Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 6

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< April 5 April 7 >

Purge server cache

April 6

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 deleted by Geogre. — FireFox • T [21:33, 6 April 2006]

Iainish

edit

Seems to be a simple page of jibberish. Not suitable for Wikipedia. Gordo 16:26, 6 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. — FireFox • T [21:32, 6 April 2006]

Joncourt

edit

I removed the prod and fixed the article. Are you suppose to put it up for AfD? My vote is Keep--Rayc 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I verify this fact--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:15, 6 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 per nonsense →AzaToth 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

என் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

edit

Article apparently in Tamil, untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Delete unless translated (speedy keep if translation reveals this to be a useful article). Kusma (討論) 00:03, 6 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 per nonsense →AzaToth 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

அ. முத்துலிங்கத்தின் புதிய எழுத்துக்கள்

edit

Article apparently in Tamil, untranslated at WP:PNT for two weeks. Delete if untranslated, speedy keep if somebody translates it into something worth keeping. Kusma (討論) 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They have same content. Just two different titles. First one says, "My new words...Me and Marijuana" and second article's (this article) title reads, "A. Muthulingam's new words...Me and Marijuana". - Ganeshk (talk) 00:31, 6 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 03:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excitebike: Trouble on the Tracks

edit

There are hundreds, thousands of mere flash games on the Internet. The creator of the game only has two contributions. Non-notable. Hbdragon88 00:13, 6 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 corp spam. Royboycrashfan   01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetCB Pty(Ltd)

edit

NPOV, advertisement--Zxcvbnm 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant link from Novell's site: [1] --Hetar 06:40, 6 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 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scadaware

edit

Non-notable--Zxcvbnm 00:17, 6 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 hmmm......keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamblen Elementary School (Spokane, Washington)

edit

Non-notable elementary school. Delete because of the lack of differentiation from others of its type. We should not have an article on every school any more than we should have an article on every restaurant. Johntex\talk 00:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:SCH is not a policy. Johntex\talk 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I can link to a page that's not policy. I'm going along with WP:SCH-based merges, in the spirit of compromise (I prefer stand-alone articles personally). WP:SCH isn't policy, but its a good-faith attempt at compromise. --Rob 04:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can absolutely link to a non-policy if you wish. It's just that we have so many policies and guidelines, I don't want anyone to get the mistaken idea that WP:SCH is either. Johntex\talk 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, just as some past nominations of schools have resulted in a consensus to keep, other past nominations have resulted in a consensus to delete. We need to look at the merits of this individual school, where the article makes no claim of notability. Johntex\talk 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little misleading. Virtually all verifiable real school articles for several months have been kept. Looking over a year, it's the overwhelming majority. It's often the those wishing to delete, which will point this out. We don't delete municipalities, and we don't delete schools, if they are verifiable. I find it annoying that some people miscontrue deletions of schools lacking verifiability (which I've voted and/or nominated for deletion) as being a general allowance for deleting a verifiable school. We should not be deleting articles on an entirely random basis, as you're currently seeking. Please, don't try to go back in time, and undo what's done. This is a waste of time, and we all know it. --Rob 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think you mean to misinform, your comments are potentially misleading. You say don't "undo what's done" as if there had been some inflection point where policy changed. That is not the case. There is no consensus on a policy to keep all schools. The fact is we do delete schools that are not notable. I agree with you that we should not be deleting articles randomly, we should be doing so based on their importance or non-importance. The waste of time is in creating articles on non-notable subjects, which then take time to delete or (worse) take time to police them for up-to-dateness and vandalism in the case they are kept. Editor fatique is a real problem on these non-notable articles. Johntex\talk 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a full list of recent examples of AFDs that resulted in K-12 school articles being deleted, that did not involve verifiability issues (or copyvio), but were strictly based on "notability". Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005 seem to disprove your point. You're trying to pretend a rare exception, is something normal. Given the level of your contributions towards schools, I don't see how you can be suffering from fatique. But, if you are somehow "fatiqued" anyhow, feel free to scale back your "effort", to be less tiring. I'm sure nobody will mind. --Rob 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to twist my words. The worst fatigue is in trying to watch over these non-notable articles. Johntex\talk 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable" is your own opinion. How many times have you reverted vandalism to a school-related article? I would have to disagree with you, the worst fatigue is watching over Britney Spears, George W. Bush, Hitler, and any other entertainer, pop singer, or person of power, and you don't see us nominating those for deletion, do you? Silensor 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. The vandals tend to hit the big articles which makes it really frustrating if you're trying to do a good edit on one of them. Yes, some do vandalize the small articles, but there are bots and people who just pay attention to the "recent changes" page to take care of that. Even if vandals DID focus on "small" articles that would not be a legitimate reason to delete, as we don't delete based on the possibility of vandalism. YellowPigNowNow 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Segenthaler shows how damaging vandalism to a fairly obscure article can be. All we need is for someone student to edit Hamblen Elementary School to say "Principle skinner molested me." and then for that to go unedited for a few months. Johntex\talk 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying John Seigenthaler didn't deserve a page? Anyway, defamatory content can, and often is, posted on chemical pages that are not commonly viewed, but are important nonetheless. The problem isn't with obscure articles. It's with anonymous vandals. However, Wikipedia is based on the idea that anyone can edit, so vandalism is a risk the community is obviously willing to take. I don't think the possibility of vandalism existing in the future is a proper concern in the deletion process, but I realize you feel differently. YellowPigNowNow 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. You can't find anything wrong with the current content (or history since June), so you manufacture some scenerio that might happen in the future. Shall we also delete all the RAMBOT township articles because somebody might write "Mayor skinner molested me."? As somebody who regularly edits and watches many school articles, I *know* how absurd your claims regarding vandalism are (though like any article area, it obviously exists as a problem). As somebody who rarely edits school articles (except to nominate them) you simply don't know what you are talking about. At least research something before commenting. --Rob 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) I'm not digging through deletions outcomes on schools becuase it is irrelevant how many schools have or have not been kept in the last few months or the last few years. Just because a cabal has formed to try to blindly keep all school articles, regardless of notability, does not mean that the rest of us are to be intimidated. The fact is that even with the cabal to protect every school-phone-book entry, there has been no change in policy to protect schools from deletion. My arguments about vandalism apply not just to schools but to all non-notable articles. Schools are no different from restaurants or shopping malls. If there is something special about them, then by all means lets have an article about them. If not, then lets delete them and get on with more important articles. Johntex\talk 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us spent a lot of time (wasted judging buy your comments here) discussing this issue. I personally started out from your viewpoint. However at Wikipedia:Schools the only possible compromise was the merge to district or town page with no loss of content and a redirect in place. You may well disagree with this but until you have gone through the archives you will not appreciate this position. Not to mention reopening the can of worms will just waste a huge amount of time from your own perspective. The original goal was to reduce the number of school AfD's since they serve no purpose other than to cause fights. As Rob says, how many verifiable schools have been deleted recently? It is a fools errand to persue this to the end game. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody said "...if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them..." [2], would they be part of this "cabal" you speak of? Would that be "intimidation" (as you imply)? p.s. Did you notice that your link goes to BJAODN? --Rob 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No to being a member of the cabal (so far as I'm aware) because he does not participate in auto-pilot keep-voting. No to being intimidation because he says he thinks people should relax, which is very different to inflamatory language such as "you don't know what you are talking about". However, I think his recommendation is a bad one. Especially when he says The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times. You have essentially demonstrated what is wrong with this statement when you tout the fact that some non-notable schools have survived deletion as an argument why all non-notable schools should survive deletion. That is exactly the danger with letting these kinds of articles stand. They continually lower the bar for what is to be included here. Johntex\talk 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "you don't know what you are talking about". He has a point. Have you read through the archives on this discussion? They are long and tedious but necessary because all your arguments have been made before. As I said above, i was saying exactly what you are saying now. Don't waste too much time on this. i do believe the best compromise has been reached. David D. (Talk) 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What compromise would that be? What Rob is saying is that schools don't get deleted very often, so just keep them all. That is not a compromise. To answer your question, I am familiar with the debate over schools. I think some of the best arguments are in Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. So, yes, I know what I am talking about. I am aware some people want to keep all schools, regardless of whether there is anything special about them or not. I am aware some of these people have tried and failed to establish a policy saying we should keep all schools. I am aware we should be discussing here this individual school and whether it should be kept. Unfortunately, we are deviating off of that mark a bit. Johntex\talk 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't mean the project page i mean the talk pages, see the archives here: Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Archives. These arguments (delete, merge and keep) have been discussed to death. The compromise was that crap school articles can be merged and the school page would be maintained as a redirect. Do i think this is a good compromise? Not really. i do think it is likely to be the only comproimise that can work. Read the archives and see what you think. You will find that your position was well represented at the table. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read every word of the discussion, but I have read large chunks of it. My favorite quote is "merged crap is still crap" - which Rob said at one point in Archive3. If I understand the context correctly, he was arguing to improve articles to good quality, versus just merging stubby stuff together to make it look more "keepable". However, there is no compromise there, as far as I can tell. Just within the past 24 hours the proposal has been marked as rejected policy[3] and Rob agreed to this[4]. Therefore, I don't see how any compromise has been reached. I see that we are left to discuss each case here on its merits, just as we do for non-school articles. Johntex\talk 04:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rob supports that move since there is a description of how to write a school page on the WP:SCH. i did notice man in blacks 'reject tag' although i was not quite sure what it meant. Wikipedia:Schools#Current_proposal_for_schools seemed to be a workable solution to keep schools out of AfD and therefore to stop these huge long discussions which are time sinks. i still think that solution is better than the strife that comes from AfD and schools. Crap yes worth my time no (although here I am again doing just that). David D. (Talk) 04:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I and probably most people, didn't really love the merger compromise. But, we accepted it, as the best so far. I voted to oppose it as *official* policy or guiedline. But, it was me, who put the merge compromise wording onto to the Wikipedia:Schools page itself (so it wasn't just on the talk page). I also regularly cited it in AFD. This was an effort, to support compromise, even when the compromise, wasn't my personal version. We all gotta live with a lot of stuff we don't like. That's the only way this thing works. You have to understand the compromise doesn't have to be official, to be used. No new policy is needed to do merges, as policy has always allowed that as a regular editing decision. However, some people misuse Wikipedia:Schools, and mistakenly used it to justify deletion. All the confusion over its meaning, led me to accept labelling it as a rejected guideline. Anyways. For this article here, I will happily accept a merge/redirect, even though it's not a perfect solution. I don't vote "merge" per se, because some misinterpret it as being "like delete", which it is not. Paradoxically, you've increased the chances for a stand-alone article. Had you just done a redirect, I doubt anybody would have minded. I have done nothing to prevent a compromise, and we can easily have a compromise for this article. Once the AFD is over, a discussion of what to (e.g. merging) can be done. --Rob 04:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love any discussion fork away from actual Keep or Delete opinions that is longer than the article in question.--Isotope23 05:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the articles on towns start from material generated by a bot from a reasonably comprehensive, authoritative, accurate, and up-to-date database, and therefore the collection of town articles taken as a whole, is reasonably thorough, reasonably consistent in style, and reasonably accurate. That doesn't mean everyone approves of them by any means. However, it is not fair to compare the current set of school articles in Wikipedia, taken as a whole with the current set of town articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RAMBOT census places (which you refer to) applies to a country with 5% of the world's population. All the issues with currency apply to all the other places in the world (95%). Articles on places outside the U.S. is one of the largest areas of *human* created articles (full articles, stubs, and substubs). Thank goodness we don't waste time on AFDs on all those articles. Incedently the *vast* majority of those human made articles (with no bot maintenance) have no claim of notability, yet remain one of the most valued parts of this project, and are what attract a large portion of readers and editors. --Rob 17:12, 10 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 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rosenbergs

