-planting, and am open to your ideas. As to the keep argument, I can't speak for it. Consider both sides, and the goals of Wikipedia, and vote as you see fit. Cheers. Morton devonshire 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unless evidence of non-trivial national media coverage can be provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Interesting criterion, but the corporate media is complicit in the deceptions and coverups that have defined the modus operandi of the Bush Administration. There is plenty of attention being paid to the Bush Crimes Commission, and that attention has played a noteworthy part in the escalating drumbeat that is finally beginning to pierce the veil of corporate mass media's silence regarding Bush's crimes. These crimes are increasingly viewed as treasonous by many observers, and if the drumroll calling for censure and impeachment continues to escalate, thanks in part to the Bush Crimes Commission, Bush may finally be drummed out of office. Ombudsman 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep due to coverage from Newsday, the NY Observer, and Democracy Now. Gamaliel 03:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: A number of organizations collaborated to put the Bush Crimes Commission together. The high ranking officials and well known activists and organizations which participated evidence both great notability and the broad range of alleged crimes being scrutinized. The Bush Crimes Commission has diligently performed a job which the lobbyist-plagued US legislatures have been unwilling and unable to perform. It is interesting that after congress shirked its responsibility, the efforts to investigate and expose what the Bush Administration has perpetrated (largely through deception) is itself portrayed by Morton devonshire as propaganda. Along the same lines, it is remarkable that this AfD has been proposed on a week when the asleep-at-the-wheel media establishment is finally beginning to report on the widespread propaganda, election fraud and political ploys that have been orchestrated by the Bush Administration (e.g., the intentional 'leak' of classified documents aimed at discrediting Valerie Plame's husband; the fact that the Administration had just received, claissified and shelved a report dismissing the possibility that two small trailers were actually WMD equipment, yet went ahead days later claiming to have found their justification for 'preemptive war'; and that the top GOP election official for New England has been shown to have communicated frequently with the White House during the vote fraud campaign in 2004 that secured another term in office for Bush, an outcome that was even more clearly the result of full press, across the board, systematic undermining of the voting system, which produced obviously fabricated results in each of the last two presidential election cycles). This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US. Ombudsman 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Has minimal relevance, but relevance none the less. not significant enough to stand alone as a wikipedia entry, but would make a perfect subtopic to other pages. Anthonymendoza 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if we must. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Irrelevant and too obscure to deserve attention in an encyclopaedia. I'm heavily into politics, especially with this being an election year, and I've never heard of this. Although, I would agree that "not being a formal commission" is not a good enough reason to delete, there are plenty of other reasons. It's clearly trivial.--WilliamThweatt 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not a particular fan of Dubya, but this is nn political soapboxing IMHO.Bridesmill 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The introduction makes it clear that it isn't an official commission. I think this will at best be a footnote in history. However, it happened so I think we need to preserve it for the record. Bubba73 (talk), 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I don't think I had ever read this article before I was asked to vote on it (but I have heard of the subject). I read the article and the comments here before voting, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danieljames626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2006

  • KEEP Keep If this is a real organization and not made up it should be a part but I agree on the merging as stated above.--Gnosis 16:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Not propaganda, just reporting on such. Mildly notable. -- Avenue 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. As one of the main contributors to this article since the last AFD, I still believe the article and its title to be misleading. If there is referable content that is notable enough to keep, it should be merged into the page of the organisation which ran the talkfest which has the misnoma of a commission. Xtra 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This commission has no more notability or authority than a mock trial held in a law school classroom, as per RWR8189. -- Dcflyer 11:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To point out what should be obvious, that simply isn't true. A mock trial held in a law school classroom does not typically try the POTUS. It does not get reported in newspapers or in blogs, or get broadcast on the radio and TV. It does not have notable people involved with it. The BCC is clearly more notable. It is correct that it has not more authority than a classroom trial, but lack of authority is not a reason to delete. The discussion in this AFD would be more valuable if people gave valid reasons for their choices. Шизомби 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While a mock trial in a law school classroom might not typically try Bush in absentia, as this commission has chosen to do, it certainly could. If this was strange enough to be commented on in a few local papers, or picked up on for brief comment by a few partisan news broadcasters, would it make the mock trial notable? Personally, I'd say no. A small smattering of news coverage does not make notability... if that were all it took, there could be Wikipedia pages for hundreds and hundreds of pets that had vaguely interesting experiences in small towns or on slow news days. As this commission is not sanctioned by anyone, has no power, and really does nothing but voice criticism, an argument could be made for their simple existence being notable, but not so that it would merit its own article, but at most a footnote in some other one. Criticising a President is hardly new, nor does dressing it up with some play-acting make it notable. -RannXXV 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Not in Our Name. Rogue 9 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Um - I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an online editable wiki-based encyclopedia based in documentable truth, not a one-sided political lobbying or persuasion tool. Toss this article in the same bucket as the conspiracy theory pages that are trying to pursuade people into believing in a particular POV. Rcronk 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cecropia, and the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a distributor of propaganda. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: Given that the Bush Administration's massive propaganda campaigns have been orchestrated to obscure and excuse the many war crimes, illegal wiretapping, crimes against human rights, invasions of privacy, fake news videos, and on and on, accusing the Bush Crimes Commission itself of engaging in propaganda in its attempts to convey the truth, about Bush Administration's calculated mis-statements, deceptions and outright falsehoods, that seems to be an outrageous example of doublespeak. Ombudsman 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're free to make an NPOV article about the Bush administration, which unlike the topic of this article is significant. You are not free to further your view of neutrality by exaggerating the importance of groups that agree with you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to be missing the point. Arguing that the article should be deleted because it is supposedly 'propaganda' appears to be an example of doublespeak, or what psychologists would call projection of the Bush Administration's faults as faults of the Bush Crimes Commission. As for the Commission's notability, the fact that many top level officials and high profile anti-war and anti-Bush Administration organizations came together to expose the propaganda, lies, deceit and crimes of the Bush Administration is extremely noteworthy, especially given the growing momentum of the Bush censure and impeachment movements, triggered in part by the Commission, and the concurrent plummet in approval ratings for Bush. In fact, the Bush Crimes Commission has obviously played a significant role in the consolidation of the movements, while helping bring focus to the staggering breadth and depth of crimes perpetrated abroad and against Americans at home. Ombudsman 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and this vote