edit

Possible hoax or nn vanity. No sources given to assert notability. Unverifiable, Google gives 21 links for "Robert Rosenbergs", none of which verifies the existance of this person. Was tagged for notability and sources, but they were removed. Prod notice also removed. Ezeu 00:37, 6 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. Not enough proof that it's not a hoax to transwiki --JoanneB 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witikon

edit

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Hetar 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Hetar 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure its an actual word? --Hetar 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand? Under What Grounds do you want it deleted? Epsilonrho 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles like this belong at Wiktionary. --Hetar 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ohhk. how do you move it too wiktionary? Epsilonrho 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I think its worthy of an encyclopaedic entry. it contains some history, and is more then just a definition of a wordEpsilonrho 01:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that an unpleasant comment attributed to me on this page (deleted, can be seen in history) was posted by User:Epsilonrho. Deizio 11:45, 7 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appadurai Muttulingam

edit

This article was recreated after it was deleted on a previous AFD. Not notable. Has a bunch books that never sold. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Please note that less than 1 % Tamil literature is available in net and because many of those are not with Unicode, that may not come up in Google Search. As an author of books which are available in Amazon, this article has to be kept Doctor Bruno 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 77 Google hits, many referring to this article. Seems to be vanity or promotional. The results of the previous AfD apply. AdamBiswanger1 06:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AdamBiswanger1. Kalani [talk] 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it necessary for books to sell in order for someone to count as notable enough for Wikpedia? The charge in the archived articles that the book on Macros was from a subsidy press diminished the claims of notability for that volume, but what about the others? Standards for professors is that their publication exceeds that of the average prof at a university, right? There's no real requirement that people read the books they publish. This man isn't a prof, but he seems to have published a number of books in Tamil fiction. I'm not familiar with either him or his books and haven't read any Tamil literature in 15 years, but just judging in terms of the article, it seems NPOV and sufficiently notable for a keep. Interlingua talk 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete mindful of systemic bias, maybe the lack of google hits is due to searching using the Roman alphabet and/or searching with one of several possible spellings. But the fact that it was originally a vanity article and the list of publications is shaky (marginal vanity, little readership) makes me lean toward delete. Change to a keep if someone familiar with Tamil literature thinks this guy is notable. Opabinia regalis 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "அ.முத்துலிங்கம்" gives 39 unique Google hits, which may not seem a lot, but Tamil is not strongly represented on the Internet. The article should be merged with A. Muttulingam (which I don't think was created as a vanity article); this may actually be the more common search term. There is also the spelling "A. Muthulingam", as he was referred to in the section "Famous contemporary authors" in the article Tamil literature until the whole section was deleted in this edit: [5]; see also e.g. the last entry on this page: [6]. And finally, you can also spell "A. Muththulingam". --LambiamTalk 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Books seem verifiable e.g. [7], [8]. Probable systemic bias issues here. And no, I can't spell his name but Tamil-speakers may be able to. Dlyons493 Talk 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that this article and A. Muttulingam are both about User:Amuttu (who only contributes in Tamil; see his talk page). 145.222.138.134 09:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lambian and Dlyons493; searching for Muttulingam and checking the English results closely finds several references which suggest the subject is considered a notable (and probably popular) Tamil-language author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... A. Muttulingam neeeds to be merged with this article. In addition, vanity elements such as the jobs of his children and the praise of his writing style need to be removed. Some minor references to the writer can be found in The Hindu newspaper here Bwithh 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge with A. Muttulingam and clean up. - Parthi 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I own a couple of his books, and I can confirm that he's a well known short story author - for example, this archive[9] features his works (Nos. 46, 47, 85, 86, 87, and 132 are by him). If I remember right, he's even won a couple of literary awards. -- Arvind 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And in case there are still any doubts about his notability, the Tamil wikipedia has an article about him: see ta:அ. முத்துலிங்கம். -- Arvind 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article - hopefully this is sufficient to get it through this VfD -- Arvind 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge (gay porn star)

edit

Okay, this one is a bit tricky. There is, of course, a porn star named Gauge, who is undoubtedly very notable as an adult actress. This article, however, is about a male adult actor. Because the article is unreferenced, I'm finding it difficult to verify his existence let alone notability. Because of Gauge's (the actress) overwhelming success in adult entertainment, Google is proving futile in that regard. I am guessing that the subject is Gauge McLeod, because that is the only other "Gauge" listed on IMDB. If this is the case, then it is a very obscure actor with only 204 Google hits and only 3 unique. I would say that this isn't very noteworthy. I am perfectly willing to see this article kept if it can be sourced and notability can be shown for its subject. In the meantime, I'll abstain. — orioneight (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to note that the site has only been online for three months; I should have mentioned that before. But it goes to my point that the fact he has a website is irrelevent. T K E 04:36, 7 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 Userfied, since the username is the same as the (deceased) subject - this is probably a parent or close family member. Taking it to User Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masanori Uragami

edit

Non-notable, "Masanori Uragami" on google gives 86 hits (perhaps it's a typo here, but he seems for me that he didn't exists) →AzaToth 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only userfy if WP is now accepting dead users. Per the article the subject died in 2004. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry, didn't realize he was dead. Judging by the username of the person who created it, I thought it was a vanity article. --TBC ??? ??? ??? 11:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it would be rather discriminatory to not allow dead users, no? --Rory096 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the article was created in May 2005, so this isn't merely a dead user, it's a zombie user! Woohoo! RGTraynor 14:39, 6 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. Thanks to Shadowoftime (talk · contribs) and Commander Bubble (talk · contribs) for the nice, civilised discussion at the top of this subpage. Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 2 Mod

edit

This article seems to be an advertisement for an unverifiable nn Halo Mod when it isn't being vandalized. Shadowoftime 01:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't trying to advertise our mod, just giving information, since in the whole article is no web or file link to it. If you want we could put a file link to verify it.

Even if this article is not an advertisement, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is not the place for information on non-notable game mods, however good they may be. In order for this article to be kept, there needs to be some sort of reason why this mod is notable such as a review by a major site, an appearance in a news article, etc. Also, articles shouldn't be based on original research. Shadowoftime 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were trying to make the mod when one of our friends created this page, so i thought that i should make it a little worthwile for viewing. If it is no good, then delete it, but please let me know if you do. -Commander Bubble 03:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All the Vandalism was done by some other people who don't personally like some of one of the users. They have a vendetta against each other and are intent on damaging anything he does. It was possibly Amarsbar as well. -Commander Bubble 03:28, 6 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: Speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content Prodego talk 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, Hedman

edit

nn bio, possibly inserted by the subject. Also has the author's comments at the end with the subjects email address --Ragib 01:59, 6 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sober cruises

edit

Does not seem like a particularly notable phrase. 466 Google hits. Delete. DMG413 02:35, 6 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. Shanel 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Forbes

edit

Non-notable biography about a high-school-aged "want-to-be actor and comedian". Only reference provided is a link to a family website. Prod was added/removed a few times, so AfD seems the way to go. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:51, 6 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 Proto||type 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eire Og

edit

Tagged for PROD as "Non-notable", tag removed without explanation by an anon. -Splashtalk 03:22, 6 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 / redirect to acne Proto||type 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacne

edit

This is something of a neologism, and of questionable encyclopedic value. It already exists in Wikitionary. I think we should add a sentence to acne mentioning the term and then redirect bacne to acne, but doing so immediately felt a little too bold unilateral, so I've brought it here to generate a little discussion. -- stillnotelf is invisible 03:23, 6 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 concensus = keep. — FireFox • T [11:02, 12 April 2006]

Outward Blonde

edit

Tagged as PROD: "film has been in development for over two years. WP:NOT a crystal ball.", tag removed without explanation so it comes here instead. Sources, sources, sources. -Splashtalk 03:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB isn't enough for now? T K E 06:19, 6 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. --JoanneB 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane P. Carey

edit

Tagged for PROD: "Lost an election for state legislature in 1996, no assertion of notability", but I'd like an examination of his connections to the CyberConnect group and its work and derivatives. -Splashtalk 03:56, 6 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. --JoanneB 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of porn stars who deepthroat

edit

Delete I don't think that this even needs explaning. This, IMO, is what's wrong with Wiki. Completely useless lists that help no one and provide no useful information. This doesn't meet the crieria laid out at WP:LIST and certainly doesn't meet any kind of notability criteria I could come up with. NN, Spam, etc. pm_shef 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The current list is highly inaccurate (as another poster has correctly said, "Most porn starts *DO NOT* deepthroat"). Never-the-less, the list has value even though it is likely to always be somewhat out of date and open to debate. Personally I don't think something should be deleted just because it is a target for vandalism, it should just be made to be reasonably accurate and then increase the difficulty of editing (as has been done with articles in the political arena).
  • Delete - unless revised to include phone numbers and coupons - seriously, this reads like a bathroom wall, can never be complete, is not useful, etc. Johntex\talk 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deepthroat, ahem, I mean Delete per nom. --Mmx1 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BJAODN T K E 04:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN the title, delete the list itself (way too big for BJAODN) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should "borrow" Jimbo's credit card? T K E 05:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'Delete'Delete'Delete Thank You


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 fancruft. Royboycrashfan   12:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul Calibur terms

edit

This is not a article. This is merely a list of terms gathered cohesively on a document. Delete cruft. ZeroTalk 04:18, 6 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 to Stripcreator. Royboycrashfan   12:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tick Acey

edit

This article is about a character of an unrated webcomic strip on Stripcreator. Stripcreator itself is of questionable notability, and the strip this character is in has less than 20 episodes. It doesn't meet WP:WEB –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:25, 6 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 --Cyde Weys 04:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewas Avare Port

edit

Portcruft Cyde Weys 04:27, 6 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 NTK 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Figueroa

edit

person is not notable; only a passing news story about a government official who exposed himself to an under-aged girl. Dananderson 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I hope that when I look into Wikipedia in 20 years, I will still find articles on Natalee Holloway, Kristen French, and Ghyslain Raza. There's certainly a lot worse "cruft" in WP than this. --Saforrest

Fire! 23:32, 6 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 Userfied to User:RhondaRichoux/Felipe Madrigal and Bridgett Nugent. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Madrigal and Bridgett Nugent

edit

Non-notable. GfloresTalk 04:31, 6 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 Proto||type 12:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Anime

edit

Nominated for speedy by timecop ("vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.") and deleted by me. Ynhockey requested undeletion and I agreed, but Knowledge Seeker didn't, so I'm putting it here. -- Scott eiπ 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of WP:RS to back up the notability assertions; even the linked-to website is down. Sandstein 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research vanity ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is not self promotional, the last paragraph (as of this writing) in fact clearly states that the quality is debated. Moreover, this can be re-written, and will be because Lunar Anime has changed entirely since the article was deleted in December. However, CSD A7 (the article under which the article was originally deleted), is completely different from the nomination (vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.). If the issue is notability, then please don't be quick to judge. I will now re-write the article so that the group is clearly notable (at least, compared to fansub groups). Just for the record, I am in no way associated with Lunar Anime. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lunar is very notable within the fansubs community, but in truth we're talking about a niche within a niche. I would support their inclusion as an example of a fansub community, though I also have to admit it does present an issue of what groups are notable - does that make Lunar notable and, say, Ayu fansubs not? Does it make a case of quality vs quantity (Lunar is known for the former and derided for (lack of) the latter)? In any case, they are one of the more notable groups out there, so I suggest the keep, with the qualification that the article be vastly improved; otherwise merge into Fansub--み使い Mitsukai 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I've heard of them, and I'm not really an anime fan. 156.34.89.249 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fansub. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fansubbers are not notable. Less presense than other net groups that wikipedia documents, outside anything but anime-fansub-watchers (which is in the order of a hundred thousand to a million people worldwide). Also, as the lifetime and membership of these groups varies so wildly, and there's no secondary sources to base an article off at all, I don't see how any viable article can be written on them at all. --zippedmartin 13:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt there are only one million fansub watchers, as Lunar's subs, without Bleach (which is more popular than all its other series combined), make up over 3 million downloads. Moreover, just because there isn't an article on Dattebayo Fansubs (assuming you were referring to them with the GNAA link) doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be one. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      You're misrepresenting the numbers, obviously many of the same people watch more than just one show, so you can't add torrent figures and claim independant users. Also, no, I was saying that the GNAA are more notable, and have a wider impact, than any fansubbers. When someone takes a group to court or something that gets *a specific group* recognition outside the really quite small fansub-culture arena, then maybe there'll be something to write an article on. --zippedmartin 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone finds some media mentions. Just because they are a well known fansub group does not make them worthy here. Also, how have they changed since December? Kotepho 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has stopped subbing Bleach, its website went down, and it became more known. Basically I was saying that, the article that was deleted by Scott Burley at the time, isn't the same as it is today. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are still just one of many,many fansub groups. There really isn't that much you can say about them and almost all of it is going to not be from reliable sources. This journal article is the best I could come up with, and it is only a passing mention. The only thing that really sets them apart from other fansub groups is they aren't speed subbers. I would say merge with fansub but I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Kotepho 15:38, 10 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. NTK 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mageba kaPhunga

edit

I don't know if I'm doing the right here to nominate this to AfD, but I don't know what to do. All I can comprehend by the article is that someons son married his twin brother, or his father. or something else. What the article should be about I dont know. →AzaToth 04:36, 6 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 Proto||type 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life space

edit

dicdef plus a couple of weblinks; created within minutes of topological psychology, an article I've prod'd. --Trovatore 04:36, 6 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. Royboycrashfan   12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Logic

edit

This appears to be sexist rambling with no encyclopedic content, probably POV pseudo-fork of Sexual differentiation. Peter Grey 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to scientific theories contrasting the different outlooks of the world shared by men and women. --Celendin 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why everyone is reacting so badly to this article. "Women's Logic" is a term, it is a noun just like "encyclopedia" or "the internet". If you google the term, beyond some joke pages made to ridicule women, you will find serious discussions on how women and men in general approach situations differently. There are entire businesses which sell products catered to help men understand "Women's Logic" so that Men can become more successful with Women; Women's Logic is a thing which evidently most men don't understand. The Dating Wizard: Understanding Women's Logic. I wasn't trying to be rude or sexist, I started this article to try and bridge the gap between the male understanding of the world and the female's understanding of the world. Evidently, since most people refer the world as a man's world, there is a large disparity between the sexes. Gender Differences primarily focuses on physcial differences this article could focus on mental differences between the sexes. --Celendin 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an implication that irrational behaviour is a function of faulty logic. It's not. Women know perfectly well when they are being illogical, just the same as men. Why a man or woman might choose to behave illogically, and why that behaviour might be successful, is something completely different. Peter Grey 10:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is not really a reason to delete the article. The implication of "faulty logic" is a POV shared by many men, but it isn't really a reason why we shouldn't describe "Women's Logic."
  • By creating an article solely about women you’ll assuming that being a man is natural and that women are an oddity. A nearly %50-%50 split in birth rates doesn't support this. Your also assuming that male psychology is easy to see and trivial.
You uncritically accept Ancient Greek views of women. The ‘Women's Logic applied to Dating doesn't fit with hard research into hunter gatherers. You also say most women would support Mede killing her children but offer no support.
  • The article isn't even about logic, it's about motivations and behaviour. There are plenty of articles covering gender-based differences. Peter Grey 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There may be several pages where bits and pieces of this material might be merged to: no doubt references for most of these beliefs are out there. But this article seems a blunderbuss shot of pop-culture clichés about the difference between the sexes, assembled under a silly title. That would seem to make it original research. Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, there is a bit of worthwhile content here, once it is described as a POV and not simply asserted as a fact, but it belongs in other articles. One might as well write an article about "Men's Logic". --Saforrest 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "help men understand 'Women's Logic' so that Men can become more successful with Women" is offensively sexist. If you don't understand why, you won't understand why I'm voting Delete with prejudice. Vizjim 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think Celendin was arguing that this organizations which purport to describe "women's logic" are examples of a phenomenon which exists and therefore merits an article, not that thie article should itself help men become more successful with women. On the other hand, the article was not written with that sort of distance from the subject in mind. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my delete vote, but I think the pendulum has come a bit too far here. Certainly this article is biased and absurd, but the phenomenon it is attempting to describe -- that many men today regard women as having a unique and irrational style of reasoning -- is a real one, and does deserve to be mentioned somewhere. This idea is the reason for the success of garbage like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 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. Royboycrashfan   12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayisgames

edit
Relevant policies: WP:WEB, WP:RS

I'm not convinced this one is notable. It has the reasonable Alexa rank of 18,791; but the Google hits are from blogs, forums and the like, and there is no indication of notability in a wider audience (e.g., no hits on Google News). The fanboy-style article provides no sources, of course, but the PROD was contested without comment. Sandstein 04:55, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Merda

edit

Unprofessionally written, possibly copyrighted, irrelevant entry Breathefire 05:04, 6 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 Moved to CfD. --Rory096 06:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shania Twain songs

edit

Already a category for Shania Twain singles, that list all of them, while this category is empty. Thankyoubaby 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs in WP:CfD. Feezo (Talk) 05:48, 6 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 (sorry, sockpuppets!) Proto||type 12:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Audit Shell

edit

Fails WP:SOFTWARE only 117 Google hits. Bige1977 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in a matter of 1 day Google hits has increased to 180. Must be pretty popular. 65.208.210.97 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Audit Shell was just released this month. Google doesn't know much about it yet.

The official annoucement has been recorded in the sudo archives at: Officia Enterprise Audit Shell announcement on sudo mailing list

The official open source project pages are at:

EAS has a significant history. Simply do a Google Search for Sudosh. EAS is the new version of Sudosh, hence the release 2.0.00.

Regardless of EAS started out on Wikipedia as AFB, it no longer fits the requirements for deletion. The article isn't a commercial advertisement, it's free Open Source software. The article isn't a vanity page about myself, I don't even have a page about myself on Wikipedia. No where in the article is my name mentioned. The article has been rewritten to be an informative and descriptive about the software. The article also meets the Software requirements that it must be innovative. The entire reason why Sudosh is so popular (all the Fortune 100 companies use it and many branches of the government) is because of its innovation. EAS replaced Sudosh and added newer innovative features on top of it.

The article has been completely cleaned up to fit the Wiki guidelines and is in similiar format to other Open Source software like sudo, sudosh and apache.

I don't understand why this article needs to be deleted.

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:
2) The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.
EAS is the new version of sudosh which has already been verifiable by reliable sources independent of myself. Please perform a Google search for "sudosh"
EAS is innovative because it's the ONLY piece of Open Source software that competes with the commercial UNIX auditting software Sysmark PowerBroker EAS is a very large piece of software that was developed over 1 year which was meant to be a free alternative to PowerBroker. Sudosh originally did this, but was not as feature rich. Sudosh was replaced with EAS. Sudosh already has a huge following and track record. The confusion behind this deletion is because of the NAME CHANGE. EAS IS SUDOSH
By deleting this article you are effectively killing the EAS Open Source project because Wiki has a strong link to Google. People need to know about EAS and this article needs to remain on Wiki so that information can be shared. EAS was just released under this new name and peope will learn about it. EAS is the alternative to PowerBroker, which costs $1,500 per server installed. EAS is free. Why delete it? If it gets deleted, someone else will add it, and we'll go through this all over again. Dhanks 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The known, currently notable software is Sudosh, at maximum some of the content here should be merged in Sudosh. If in a few months or so, it turns out to be as important as Sudosh is, it can get its own article then. JoshuaZ 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying EAS is sudosh is complete bullcrap, sudosh is sudosh. Feature-rich means nothing. This is an advertisement for EAS, it's trying to convince people that EAS is better than sudosh. If you want this article to stay you will have to make it read like an article rather than a pamphlet. If this is deleted it will be a good thing, then the person who comes along to make the new article may make one that read like an encyclopedia entry, rather than an advertisement. 65.95.124.5 04:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EAS is sudosh. I'm the author of both sudosh and EAS. I know. This isn't an advertisement. I gain nothing from this, I receive no money or sales from this. All of this software is open source. I don't need to convience people that EAS is better than sudosh. Check out the sudosh mailing list yourself, you will see tons of feature requests back from last year. I worked for 1 year adding these features and what grew from the requests was a new version which I simply called EAS because a lot of the original functionality has changed. The article doesn't read like a pamplet, if you want it better, let it stay and people will edit the article, just like sudosh has been editted. Dhanks 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If EAS is really sudosh 2.0, why go through all the trouble of renaming it and just add a small section about it to the sudosh page? Satisfied customers would naturally look for an updated version of what they already own instead of looking up a whole new project. Simply using wikipedia to manipulate google search rankings is just plain wrong IMHO. Bige1977 04:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I crossed out a third vote.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: EAS has branched from sudosh and turned into its own framework leaving sudosh behind. The name change was required. This article WAS NOT created to change the ranks in Google -- it was created to let people KNOW ABOUT THE NAME CHANGE. I've made comments in the article sudosh that the name has changed to EAS. Obviously EAS has more to document that Sudosh, merging the articles would be confusing and large. Dhanks 04:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, spamvertisement.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, FYI, Dhanks has made a set of revenge AfDs of various articles started by or edited by people who said delete here. I have put this on WP:ANI. JoshuaZ 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to sudosh for now. If Enterprise Audit Shell becomes notable, we can always move sudosh to here later. Vslashg (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete solely on the grounds of using Wikipedia for advertisement. If your software cannot exist without wikipedia, then it ain't much. Thousands and thousands of programs before Wikipedia existed have thrived; get to work. --Golbez 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise Proposal I think it is more likely at this time that a user of sudosh, the current established product, would enter the query sudossh to find more information about enhancements, future versions, or information on competing products. Since Open Enterprise Shell claims to be sudosh version 2.0, in the interiem it should be best that it stay in the sudosh article. If in the future various open source unixish distros decide to include open enterprise shell, it then should get its own page in a more abbreviated form than it is now. Personally I think that Dhanks energy should be promoting his fork of sudossh to be included as a package with various unix/bsd distributions which would be greatly more important to his market share than a mere wikipedia article. For now Enterprise Open Shell should be a redirect to sudosh, if dhanks promises not do change the redirect.. Sudosh should mention with a link to his project page that Enterprise Open Shell is a new fork of it. Bige1977 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article will remain as it is now without a redirect. If I have people, who know nothing about this article, start redirecting it, I will start reverting the article. I have just as much say how this article looks as anyone else. Dhanks 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I direct you to read the three revert rule. --Golbez 19:31, 7 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. Royboycrashfan   12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim K

edit

Prodded, but previously survived AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim K. Prod by User:Eusebeus said "this is a self-authored vanity page (note the first-person throughout) and is being used as an online CV by a would-be singer and Michael Jackson impersonator whose musical career to date fails WP:MUSIC & who fails WP:BIO. This should be userfied." NickelShoe (Talk) 05:09, 6 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 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless sites

edit

Delete - article based on promoting a website. Wickethewok 05:11, 6 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 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haselhurst

edit

vanity bio of student web designer. His his "1.75m visitors a year" website somehow generates only 77 unique Google hits out of 68,500. I smell SEO Calton | Talk 05:18, 6 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. Royboycrashfan   12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Haap and his alias, Dean of Cincinnati

edit
Relevant policies: WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:RS