edit

This was posted on a talk page on another article. I think it's worth considering:

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if [the article]'s claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both [the article]'s claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." (user:Jdavidb link)

The only question AFD is intended to answer is whether the subject matter - the Commission in this case - deserves an article. The criteria is not "what editors think of the subject" or of the Commission, not personal views on Bush and politics, but whether studied dispassionately, it is encyclopedic and notable. Arguments that it is biased, or politically slanted, are arguments to correct an article and write it better. They are not arguments to delete it. The question can be framed relatively simply: Does the subject matter exist (is it verifiable)? If so, is it notable and deserving of an article? The fact that it is an informal group, that relatively few people may look at it, are not arguments that it is non-notable, because relatively few people look up many obscure articles. Within its own field - the Bush, crime allegations, impeachment and similar controversies, is the Commission likely to be considered interesting or notable, or otherwise valuable, to the people looking up related issues on Wikipedia? At the risk of restating what should be obvious, that is closer to the issue. Not whether the article is politically this way or the other, or who wrote it, or who thinks what of Bush.

FT2 (Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD

edit

After reviewing some of the comments and checking into it a little deeper I would like to withdraw the AFD and say this should be maerged into the Not in our Name article Aeon 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way too late for that my friend.  :-) Certainly, you can change your own 'vote', although I think there is consensus to either merge or keep, so the meat of the article should survive one way or the other. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be using "new math".  : ) Morton devonshire 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there definatly isn't a consensus to keep or merge and more like it's a 60/40 split in favor of delete. --Riconoen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60/40 in favor of delete possibly translates to keep by reason of no consensus. Ultimately, though, it's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons given here more than the single word recommendations. Шизомби 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To echo your point, as Ben said, it's not a vote. If it were a vote, and I were so inclined, I'm absolutely sure I could go spam selectively to round up 20 keeps to match Morton's round up of 20 or so deletes. That's obviously not how we should be proceeding here, so it's a good things it's not a vote, but a discussion. Brillig20 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a rounding up of votes, or notifying people of this taking place? As has been noted in several places, people have not voted the way Morton wanted them to. While his purpose in going around placing the notice on Wikipedia users' talk pages might be suspect, in the end all he is doing is notifying people that it is taking place, it is still up to the individual user to make their choice about how to vote. -RannXXV 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is if it was nominated for AFD before and passed it shouldn't be up for a vote again. That's like continuing elections until your candidate wins or you get the outcome you're looking for. I think everyone stated their cases here except for the various votes for delete that had no reason for deletion which I don't understand why a person can't express why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Regardless if it already passed AFD and was renominated then all of this is irrelevant because it has passed before. We can't keep nominating articles until we get the outcome we want. Aeon explained that he didn't ooriginally nominate and wants to withdraw, it is not too late for that. Especially since it has already passed AFD before.--Gnosis 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't an election, though. As has been pointed out several times, this isn't even an actual democratic voting measure... it's a chance for people to make their case against it or for it. If people can continue to make a case against it, it can continue to be nominated for removal. If it is a strong article and conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be in no danger. However, if it is a weak article on a non-notable subject, as people argue, then the first AFD was simply in error and this is correcting that error. -RannXXV 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Confused did the admin change his mind about his decision to delete?--RWR8189 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See comment [35] Ansell 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KyroPracticioner is not listed as an admin at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Шизомби 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Ombudsman continues to fail to convince me that this article will be approached in a neutral manner should it be kept. -RannXXV 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that someone else tried to close the AfD early too who wasn't an admin; you might want to make a request for a checkuser. --Rory096(block) 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Noteable, no action has come out of this minor group.PPGMD 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free clip art

edit

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Delete TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kings Pub

edit
Relevant policies: WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:NOT (pub guide)