Both are about a student and local activist for rather unspecific causes. The article has one mainstream media mention, but on balance, I think he fails WP:BIO: he is neither a "major local political figure who receive[s] significant press coverage", a "widely recognized entertainment personalit[y] and opinion maker" (my emphasis) or a published author with an audience of 5'000 or more. Sandstein 05:18, 6 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. Royboycrashfan   12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tian Forest

edit

Non-notable web comic. Only 14 unique google hits. Vanity. Template:Prod was removed by article's creator, who is also the creator of the webcomic. Icarus 05:23, 6 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 attack page/non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal husseini

edit

Apparent vanity. Google for "Jamal Husseini" and powerlifting give zero hits. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:17, 6 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. SushiGeek 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google rule

edit

This should not exist in the main namespace, and there is already detailed information on this at WP:GOOG. Originally proded by User:Icarus3 and deproded by the page's creator without explanation. Delete. --Hetar 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging this article would destroy the simplicity of the Google Rule thereby irradicating the point of the Google Rule —This unsigned comment was added by Frankencow (talk)
Comment Good point, I didn't notice that. T K E 05:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think its against a rule or guideline; it takes up a few bytes on the server because of the format. It'd be a quick link. T K E
    • It has nothing to do with any drain on the server. Articles are articles; Wikipedia space is Wikipedia space. With rare exceptions they're supposed to be separate, the first being directed to users and the second to editors. Also see Hetar's comment below. --Trovatore 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a redirect, reason #5 to delete a redirect, listed at WP:R states that, "It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." --Hetar 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirects generally aren't supposed to cross namespaces. --Icarus 05:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this is WP:OR and essentially a WP:POV and non-verifiable attack on Wikipedia. How does the author know what "most Wikipedians" think? There is no way of knowing this, so the premise of the article is irretrievably unencyclopedic. (disclosure: I originally speedy tagged this as {{nonsense}}) Gwernol 05:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an attack on Wikipedia. I was merely pointing out the irony of deleting the article. I have corrected myself to "many" although since this is Wikipedia's policy it would be logical to assume that most Wikipedians follow the rules. Just because you do not like what is being said does not constitute it to be nonsense or not notable. I believe this is a growing concern in our culture and rather than pressing for deletion everyone should be contributing more research. --Frankencow
Coment Where is this Wikiepdia's policy? Here's the only mention of Google on the notability page: "There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)." which says the exact opposite of your article. Also note that notability is a guideline not a policy of Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is such a big problem then simply delete the self-referential part.
Speedy Delete Has nothing to do with wiki. Not really an encyclopedia entry, if people really want to keep it, it chould be in the wikipedia name space. Lcarsdata Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 07:13, 6 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. SushiGeek 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Colin Boyd

edit

Non-notable musician and very minor actor. Page had "Prod" tag added, but tag removed by article creator. Calton | Talk 05:32, 6 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. Royboycrashfan   13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Skrebowski

edit

Trade-pub editor (for a red-linked pub put out by a red-linked org). Reads like a vanity bio/CV. Was Prod'ed, by tag removed by User:Monicasdude. Calton | Talk 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: google shows [14] about 20,000 hits on his name, including publications and external interviews from some apparently notable websites and publications. Looks to be a notable editor. Article needs to assert notability though. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep If the reds go away, give it sixty days for links and cleanup. T K E 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Editor of notable trade publication regularly cited by news media. If you don't like the redlinks, write the articles; it's not like Wikipedia is finished and all notable subjects already have articles. Monicasdude 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was aimed at the nominator; I was just trying to repeat my prod comment from memory. If I'd aimed it at you, I'd have indented it so it was more clearly under yours. Monicasdude 18:34, 6 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 Proto||type 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainmakers

edit

DELETE Attempted prod but was contested with no comment. This is a completely NN group of homeschooled debaters. Doesn't meet Wiki Notability Criteria, Vanity article, Spam. Indiscriminate useless information. Google search comes up with about 40 articles actually on the topic pm_shef 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As i told User:Nait I have nothing against homeschooling, or debating, I just don't see this as a legitimate Encyclopedia article. If you show me articles about non-homeschooled debate clubs i'll nominate those for AfD too! pm_shef 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that this is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy, btw. --Rory096 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed second opinion rendered... please only say Keep or Delete once per AfD.--Isotope23 18:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue has nothing to do with home-schooling, it has to do with notability. NCFCA is notable. It's national, and involves thousands. The individual clubs or debate teams are not notable. You won't find any articles for school debate teams either. If you do find any, let us know and we'll be glad to take them through the deletion process, too. Fan1967 01:39, 7 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 deletion

Swat (debate club)

edit

DELETE Attempted prod but was contested with no comment. This is a completely NN group of homeschooled debaters. Doesn't meet Wiki Notability Criteria, Vanity article, Spam. Their claim to fame is coming in 6th place in the national championship for home schooled debaters, not nearly noteable enough for an article pm_shef 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - See arguments here. -- Nate Hanson 14:57, 6 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. Royboycrashfan   13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenisucks

edit

Poorly written, and already discussed as being non-notable in the Xeni Jardin talk page. Matt N 05:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt N is using this Vote for Deletion as justification to remove the xenisucks link from the Xeni Jardin article. Tafinucane 23:45, 10 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. SushiGeek 03:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and Sororities at the University of British Columbia

edit

Wikipedia is not for advertising; overall unencyclopedic material. Also, most of the information was summed up in the main university article already and needs nothing more, in my opinion. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not advertising its merely stating facts now. It was advertising before though.

Comment: Just got rid of the copyvio of the sororities section, on both this article and the University of British Columbia article. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's now material that doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but it still reads like an advertisement. There could be about two paragraphs of potentially encyclopedic information, tops; they can go in the main UBC article. Having a separate article here is asking for trouble. I'll hold my delete vote. Melchoir 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original prodder.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe - I think the intention was to significantly cut down the information on the main UBC article and replace it with a link to this one. As it stands now it is far too self promotional, but I'm not convinced that it can't be turned into something relevent. As I said in the talk page, I think an article naming the fraternities on campus, saying where the frats are, what they do and giving a brief history would be an acceptably noteworthy page. I don't know much about the frats and sororities, but I'm under the impression they are a reasonably important presence at UBC. TastyCakes 06:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - takes this info away from the main ubc article. Also, STOP shatering the interests of new contributors. They are adding TRUE KNOWLEDGE, that is not getting in the way of other articles, about places which are notable. UBC is a very large University, and donated content should not be deleted. This article does not offend Wikipedia by it's presense, therefor include it. --Nick Dillinger 07:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may not be the greatest writer but the information is fact and isn't biased or trying to recruit anyone.
  • Comment:Not to sound cruel, but I'm kinda laughing at the article after all the copyvio removals... I certainly wasn't expecting the article to turn into THIS! hehe. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Greek system is a big part of UBC. The information on this page is exactly that information. There is no bias on it anymore its simply stating the facts. I realize before that the info was just copied and pasted from other sites but now it is unique and doesn't have any copyvios. It doesn't promote the Greek system at UBC it simply states what it is and how it works. If it was promoting the Greek system and trying to recruit people through this page then it would be worthy of deletion but not as it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.180.73 (talk • contribs)
  • NOTE: Both this vote and the one below are by the same IP
  • NOTE: They're the same IP because all the computers where I live are on the same network. just so you know.

(154.20.180.73). Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The greek system at UBC plays a large part in a lot of the functions at UBC. This article give an accurate and unbiased description of the greek system, and i can't see any reason why it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.180.73 (talk • contribs)
  • NOTE: Both this vote and the one above are by the same IP
  • NOTE: They're the same IP because all the computers where I live are on the same network. just so you know.

(154.20.180.73). Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if its that important, make a page for all student activities, but a page just describing the greek community is pointless and unencyclopedic- how would this information be useful to someone in, say, China? pm_shef 06:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • China has nothing to do with this article. By the way, UBC has a large Chineese student base, and has active recruiting programs over in China as well. Maybe they would be interested in joining a Fraternity or Sorority when they arrive.--Nick Dillinger 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Useless listcruft. --Hetar 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unencyclopedic listcruft and merge (the two lead paragraphs, along with an enumeration of the active fraternities and sororities, belong in the U of BC article, consistent with our work on other university/college articles). Joe 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such thing as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper, therefore true information should not be cut because of lack of space. There really is no "cruft", just snobbery by deletionists!--Nick Dillinger 00:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentThe position espoused supra, recapitulated on Nick's userpage as "All factual information, as long as it doesn't get in the way of other factual information, should be included, open sourced, and allowed to be readily accessed through Wikipedia and its forks" is not altogether without merit; it is, though, wholly contrary to Wikipedia policy, which policy reflects a consensus of the considered and deliberate judgments of many Wikipedians. One may surely object to policy and even essay the changing of policy, but it is likely that his/her offering opinions on individual AfD discussions will not be as effective as his/her proposing broader or bolder changes to the sundry criteria of WP:NOT, inasmuch as that policy, more than any deletion guidelines, which tend simply to incorporate by reference and interpret WP:NOT, is the policy most at odds with the sort of encyclopedia envisaged by Nick (I should say that I would likely disagree with the changes Nick would seek to make, but seek simply to suggest that, if a debate is to occur, it needs to occur at a different level).
  • comment This has come up a million times before - students at various universities try to make pages specific to their university's, usually a frat/sorority page, and it always fails the AFD as non-notable. The truth is most large fraternities have a page for the national organization. Something specific to one campus is inherent unnotable. --Bachrach44 01:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This page isn't describing each individual fraternity so the fact that most Fraternities and sororities have there own page is irrelevant. It is describing the particular Greek system at UBC which is different in some ways than say a fraternity or sorority at another school. It is information and not "cruft" as some people seem to be referring it to. The information is plain and simple and there’s nothing trying to promote it, its just once again stating the facts about the Greek system at a University. This is supposed to be the most comprehensive encyclopaedia on the planet. Removing this page would defeat Wikipedia’s purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.27.184 (talk • contribs)
"Cruft" = extraneous, useless or pointless "information". Mere "information" alone doesn't make something Wikipedia-worthy; if so, my penis size or my cat's middle name (both, surely, "information") would merit Wikipedia articles. To merit inclusion, information must be notable. There's nothing notable here. Contrary to your assertion, the article describes nothing about the UBC frat system unusual to any other frat-bearing school; most frats have rooming houses, hold events and participate in inter-Greek councils. This boils down to a mere list meaningless to a non-UBC student and probably not meaningful to many of those. RGTraynor 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so writting in an article truthful information like "RGTraynor has a 2 inch dick and his cat's name is Tinkerbell Fairy the Pussy" would be cruft, as his small penis and the very wussy name for his cat would be totally extraneous, useless or pointless "information", ie Cruft. But this article, and many others tagged as "cruft" are just information that elitists and deletionists far too often label as cruft and then claim lack of notability. But guess what? RGTraylor's penis size is not included in this article. Neither is his cat's middle name. Therefore the analogy used by all you deletionists is pure bullshit and

relevant content (buildings and organizations are way more notable than penis sizes for Wikipedia contributors). Also, STOP BEGGING THE QUESTION by declaring something unnotable just because you are a snob. You are wrong, as there is significant disagreement about the definition of notability. Enough with the slipperly slope arguments!--Nick Dillinger 19:46, 10 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. Royboycrashfan   13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logically inevitable

edit

Orphan since October 2005, found via Special:Random. This article doesn't make sense to me. "Logically inevitable" gets under 800 Google hits, so it's not an important legal concept or anything. Melchoir 05:57, 6 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 NTK 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Planet

edit

Non-notable B-movie (a rip-off of Mad Max, if the box cover is to be believed), not even available on DVD. Last time I looked, this was an encyclopedia, not "IMDB 2: The Sequel". Was Prod'ed, but tag removed by article creator. Calton | Talk 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - imdb, Sci-fi, etc. more than qualifies unsigned user inserted this into my sig.
  • Keep per Monicasdude, not on DVD means nothing but that the DVD people are lagging - for crying out loud I cannot even get The Unsuspected on VHS, let alone on DVD, and that is an underrated classic starring Claude Rains - not to mention Passage to Marseille which stars Bogart and Rains is only available on Canadian VHS, and that is not only a good film but also historical WWII propaganda (there is no justice in this world.) Excuse the personal rant, I could list hundreds of movies more deserving than those two but I happened to be looking for them recently and the puppy's unhappy. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In case my little rant confused things, this is not a good movie. It is a bad movie with a bit of a cult following. Still keepable. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable film. DVD availability is not a criteria for inclusion (nor, for that matter, is quality). 23skidoo 17:49, 7 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. Royboycrashfan   13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre slavic imhabitants of russia

edit

del. The article is hopeless in all aspects. Total confusion of ethnics and areas. It is bad to bite newcomers, but I would suggest the contributor not to start with so vast topics while so obviously lacking expertise. `'mikka (t) 06:34, 6 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 NTK 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Power! Live In Istanbul

edit

Two concerts by the Spice Girls. I added the Prod tag with the reason, "One (1) stop on a Spice Girls concert tour. That's it. WAY too trivial for an encyclopedia." Article creator removed, with the comment, "...the concerts were not 'part' of tour, they were the tour," which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it even MORE non-notable and trivial. This ain't Monterey Pop or Woodstock. Calton | Talk 06:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article does not refer at all to the fact which may make it notable: this was actually a 1998 video release which I remember sold very well at the time. The video is ranked as a fairly high-seller on Amazon.com [18]. Rewrite to clarify that this is a video, not just a Turkish concert date. -Canley 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I remember the promo around this being released. Notable --Irishpunktom\talk 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable concert(s) which were released as a decent-selling video. The video has 44 reviews on Amazon, not at all bad for a concert VHS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - As I mentioned in the edit summary when I originally edited out the tag, if you check the discussion page I've made a short list of the additions that will be added to the page. I haven't had time to do it yet - but hopefully will make time later today. The 2 concerts were significant for several reasons. (i) They were the first major concerts performed by one of the biggest selling pop groups of all time. (ii) They were released on a best selling, US-platinum video. (iii) The concerts set a record in the US for the most watched Pay-Per-View concert in history - beating the previous record set by Woodstock '94. Therefore the concerts and video release are more than worthy of being noted on Wikipedia. Rimmers 13:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan and Canley, whose solid arguments make it unnecessary to consider the other claims to notability. Monicasdude 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan... it's no Spiceworld: The Movie but apparently notable.--Isotope23 18:25, 6 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. DS 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Homosexual Chapter

edit

Based on their official website, this is nothing more than a joke article. Acacia, Purdue --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 07:05, 6 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 NTK 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallwood Reservoir

edit

Delete. Non notable. Article also doesn't give enough information, or even sources and/or external links. Soumyasch 07:26, 6 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, defaulting to keep (although transwiki to wiktionary appears to make little sense). Kusma (討論) 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report

edit

This is nothing more than a dictionary entry, transfer to Wiktionary. --Hetar 07:30, 6 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. -Doc ask? 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Ramsey

edit

Finance-industry executive (SVP) whose big claim to fame is that he gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it. Otherwise not a WP:BIO candidate. Was prodded, but tag was removed by User:Monicasdude with the reason philanthropy is notable activity, suggesting he believes writing checks to one's alam mater is notable. Calton | Talk 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails to assert notability. Proto||type 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. —Whouk (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Aside from being identified as the largest single donor to the University of Georgia (well in excess of $20 million, with a major building and a scholarship carrying his name, he was also chairman of the executive committee at Merrill Lynch, a notable achievement in the financial field. Admittedly, this record of substantial real-world effects is hardly in the same league as the records of such Wikipedia notables as Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Craphonso Thorpe, but I think it justifies his place in Wikipedia. And yes, philanthropy can be a notable activity; it's astonishing anyone thinks otherwise. Monicasdude 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That argument may well be a fair one. However, bandying around accusations of bad faith is not helpful - please assume good faith. —Whouk (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Being the largest donor in the history of a major public university (in the mid- to high-eight figure range) is not appropriately described as "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater." I also think the borderline personal attack on me in his nomination comments, setting up a straw man argument, is arguably a sign of malice and bad faith. I believe that an editor who nominates an article for deletion has an obligation to accurately fairly describe the disputed matter. I think that misrepresenting the contents of the article or the nature of its subject in order to promote its deletion should be viewed as vandalous, as a deliberate action to impair the integrity of the project, since it manifests an expectation that the article would not be deleted under the application of consensus policy and guidelines, and indicates that the nominator is attempting to avoid the guideline. Frankly, I find it unsettling that so many AfD editors find it appropriate to make caustic comments about article authors -- usually charging vanity and self-promotion, forms of bad faith editing, quite often made without any sound basis -- but find it inappropriate to call those who make such baseless comments to account. Monicasdude 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment regarding bad faith is based both on a pattern of behavior by the nominator and the deceptive summary of the article he gives. Looks more like it's based on anger-management issues and reading comprehension problems/mind-reading delusions. Whether Ramsey donated $20 or $20 million to his university (you know, "giv[ing] a bunch of money to his alma mater"), that's not an achievement as far as I'm concerned, which is what I said. I failed -- and still fail -- to see anything he did on the way to piling up the cash for the donations he made makes him the least bit qualified under WP:BIO. There can be a difference of opinion, but that gives no call for you to, as a friend of mine puts, "make shit up" about motivations, nor to distort the English language to justify your pouting. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite; that Monicadude disagrees with the nomination doesn't make it bad faith by definition. I'm curious myself as to how this fellow qualifies for notability. Delete. RGTraynor 15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This cannot be speedy kept as there were other delete votes before Monicasdude, who should know deletion policies well enough by now. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Stifle 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BIO's guideline for deceased persons (Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?), Ramsey qualifies -- his significant donations have made him an important part of the history of a major American university. He is widely recognized by anyone associated with UGA, which is a considerable number of people. Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, a person doesn't need to be a household name to be included. There are many, many notable people who should be included. Regardless of what you think of Monicasdude, can you honestly tell me that Air Force Amy belongs here but Ramsey does not? I added a stub tag to this article in the hopes someone will add more to it, but for now I'm not sure who it's hurting by not being deleted, when it clearly is verifiable and not a vanity piece. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC) This would the article's creator, despite the trademark "Air Force Amy" reference. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could make articles for a hundred different major philathropists who donated to various universities...doesn't make them deserving of an article. Accusations of bad faith will get you nowhere and are bad practice. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hundreds of new articles would just be a drop in the bucket. This guy's name is going to be all over the university and people may wonder who he was. Seano1 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not important enough for wikipedia. Now if he was to give us a large sum of money though... U$er 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Donations are not notable per se. Sandstein 16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep An article about someone donating money to seems ok. Anonymous anonymous 21:28, 10 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 NTK 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bolling