A closed pub of no apparent notability. Prod contested with reason of "this article is an improtant part of Mitchams history and culture. It is not an advertisment for a corporation, as the Three Kings pub is deserted and up for sale." Just doesn't sound convincing without any sources confirming this pub's importance. Sandstein 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaughFish.com

edit

Contested prod. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Not even in the top 100,000 on Alexa. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien 5 (rumoured movie)

edit

This article is on a rumoured 5th installment of the acclaimed series, as astute editors may be able to tell from the title. The article was speedily deleted by an administrator who felt it failed to comply with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article's principal editor appealed the question at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where most felt that whether or not the NOT policy was infringed is a matter for the wisdom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not the discretion of a single administrator, however thoughtful. And so here we are, ladies and gentlemen. Your thoughts, please. —Encephalon 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Star Trek in The Simpsons

edit
Comment The last vote, directly above this was by me I forgot to sign, sorry. EnsRedShirt 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment This slippery slope scenario is without foundation. We're talking about Star Trek references in the Simpsons. A show that references pop-culture constantly referencing a pop-culture show. I fail to see how we get to "close down wikipedia" from there. Danny Lilithborne 02:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit I went a little over the top with that comment, but the fact remains the same, if enough wiki's pop up we can move any article on wikipedia to another wiki. Both Star Trek and The Simpsons are huge pop icons of the current American, and World life style. So when one does refrence the other it is notable. The question I place to you is do you want wikipedia to be a true representation of life and culture today, or do you want it to be a dry, bare bones, just the facts encylcopedia? If I wanted that I could go to Encyclopedia.com (or somewhere else). Wikipedia is diffrent, created by people for people. It lends itself to have knowledge of popular cuture, as well as some obscure, but notable facts. EnsRedShirt 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Pro rata

edit

Already at wikt:pro rata. The Rod (☎ Smith) 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Rayburn, 2nd nomination

edit

This is a child actor that appeared in 5 episodes. Not notable.

I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Poer and Marissa Poer

edit

Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the FIFA World Cup

edit

It is just copied from the FIFA World Cup article, although I can see scope for a good article here, but it is just a copy of the history section in orginial article. --Differentgravy 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakna

edit

This article is apparently about a race in someone's mod for Starcraft. As such, it seems like something that belongs in the readme file for that mod, not in Wikipedia. As the article itself notes, it is definitely not part of the Starcraft canon, but instead it's just fanfiction. Fanfiction belongs on a different site, not on Wikipedia. Domenic Denicola 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Note that recommendations of unregistered and/or very new users are generally discounted in AFDs. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gallowgate

edit

This is an article about an online fanzine and webforum community which does not appear to make any claim of notability. It might be a borderline A7 (unremarkable group/vanity page) but I felt it would be best to bring this before WP:AFD for consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everybody is picking on me celticghirl7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.184.188 (talk • contribs) .

More description about the purposes of the site and the community has been added for this new and prosperous organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seanmwalsh10 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an online community and has many remarkable people on this site. You could say The Beatles were unremarkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.137 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP If celtic fc and is fans are not notable then please tell me a club that is worthy of non deletion on this site,remember GLASGOW CELTIC started the ball rolling when it comes to brittish clubs winning the EUROPEAN CUP and as for those unremarkable fans that use this forum these are the same fans that haver won awards for taking over one hundred thousand fans to seville with no problems whatsoever,as for the forum they do say nothing is intersting unless your interested in it obviously the decision makers on wilkipedia arent interested in celtic or a forum dedicated to its history and fans but im sure worldwide their are celtic and football fans who are and i thin k personally it would be an act of folly to delete this as this club its forums and it affiliates have a great following.As for the comments of mr owen below i fear anybody who spells THE BHOYS with a Z isnt all they seem and could well be a sheep in wolves clothing,as for celtic websites being equally noted if it wasnt for the fan base that celtic has around the world then their would not be anything notable anout celtic so shame on you for suggesting that celtic are bigger than the fans who put them where they are now, all inclusive is what celtic are. paul......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.133.178.161 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above. Under no circumstances should Glasgow Celtic be deleted. Oh, what? ... that's not the question? Delete the Gallowgate, and shame on you for trying to suggest that your webzine and the Bhoyz are in any sense equally notable. -- GWO

Tell me, if this entry is deleted then how come other fanzines such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_follow are allowed to exist even when that site was shut down by the police for displaying pictures of catholics being hung and mocked? -- Sean Walsh

That article is about the song. The fanzine is a footnote. -- GWO

Yes, a song that just so has sectarian verses in......

Equaly look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Monster_Trucks which is a much smaller fazine, less active and for a far smaller club

  • Comment How can you be sure that the vandalism originated from the good members of The Gallowgate and not other groups that have persisted since our creation to cause havoc on our board - both childish Celtic fans and ignorant Rangers fans. It seems to be me that by vandalising your page they are getting a perfect opportunity to make it look like we are not a respectable message board. What needs to be done for this article for it to be judged acceptable for WikiPedia? --Sean Walsh


  • CommentBelow are the rules of importance and underneath each is how they meet the criteria of importance:

" article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

The site in question has well over 1,000 members who have taken time to register it is also well know in circles of people involved in Celtic FC.

"It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject."

It has been added to over the past day and is over 2000 words now. That is longer than what would be described as a stub.

"Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance. If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

of insufficient importance, fame or relevance currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article."

It is important as has been shown above by myself and therefore meets criteria set by Wikipedia so should cause no problems to the site

- 3CS. Member of the GG

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.196.2 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the more important criteria can be found under WP:WEB. As is stated there: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." If you can present evidence that it meets one of those points there then it should be able to stay. Also, about the vandal, the reason I assume it came from The Gallowgate is because the same user added information about specific users to the article. If the user was a rival of the site you would think the information would be vandalism. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the information on the subject matter i see no reason to delete THE GALLOWGATE as it seems to me to be informing me off a website relating to celtic and also an area of glasgow with historic value and i very much enjoyed reading about lord haw haw as i have an interest in WW2 history as for this word vandal being thrown about i think that is just nit picking as its not as if its real vandalism like graffitti in the bronx that is stubborn to move and costs manpower to clean up,all you do on here is delete it,quite simple really and maybe some people take things to serious in life and therefore should just chill out a tad.im sure we all know the importance of being PC but to go overboard about a few typed words is utterly astonishing. lestat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment However that still does not change the fact that the article does not proove its claims. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Of course vandalism on the Wikipedia is different than vandalism in real life. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is considered vandalism on the Wikipedia. Also, the story about LORD HAW HAW, if it is true, has nothing to do with the website. That story is about the street the website is named after and should most likely go in a separate article. With the recently added information this article is about two separate subjects. It needs to choose one, and that one still needs to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only have your word on the vandalism issue but maybe you could elaborate on it was it explicit or maybe just an observation or opinion on the information available on your user page,do you actually work for WIKIPEDIA and if not i cant understand why you are relentlessly pursuing this issue.I also agree that some of the material may not be relevent to the uneducated but to anybody in the extended celtic family around the world ex pats and suchlike any information about the gallowgate,celtic and the history of the area is welcomed with open arms,im afraid you can quote the rules all night if you feel you must that is your right to do so anat the risk of repeating myself you realy dont know the history as for lord haw haw i can assure you that if you take the time to delve into the history archives you will probably find out that the in formation posted by theuser is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the edit history for User:81.133.178.161 for an example of the vandalism connected to an IP address that also 'commented' on this same page. In fact, that IP address has only edited about this issue. Shenme 12:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge what is verifiable and significant to Personal rapid transit. Only one user with an edit history wants it kept. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal rapid transit/UniModal

edit

This is an article about a hypothetical proposed system of Personal Rapid Transit, which includes in much less critical form a lot of data discussed in the (much edit-warred) parent article. I'm not sure if we have a project where it could go, but this is not, I would say, it - it's pretty close to 100% speculation for a contentious and unproven transportation system, with as yet no full-scale implementations from any manufacturer, let alone anyting of the scale, speed and technical features described here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Skytran[36]

"Skytran" is just a concept... and a silly one too. Avidor 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the system not existing yet and with no plans for it to happen, Merge what can be salvaged (for example info on the grid spacing theory) with the parent and Delete the rest. Don't leave a redirect because articles are not supposed to have slashes, I thought. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to do that if you could point out what is verifiable and would not lend undue weight to the treatment of a hypothetical and currently politically contentious mode of urban transport (remembering that the entire idea is essentially unproven outside of very small-scale technical trials). Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of the guideway-extruding ROBOT [37]

Okay, is that enough evidence to declare PRT a total joke? Why aren't the other so-called PRT companies condemning Skytran for being such a joke and giving the rest of them a bad name? Why haven't the anonymous PRT proponents mentioned that Skytran is supposed to be built by robots? You can't get sillier than this statement "The light weight per foot of the track design also allows the use of a semi-automated track forming manufacturing robot (much simpler than the Robosaurus machine)." Here's the Robosaurus[38]