edit

Wikipedia is NOT a geneaology project. Bio of ordinary American colonial gentleman, who died long before the American Revolutionary War was even a concept. Calton | Talk 07:56, 6 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. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist horror film theory

edit

Personal essay and coined term. Doesn't appear to exist outside of Wikipedia or Everything2.com Google.Lotsofissues 08:27, 6 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 Userfied to User:TCAarchives. Creators admit it's fictional, but wrk has gone into it, so let them have the content until they've copied it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Caledonian Academy

edit

Schoolboy hoax, featuring a faculty including Arnold Schwarzenegger, and "Will Hung". I at first thought this was vandalism, and there was a real school article somewhere behind this that some kids had messed with. But they'd created it much as it appears here. It seems to be a sort of parody of The Scots College, which the same IPs have been vandalising - there is no Caledonian Academy in Orbost, Australia. There's one in Scotland, but this has never been about that place. I would strongly recommend against moving to BJAODN, as it's not actually funny, and this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged. I had prod tagged it, but decided they'd only remove it. Sadly, it asserts notability so couldn't be speedied. Strong delete. Proto||type 08:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • the caledonian academy is a fictional place based on that found in William Thomas's novel "William in the Middle." Deletion of the article would be unfair to people intrested in viewing the fictional school that William has created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.33.167.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - this fact has just been added to the article, also. Note that no such novel exists, as far as I can tell. Proto||type 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're sorry, in retrospect we should have put it on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I'm not sure how the rules work, but maybe our admitting it's all a sham allows it to be shifted to speedy deletion? We don't want to be blocked- at least not permanently. We didn't see it as being such a serious problem, but now we can see the issue. Sorry about this.
  • Comment i have read the book, and i liked this wikipedia entry very much. found it useful for english analysis.
  • Comment I the main creator of this site never intended readers to believe the school was an actual place and so I only labelled it as fictional when I realised that people were considering the school to be an actual place. The novel in which this school is found is not well known and this site is aimed mainly at a small few that have read or are interested in the contents of the book, for this reason it would be unjust to delete the site as there are some people that have genuine intrest in its contents.
  • Delete While I accept that the article was not malicious, it is certainly not verifiable, and given that the book William in the Middle is not listed in Wikipedia, Amazon or Google (with Orbost) I would challenge whether it is well known. To give the details of a character or institution as they exist in a novel or TV programme/film is sound, to invent details that were never the author's intent is not.
  • Comment The article describes the fictional academy in the book fairly accurately and though the book may not be well known, who is to say that it won't have future success.
    • when and if the book becomes popular enough to be noteworthy, then this article may become relevant as an encyclopedic entry. An encyclopedia records that which has become notable, not everything that has ambition to become so. Kevin McE 12:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with william thomas or william in the middle if an article on either exists, otherwise Delete. Niz 16:57, 6 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 three. SushiGeek 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seren Anturia

edit

also nominated are its sequel Vision Venture and the filmmaker Erik Johnson

All three are unverifiable (WP:V), and are a possible hoax (WP:HOAX).--blue520 09:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Erik Johnson google can find two film makers by that name [19]. Both from the U.S., one had a film at Sundance 2004 - "Foo-Foo Dust" (Eric Johnson & Gina Levy) and the second is the director/producer of "Tweek City" [20], but but neither are the Erik Johnson in question. Which is kind of strange as as you would expect a Nebula and Cannes award winner to get some hits on google, also there dosen't seem to be a "Nebula Cinematic Achievement Prize", there is a Nebula Award for Best Script but Erik Johnson is not a winner.--blue520 11:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Vision Venture the images are strange, one is a modification of a 2000AD cover that can be found here [21] and the other carries the comment "made it myself" in the image summary.--blue520 11:29, 6 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. SushiGeek 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indignation

edit

A two line dictionary definition. Was tagged with prod, but removed and tagged 'Transfer to Wiktionary'. The article already exists on Wiktionary, in a far better and dictionarial form. But it can't be reprodded (nor is it a speedy candidate), so now it has to go through AFD. Delete. Proto||type 09:05, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pay

edit

Not particularly noteworthy. Vanity page if not advertising for TSE2. The author (user:Twiterror), AKA Josh Whelchel, does music for Pay's games. Radix 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the game/invention becomes truly noteworthy, and the inventor/developer has other biographical events of general interest, at that stage the person might be deemed to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is not the place to record people who have an ambition that that might one day be the case. Kevin McE 11:08, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Africa tour

edit

"This page will list all the tour companies. Incase you want a company to feature, please add it on this page.". This page is unlikely ever to be useful. In case you want a company to feature, please add it to Yahoo. In other words, unencyclopedic, open invitation for spam ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:05, 6 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 Userfied to User:Edwardandrewlane/Sandbox - This AfD has been closed early because the new user who created the article has expressed a sincere interest to learn how to be a Wikipedian and edit articles. See the user's talk page for details. Thank you. --HappyCamper 12:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion / ethics

edit

Was put for speedy delete but didn't seem to qualify for any of the criteria. Nevertheless, this essay is a pile of POV and original research. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is in fact not Point of View, nor is it Original research, I have merrley explained the views of different ethical systems using a few figures from sites to back them up. It is primarily aimed at AS level R.S. in which the candidate must be able to apply different ethical systems to a medical practice. —This unsigned comment was added by Edwardandrewlane (talk • contribs) .
  • This is in fact not Point of View, nor is it Original research, I have meerley explained the views of different ethical systems using a few figures from sites to back them up. The views expressed by various people are in fact views ofrelativley famous philosophers, such as Ramsay and Curran, as well as systems like Natural Law Theory (N.L.T) which is a morall code widely used by the Catholic church. It is primarily aimed at AS level R.S. in which the candidate must be able to apply different ethical systems to a medical practice. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.135.105.186 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete "I have explained the views" and the fact you have actually stated it's "By" whoever looks very much like OR. The nature of the text makes it look like a cut 'n' paste job from somewhere as well. Is this a copyright violation from some website? If this is to remain it needs a huge amount of cleanup and renaming to something like "Ethical aspects of abortion". Tonywalton  | Talk 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has explained on my talk page that this is in fact a cut-paste from his own work as a PowerPoint presentation. Fair enough, no copyvio then, but it's still OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some usable information, but probably better to show these new Wikipedians who wrote the article how to incorporate information into Wikipedia properly instead. --HappyCamper 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - done that, HappyCamper, on the new user's talk page. He's off having a read of the links I provided now. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:48, 6 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. SushiGeek 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben myers

edit

Written by the subject of the article. Was speedied for nn-bio, but there are assertions of notability, so I've redirected it here. None of the assertions appear to be untrue, but none of them are very important in the scheme of things. And the article is a vanity advert for the writer. But nevertheless there may be some merit in it. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete His books are listed on Amazon.co.uk, and one of them is in the top 10,000, so must have sold some number. But the article is self-publicising, and makes no attempt to conform to a Wikipedia style. If the author is given time to have it conform to standard presentation and it subsequently attracts other editors, it might have a value, but otherwise it appears to be vanity publishing. Kevin McE 10:56, 6 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.  Grue  18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban racr

edit

Nothing to speedy this under, really, so it comes here: Non-notable newly launched South African magazine being advertised in our encyclopedia. That would make a great speedy criteria, you know ;o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:31, 6 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 Proto||type 12:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Frankl

edit

I do not beleive that this person is notable enough for an article. The relevant criteria on WP:BIO appears to be "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", as there is no spefic bullet for people in the legal proffession. The claim of notability in the article is that he represented the Attorney General of Canada in a notable court case. However, a Google Canada search for "David Frankl" Canada gets "about 21" hits, of which 3 are about this person - and one of those is this Wikipedia article. A search on Google.com for David Frankl results in 731,000 hits; of the first 20 results two are about this David Frankl, one of which is the Wikipedia article (most of the hits seem to be about a doctor from Oregon, although there are at least three other high-rating David Frankls).