  • Note that Skytran and Robosaurus were invented by the same person... I don't think the design calls for giant dinosaurs to assemble the tracks. Yes, it's unproven, but the company does exist, and has some patents as well. I'm not clear on why the Unimodal page was removed originally, but it makes sense to me to have a Skytran/Unimodal page, and a link from the Personal Rapid Transit page linking to it. Basically, if I Google the topic I'd like to see something about it on Wikipedia. Cheers, --EricTalevich 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator, it's time to declare this and other PRT pages a bad joke and delete them.Avidor 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avidor, lengthy quotes and extraneous comments make this talk page hard to read.
As for the merge, I think I might agree with that. I was going to argue against merging too, citing that the article had lots of contributors etc, but looking back through the history, it seems that *I* wrote just about half that page. I was just trying to impart my knowlege about the system to others.
Anyway, I think that (since SkyTran is a proposal that is interesting enough to be one of the very few PRT proposals with its own page) SkyTran should either keep its own page in a stripped down fasion - or such a strip down can be put on the PRT page. However, I think that it would be out of place to have a description of a single PRT proposal on the PRT page, and it would need descriptions of other ones as well.
I do *not* think that Skytran should be deleted entirely - as Ken Avidor wants. Avidor has decried the censorship of his vandalism, but now wants to censor entire pages. The page should be condensed, not deleted. Fresheneesz 04:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the topic of undue weight: an article itself does not place undue weight on anything, the concept of undue weight is about over-represented information INSIDE an article. Having an article about skytran does not give PRT proposals undue weight. You misunderstand the policy JzG. Fresheneesz 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's fancruft, plain and simple. Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SkyTran has existed for at least 10 years, and its roots extend back to maybe 1990. It was incorporated as a business once, for a short time. UniModal began a few years ago. It is incorporated as a business now. Both efforts are closely related, sharing several of the same persons. The SkyTran/UniModal system is unique in being very lightweight, relative to many other proposed PRT implementations. From these perspectives, as long as an article is not excessively one-sided, or factually incorrect, then it should be acceptable, except where it duplicates information in the general PRT article; such information should be moved from the SkyTran/UniModal article and merged into the general PRT article. Thank you. 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you (JzG) had even skimmed the page relating to "fancruft" here, it says that it does not a "plain and simple" meaning - its "hotly debated" the article says. Not only that, the article mentioned that "fancruft" is mostly said to describe fictional subjects like fictional universes. You as an administrater should be more careful in using words like that.
Unimodal is a *real company* as noted by the above post. Thus it isn't just fiction. The ideas the company proposes are also not fictional ideas. Those ideas use *real* technology that is in fact available "now" (to the chagrin of Avidor who apparently thinks that they mean SkyTran is here now).
I have changed my mind from my previous post - placing SkyTran's info on the PRT would indeed put "undue weight" on that subject, and so it should be kept as a separate page. Not only that, but I'm thinking about moving it back to its original title as simply "Unimodal" - but I can't decide if there is benefit to doing that (as long as the words "skytran" and "unimodal" link there). Fresheneesz 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft? How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore.Avidor 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVIDOR, that is your opinion, and you've said it countless times on wikipedia. OBVIOUSLY, if people are buying shares in these companies, they think its a good idea. You're arguments are unsound, and they DO NOT belong on the "articles for deletion" discussion page. Make what you say RELEVANT. I'm sick of seeing IRRELEVANT comments from you. While they might be valid - KEEP THEM IN APPLICABLE PLACES. Thanks. Fresheneesz 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a post above, Wiki editor Avidor states: "How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore." This is a misrepresentation, that verges on being libelous. In the case of SkyTran/UniModal, for both businesses, it is a matter of public record that not even one share was ever sold, and no public funding was ever received. Clearly, as businesses, both firms are failures, so far. Lack of success is not the same as fraud. 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 (talk • contribs)
I was referring not just to Skytran. PRT companies including "Skytran" [39] mention public and/or private investment on their websites. Whether they are successful in getting the money is another matter. Taxi 2000 has sold shares, for instance...worthless now that Taxi 2000 can't get the government to fund its test facility.
It is very clear that article is a puff piece for a ridiculous PRT "company". This company is at best a clever and elaborate internet deception... the claim that Skytran is 15 times less expensive than light rail amounts clearly an attempt to monkey-wrench the public decision-making process involving transportation. Wikipedia should not assist the cyberspace sabotage of the public planning process of communities like mine. In a matter this crucial to taxpayers and investors, Wikipedia should not allow anonymous editors to create that deception. Wikipedia should not allow any company... particularly a phony company an opportunity to promote itself in this manner.Avidor 12:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to ask you for a source on that one - and yes I mean a reputable source, not some internet blog. You also seem to misunderstand what wikipedia is - and it always allows anons to edit pages. I'm just going to stop responding to comments like this that basically say "PRT IS A SCAM, GET IT AWAY, KILL IT NOW!" - its just childish. Fresheneesz 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to skeptics like myself to prove a negative...that Skytran, for example doesn't exist when there is no credible evidence to the contrary ..or even that this "company" is making any effort to build a PRT system. In fact, the inventor himself states on his website that he doesn't have sufficient energy to pursue the creation of Skytran. I suggest that instead of insulting me, bowdlerizing my comments and deleting my posts, that PRT proponents like "Fresheneez" make an effort to prove that these PRT companies really are "going concerns" It wouldn't be hard to do. For instance, they could ask the officers of these companies to send proof that they are more than just flashy Photoshoped visuals on the internet.... good luck.Avidor 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is up to you. I can prove the company exists by citing its webite, and noting all the coverage about it you so graciously throw upon us. SkyTran does not exist, but the company Unimodal does, and its ideas for SkyTran also exist - the fact that the ideas exist is something not even you could refute.
What sort of proof would you want Avidor, I have personally talked to a few of these "officers" and I could get whatever evidence you're thinking of - unless its ridiculous (which I suspect it is).
Also, it matters NOT IN THE LEAST whether these companies are "growing concerns" - things on wikipedia need not be. Your points are once again irrelevant. And I am attacking your judgement and your arguments - not you as a person. Your conduct on wikipedia is not what I would consider exemplary, and thus don't be surprised if people sink to your level. Fresheneesz 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for a vote (don't post non vote related things under this header)

edit

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote.

I think that more than 5 votes should be counted here before any action is taken (neither removing deletion proposal tag, nor actual deletion). Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree with deletion, the page needs work, but it contains useful information on a company some would find interesting. Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-DISAGREE with deletion. The Malewicki quote under "Current Status of Skytran" was made as early as the year 2000[40]. Since the company has been active since then, the quote is historical and not "current".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.144.141 (talk • contribs)

-Disagree with deletion. Fix the problems with the page quality. Wiki pages exist to explain things in ways that help readers make up their own minds. Wiki editors are not censors who do people's thinking for them. 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 (talk • contribs)

-Disagree with deletion. However, I strongly suggest a more clear Wikipedia strategy on how to handle company and product information. Basically I think Wikipedia should contain a lof of information about the ideas behind systems and products, not the products themselves. For example a "car" or "automobile" is much more relevant than a "Ford", "Volvo" or "Toyota". The "car" section should the have links to known homepages of car makers over the world. Similary, I suggest that the emphasis should be put on "PRT", "Podcars" etc. in this case, and that the "Unimodal" information should be shorter and maybe connected to the inventor instead (Douglas Malewicki). However, I stronly disagree with deleting the entire entry, as all products, regardless of status, is a result of human effort and therefore is of interest now and later for various reasons - even if the product never sees the ligh of the day. Christer Lindström, IST (www.podcar.org) Sweden

-Disagree with deletion. The comment that because some PRT companies are frauds, therefor Unimodal and Skytran are probably a fraud is libelous. I just ran for City Council in Scottsdale Arizona, and my sole platform plank was that Scottsdale should seriously consider SkyTran or a similar PRT system. Obviously I don't think it's a fraud. (see http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/loomisforcouncil.htm ) I did not win a seat on the council, but I did not come in last, either. At any rate, this is fascinating stuff and deserves an entry.

-Disagree with deletion. SkyTran is a legitimate engineering project that has been granted USA Utility and Design Patents and is now in the early prototyping stages. 9:30 PM PST, April 18, 2006.

-Disagree with deletion. I have been aquainted with Skytran/Unimodal for ,ore then 4 years. It is a ligitmate concept that has a solid theoretical basis. 10:25 pm PDT April 18, 2006

-Disagree with deletion. The idea looks quite fleshed-out to me; I see useful/interesting information in this page. But as Christer mentioned above, it may be worthwhile to refactor the Personal Rapid Transit group of pages. --EricTalevich 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE with deletion. The unimodal skytran idea has been in published form for more than five years. The concept has been endorsed by Professor Jerry Schneider, in an issue of I.D. Magazine (International Design), and in Scientific American, January 2000. There seems to be one particular vocal individual who for whatever reason is against even the idea of modal/skytran in Wiki. The term "mode" as dictionary defined can mean one way of doing something, such as in transportation, or logical. Obviously that would apply here with this concept. Practical or not, feasible or not, this is a company that has an idea and patented invention that regardless of its current status of development or implementation does exist and should remain on Wiki. Just because a person does not like the concept, does not warrant the entry to be deleted. They just need to find something else better to do and let ideas like unimodal/skytran be available for others to read and learn about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.36.138 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Santiago

edit

Non-notable wrestler, only 40 Ghits for "tony santiago" wrestling. [41] Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wachusett

edit

Advertising, non-notable RayaruB 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A summer camp. There is nothing special about this summer camp. There is nothing notable about this summer camp. It's an average, american summer camp. Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an advertisement, it is a listing for a summer camp similar to the listings for other camps and schools. Furthermore, it is quite notable for many people as it is one of the oldest summer camps in the country. Simply because you are not familiar with or care about the subject does not give you the authority to determine whether or not the entry is notable. If you do not think it is notable, then I suggest you do not waste your time reading it again.Btm6280 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per as nn. Joe 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not quite an advertisement, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. Only 163 hits on Google with most being camp directories. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notability of this particular camp is not the issue. Wikipedia is designed to be an informational resource for all internet users, researching all subjects. The site includes thousands of articles about people and places that can hardly be considered notable. Their removal, however, would be extremely detrimental to the usefulness of the site. Naturally, Wikipedia is not the obvious research destination for all subjects, simply because other resources exist that can provide more comprehensive information. It is, however, the obvious destination for an internet user looking for basic information on an obscure, or even seemingly unimportant, subject. Therefore, so long as the information contained in this article is true, the fact that the subject is not a household name is entirely irrelevant. -Colin Mead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment No, it's not. See Wikipedia:Notability. We feel that something needs to have some kind of importance in order to be listed here. Mangojuice 17:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The search on Wikipedia works differently than Google's search. In order to find an article here you have to know the name of it. If a user already knew the name of it then they could certainly find the website to this camp. If Google can come up with no other sources for this camp, then what is on this page that the camp's own website cannot contain? A Wikipedia article is an encyclopedic compilation of the information on a subject, but if that information only exists on the subject's own website, then what is the point of the Wikipedia page? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This page is neither encyclopaedic, nor of any importance. Furthermore, the fact that it is written in the first person suggests to me it is an advertisment or it is something of a joke. Opiniastrous 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep in its rewritten form. -- RHaworth 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Plantagenet

edit

I am no expert on the subject, bringing the article here as a courtesy to the user who reprodded it. According to the talk page and the creator's talk page, this is misinformation. Although the article creator probably did not intend it as a hoax, they may have believed a hoax. Trusting User:Choess's explanation, I vote delete as not verifiable by reliable sources. Failing that, the article gives little reason to believe this person is notable enough for an article to herself, even if she existed, since there is no information other than her parentage. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whole discussion is now null that the article has been rewritten from scratch about a totally different person. Withdraw nomination. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't find anything I'd consider a WP:V source. If someone comes up with a good source then I'd be willing to change to a Merge to her more notable supposed parentage: Richard I of England.--Isotope23 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Richard died childless. His lack of children is one of the reasons he's been so widely assumed to be gay, and there has been speculation for centuries that the marriage was never consummated. If his wife had borne a child we certainly wouldn't have that speculation. Fan1967 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After article rewrite to point to the 15th century. Fan1967 17:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per isotope. --Strothra 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as untrue. Had such a child been born, it would have been a major historical event. Furthermore, had Berengaria borne a potential heir, she and the child would not have been allowed to slip into history's niches:: enough people did not want either John or Arthur as king, that "Isabel" would have been a prime marriage target for ambitious barons. -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further research has diclosed (through Google) that Isabel was Richard Plantagenet's sister, not daughter. However this was not Richard the king, but Richard the 1460 Duke of York, son of Earl Richard of Cambridge, whose sons became in turn King, Duke of Clarence (drownded in malmsey by his elder brother), and King (the last King of England to enter battle for his crown, alleged regicide of his nephew, and crookbacked caricature under the pen of Master Shakespeare). -- Simon Cursitor 11:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote negated this datetime as the article is now utterly different to that on which the nomination was made -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternary Business

edit

Going back to mere GCSE Economics, I'm sure this is called something similar, but not this. Dangherous 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)7[reply]

QFFT

edit

no notable Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Geogre. Sango123 (e) 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly

edit

An Internet abbreviation. It could go in Wiktionary, maybe with a {wi} link. U reckon? Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumika Ghimire

edit

This brief bio has been speedied, recreated with more content, and tagged speedy again in the space of a few minutes. I'm bringing it here for clarity. Marginally published journalist probably not meeting WP:BIO; "by Bhumika Ghimire" gets me about 20 unique hits in google, but she has written for www.nepalnews.com.np and americanchronicle.com (with which I am not familiar, but which seems to be syndicated around under various "... Chronicle" names). I would vote weak delete, but since the article is written by User:Bhumikag I go for a delete. bikeable (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament bunnytrack

edit

I'm completing this nomination for another user. The article seems to be about a game based on capture the flag in Unreal Tournament, possibly a "mod". "Unreal Tournament bunnytrack" only gets about 10 unique Google results if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors and duplicates. I think that the article should be deleted as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Although there's only been one other person than the nominator assenting to deletion, it's a {{db-bio}} candidate anyway. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bozarth

edit

Non-notable bio. Only claim to fame is starring in one series of commercials and playing in a band, which isn't well known enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's no more notable than his band, and his band's not very notable, no label and no studio albums. Brillig20 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Malcom Adams

edit

Mistake on my part, thought he was the man who portrayed Barry Burton, apparently this information came from some member of GameFAQs without citing sources. Since this is in error, there's no need to have a page for a person that may not exist (Google shows no record of such a person). TonicBH 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request of original author. Ande B 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't this be speedied? No substantive edits by anyone but author in 3 days since creation. Brillig20 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Brillig20 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Probably could have been speedied as a short article with little or no context, but whatever. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Timeline 1726-1750

edit

Delete - This article serves no purpose; it's not even a timeline, just a single sentence statement that doesn't make much sense on its own. JerryOrr 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Columbia University. --Strothra 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to the Commons. I don't have the time to go do this myself but I will be putting {{move to Commons}} on it and as soon as it has been properly transwikied, just put {{db-transwiki}} on it. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Calgary should be moved there. JamesTeterenko 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Rachel Pace

edit

Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. --Tone 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smyles & Fish

edit

Delete - prod removed, without explanation of course. No apparent claim to fame. Wickethewok 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no clai to notability, no evidence per WP:CORP Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Promotional. The page looks like an advert or mere link to an under-construction web site. It's only apparently "noted" achivement has been local leafletting and advertising. Ande B 23:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this point, the entry is promotional. As Ande notes, the web page is still under construction. Google shows only 3 hits (excluding their own site). Brillig20 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I Agree the website is still underdeveloped but the print version seems to be the main issue here. If anyone has any detailed information on it he should add it. I've seen the flyers but not the magazine, it's possible the first issue only came out recently. I've also heard of the citizen culture contest, so I would wait for more information before deleting it. Right now, I don't think it hurts to leave it awhile and see if anything is added. Johnnyquest 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :: bring back when they've achieved something more permanent that leafeletting (otherwise every 419-spammer will take their own page) -- Simon Cursitor 07:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started this article because I believe print magazines usually imply a certain commitment on the part of creators, while there are millions of dead websites written by bored teens out there. As you can see in my article on Zembla, I think there's value in writing about printed magazines that present new approaches or ideas, even if they didn't last too long. I hope to get hold of a copy of Smyles & Fish soon and expand the article on it. If anyone has a principle objection to any sort of article, I would really like to hear it (If the article reads like an ad I apologize, at any rate, I'm not sure what kind of promotional value it has, it's not linked to, or feeding off, some popular article). I'm looking forward to responses, I'm here to learn. AshcroftIleum 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes their commitment. In a few years when they have a circulation in the tens of thousands or more and are widely discussed in secondary sources they can certainly have an article, but right now the magazine is too new and too small to have the amount of coverage required to ensure that it can be covered in line with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS; also per WP:NOTABILITY it might fall into the category of WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information). So: not at all a bad idea for an article, and it may well emerge as a suitable subject in time, but now is too soon, I'd say. This implies no criticism of either you or the publication. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kolibri distro

edit

The article makes no claim to notability. "Kolibri distro" gets two unique Google results, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. -- Kjkolb 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not verifiable. No appearance in usenet archives or Google Blog search where this sort of thing is regularly discussed. Ande B 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This alternative Google search shows a bunch more. It's at least verifiable because it links to the Kolibri OS Project page. Brillig20 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks for a link that actually works (even though I can read almost no Russian). Perhaps it would be appropriate to Move the page to reflect the more common name of "Kolibri OS." Also, I don't like having a direct link to a software download right at the beginning of the article. This makes it appear to be a form of advertising to me, as does much of the language at the bottom of the page. Much of that is capable of clean-up. Ande B 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: thanks. However, there are still only 325 unique results and many, perhaps most, are irrelevant. A lot of the rest are poor quality - lists and articles that only mention it in passing. Frustratingly, many of the sites don't work, either. Finally, there appears to be other software with the same name. -- Kjkolb 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is non-notable. even though there is more than three hundred hits, most of them are not revelant. I think there is only about 5~10 revelant hits. --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{L} 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regenerate_Our_Culture

edit

Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. This article is pretty clearly an advertisement for an obscure weblog (Alexa.com won't even generate pageview/reader graphs, because it's ranked so low), and a collection of external links to the weblogs of their contributors. Under the Deletion Policy, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Nortelrye 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the author of the original article just so happens to be one of the featured authors of Regenerate Our Culture. While I am trying to Assume Good Faith, it's pretty clear that this user is creating articles about "subjects in which they are personally involved", in violation of WP:NOT. Nortelrye 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably is a candidate for speedy deletion, but I figured I would try my best to Assume Good Faith on the part of the creating editor, and give them the courtesy of a full AfD process. It looks like it's going to have the same result anyway, just a bit later rather than sooner. Nortelrye 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Okay guys, this is the original writer of this article speaking. I have been extremely busy as of late and have not had a chance to edit this article further. I plan to expand this article quite a bit once I get a chance (which is why it is a stub. . . .) Once I get a chance to work on this further it will be an article that is a lot longer than it currently is - maybe about twice as long as, say, Power Line.
I must respectfully disagree with the statement that Regenerate Our Culture is an "obscure weblog". Google PageRank rates it at a "5" - which is pretty high for an "obscure weblog". All articles published on this site are rigorously edited and re-edited (I know from personal experience). There are hundreds and hundreds of sites which link to ROC using its macromedia link button - which might explain why Alexa cannot read it.
This is a quote from the WP:NOT page: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." That is one reason that I made a stub - so that the rest of the Wikipedia could have an opportunity to contribute and I would not be doing it all.
I did not create this page in order to advertise for ROC; the hundreds of websites that link to them are doing an excellent job of that already. I created it so that the Wikipedia community could compile 'neutral' information on a relevant topic that people might want to see - which is the whole point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is famous for delivering a NPOV on just about every topic imaginable - which is what makes it so popular. ROC is not an obscure weblog, nor is this stub the extent of the article that will eventually exist if you guys help out. Help improve Wikipedia by getting more information about ROC and similar programs and making new pages!
I will post more in defense of this article ASAP ... I am pretty busy but I will try my hardest. :-) In Him,
standonbible 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a POV issue, else I'd have just stuck a template up at the top of the Talk page and tried to clean up the article a bit. The reason I submitted this article for AfD is that firstly, it appears to be an advertisement; and secondly, it does not appear to be a notable subject for a Wikipedia article.
No offense intended, but I don't believe that that the article you created can pass Notability for web content. According to that guideline, Regenerate Our Culture should either have been: "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", the recepient of "a well known and independent award", or "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". As far as I can tell, Regenerate Our Culture meets none of these standards, and is therefore not considered to be notable.
Honestly, the article reads like an advertisement for a group of bloggers, with a "this article is a stub" thrown in at the bottom. A person not Assuming Good Faith might think that it's nothing more than blog-spam hiding behind stub status. IMO, whether or not you flesh out the article doesn't make Regenerate Our Culture any more of a notable subject; which is why I submitted this article for AfD to begin with. If anything, I think you should just let the AfD go through, and then once you've got a fully fleshed-out article ready just stick the whole thing right back up. That way you can take all the time you need to write up a really good article, and you won't have to deal with AfDs while you're trying to do so. I think the article would have a much better chance of standing up to an AfD for notability if it were filled with lots of relevant, verifiable info presented in an NPOV manner.
Also, you might want to consider copying the relevant parts of your defense to the article's Talk page, so that it'll be easier to find and use in the future. Cheers! Nortelrye 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying about Notability. However, the notability page is not official WP policy. I would contend that a site receiving in the neighborhood of 2500 unique hits per day is notable enough.
I would let the AfD go through except for these two points-in-question:
  • The Regenerate Our Culture blog network and online magazine is plenty notable for Wikipedia,
  • The WP:NOT page recommends that editors directly involved with a subject not be the primary writers of an article on that subject, so I want other people to contribute so it's not just my private opinion.
To clarify: this page was never intended to be and will not be an advertisment page, and even though ROC does not fit the "notability" criteria on a non-official policy page, its PageRank and astronomical hit count constitute plenty of "notability".
I understand your concerns, Nortelrye. But how about taking off the AfD and instead helping to improve the article yourself (like I said, I don't want to contribute too much) and once it is fully fleshed out then decide whether it should be deleted.
Thanks so much, guys!
In Him,
standonbible 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Notability is nothing more than a guideline, it's not official policy. However, WP:NOT *is* official policy. It really does seem that the ROC article is little more than an advertisement, and so under WP:NOT and the Deletion policy it ought to be removed - it seems pretty straightforward to me, and judging by the votes on this page, I'm not the only one who feels that way. If you'd like to get other people to flesh it out, perhaps you could copy the article to your Talk page and get people to work on it there? Once it's no longer obvious blog-spam, it would probably stand a better chance of surviving an AfD when you re-post it. Nortelrye 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Vancouver should be moved there. Arch26 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian chan

edit

Article is an autobiography. Snargle 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_12&oldid=1233274992"