While a non-notable biography is a CSD criteria, this article does make a claim notability. Also based on the recently deleted Elliot Frankl (undergoing a deletion review that will almost certainly uphold the deletion), I expect this nomination will be contested. This nomination should be taken as an explicit delete vote. Thryduulf 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Asserts importance, and is probably similar to the various "celebrity lawyers" in the US. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:19
  • Delete as Vaughancruft. Brian makes a good point; however, Lexis/Nexis shows nine articles, all on May 3, 2005, 5 of which are duplicates of a Canadian newswire story. Unlike the many (grrrr) celebrity lawyers in the US, Frankl has not received any coverage on any other issue or case. As Stifle said in a different AfD, his fifteen minutes are over. Thatcher131 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there is no such person listed in the Ministry of Justice website. [22] RGTraynor 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RGTraynor posted misleading info, person is on Ministry of Justice website [23]--67.71.85.9 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Possibly the article creator should have spelled Mr. Frankel's name correctly, then. RGTraynor 19:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I think the spelling on the Ministry's website is incorrect, not sure though--64.228.150.230 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, then the B.C. Court of Appeal is wrong too in their decision on R. v. Bryan. Samaritan 07:19, 7 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 Proto||type 12:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Queen Hypothesis - non-Darwinian view

edit

POV, original research. Also unformatted and unwikified, although that can be fixed. Considered a merge with Red Queen but couldn't find any useful material. --Canley 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Canley 11:08, 6 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 Proto||type 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lah.cc

edit

Suspect a lack of notability, but don't know enough about famous Singapore websites to be sure. Anyone? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Errr ... if you "suspect" but do not know, why did you nominate this article in the first place? Keep. RGTraynor 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Errr ... maybe because it has no content, except for a spamlink, and doesn't meet WP:WEB?? Delete. Slowmover 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's grounds for Keep/Rewrite, not to strike something down on no more grounds than failure to recognize it. That being said, I pulled up the site in question, and it's still explicitly in beta, so that would seem to put paid to its notability. My vote changes to Delete. RGTraynor 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Google's services have been in beta for quite a while now... The lah.cc forums make it clear that it is a very popular site. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-6 22:59
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty? 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Live A Lie Records

edit

Repost of vanity page previously deleted in 2005. Big in albania 11:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First deletion vote here: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/To Live A Lie Records

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty? 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So i herd u like mudkips

edit

Non-notable and unverifiable internet meme Stifle 12:37, 6 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALT+CTRL

edit

Non-notable band. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows has experienced a fatal error at address 0000xx000x000 and must restart. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:29, 7 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. Flowerparty? 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tab, slang

edit

Neologism. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:54, 6 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. Unfortunately nobody has said which parent to merge it into, and there's not much to merge. I'll see if I can work in a mention of him and his dob and then replace with a redirect. kingboyk 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Luft

edit

Non-notable. Random children of celebrities don't deserve their own pages, as if this precedent were consistently upheld there would be innumerable nonsubstantive stubs about un-important people who happen to descend from the famous. Ashwinr 22:54, 28 March 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!
Stifle 14:04, 6 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, wrong process, possible WP:POINT and no reason to delete anyway as it's in user space. Just zis Guy you know? 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rebelguys2/images

edit

Should qualify as a vanity page. This page/article as no intrinsic value on its own as information for those using Wikipedia. User needs to consider a personal website (i.e. Bravehost.com, Batcave.net)for a gallery to save Wikipedia server space and bandwidth Noles1984 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not only is it userspace, where he is allowed to have collections of images if he wants, but this should be on MfD. --Rory096 14:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a WP:POINT violation. User was uncivil in response to me nominating a copyright violation for deletion yesterday and has some sort of vendetta against me, though the deletion nomination was valid and explained on IFD. [25] [26] [27]. Regardless, all images are free and used in an article, minus one in project space (a Wikimeetup) and one in userspace (a personal photo). If not speedily kept, move to MfD. — Rebelguys2 talk 15:56, 6 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 Proto||type 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huw aled lewis

edit

Delete non-notable professor at Edinburgh University. Fails WP:BIO and specifically the professor test since the article asserts no notability beyond being a lecturer (UK equivalent of an assistant professor in the US) Gwernol 14:34, 6 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 Proto||type 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communique Conferencing

edit

Even though this company gets over 600 ghits I don't think it is notable. If it was, it's unlikely that the anon editor they employ to linkspam the project would need to do so. Private company, no turnover, no employee data, no evidence of WP:CORP. And then there's the linkspamming. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Advertisement. Article fails to assert notability. No third party is writing about or discussing this company. There is an industry white paper here [28], where they appear as one of about 150 conferencing service providers. There are many more recognizable names on the list. The report is from 2003. Slowmover 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, WP does not exist as a linkfarm. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page mentions WebEx. I can't live without that application. If this were the company that developed WebEx I think it would easily pass notability tests regardless of number of ghits. But it's not, from their site " Communiqué's partnership with WebEx™ offers best-of-breed Web conferencing solutions. Voted best Web conferencing solution by PC Magazine and with over 64% of the web conference market share, WebEx is unequaled for security, reliability and functionality. " So... delete ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 10 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Wilson

edit

The high point of this football player's career seems to have been the reserves of a major club, and then a spell with second rank clubs. Is he really notable? DJ Clayworth 14:50, 6 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 Proto||type 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porkrunk

edit

Combination neologism and hoax. (Note: PROD tag removed by article creator) FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a rich, white kid in Chicago I can definitely assure you that this is a word. There is a rather large community of people using this word and I think the fact that I can meet a total stranger at a party and hear them use this word warrants its having it's own entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.111.128 (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 (7 good deletes, the 5 keeps were weak, unexplained, anonymous, first contribution and anonymous, in that order). Proto||type 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalton (porn star)

edit

There are several Mark Daltons of varying degrees of notability - I'd say this is one of the less notable. Total externally verifiable data: pretty much zero, if we use only reliable sources. Article is unencyclopaedic in tone. Porncruft, in other words. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion for now on notability, but when one googles for "Mark Dalton" the first thing that shows up is his personal webpage and multiple other porn sites. He has much more of a chance at notability than the male Gauge. JoshuaZ 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually a lot of those are for a genuine (non-porn) actor by the same name - that's not the porn star on IMDB, it's someone else. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the very first listing for "Mark Dalton" on Google is for this exact guy. YellowPigNowNow 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to say how absurd I think it is that all of these porn star articles are going up for deletion. If you check the playboy playmates on wikipedia, you'll notice the inclusion of tons of them, many having their own pages. I did a bunch more research on this man,Mark Dalton, and he was the 2002 Men magazine man of the year, the equivalent of playmate of the year for gay men. Suggesting these are somehow unworthy, while keeping all of the rest of the articles for hot women, is just hypocritical. YellowPigNowNow 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--Definitely keep. Dalton is one of the most notorious/famous gay (for pay) stars circa 2006.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty? 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vision house software

edit

Non-notable company. 27 google hits, no claim close to passing WP:CORP. Three non-notable articles in prod process. Prod deleted by article creator without comment. Weregerbil 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure advertising, as a note the authour is also removing the afd tag from the page.Benon 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • the author is trying to work out why wikipedia allows large corporations to advertise on wikipedia but not small businesses.....it smells quite bad. you are going off google hits to rate whether a company is worthy? how sad in a forward thinking world.
  • the author is also getting lost in the ridiculous amounts of links you place in your messages....one wonders where they are supposed to click to get the right informationFluidcreativity
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty? 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life of a Peasant

edit

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a repository for original research Habap 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is a user created map for Warcraft 3. The article tells you this, in bold, as the first sentence. World of Warcraft is an MMORPG in the Warcraft setting and the previous games are Real-time strategy games. Blizzard provides map making tools for their strategy games that can allow for complex rules and scripted events. Some people use this to make maps where the rules of the game are redefined or completely done away with (there are also some offical maps that do this). This is an example of one that is more of an RPG. See the Warcraft 3 article or StarCraft if you seek more information. Kotepho 12:15, 9 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. Flowerparty? 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gammby

edit

This is a vanity page WWC 15:36, 6 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 Proto||type 14:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The losses begin

edit

inappropriate title for article, should be in a merged episode summary article --Dunstan 15:41, 6 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. Flowerparty? 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee house

edit

Non-notable? I had trouble finding stuff on the band in Google GfloresTalk 16:21, 6 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 (nomination withdrawn) Proto||type 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraidy Cat

edit

A cancelled Disney film that is nothing but trivia. Please delete unless:

  1. The film is back in production
  2. Another meaning of this phrase that this title can be for exists. Georgia guy 16:21, 6 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elite Guard

edit

This was an extremly short lived TNA stable that is easy explained as Jeff Jarrett and his mercinaries in every article that features them, which doesnt even include Jeff Jarrett himself (no links even go to this page)... it is a poorly written, non-informative, non-notable article that shouldnt be featured in wikipedia --- Paulley 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

side note: its not the fact nothing links to it that's the problem it's the poor quality of the article if you want it kept then i would expect to see the article expanded and clearly written -- Paulley


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Proto||type 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sic And Sinister Industries

edit

Delete - no relevant google hits. No assertion of notability. Hoax? Wickethewok 16:48, 6 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 Alabamaboy as a copyright violation. --Rory096 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Installing hl2 mods

edit

Delete - clear violation of WP is not a how-to WP:NOT. Wickethewok 16:54, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeb Atlas (porn star)

edit

Non notable porn star. See also Mark Dalton (porn star) and Gauge (gay porn star) by the same author. The magazine he was "Man of the Year" in is barely notable enough to get a substub on WP. --Rory096 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure if he's notable, but I highly doubt those images are {{GFDL-self}}. GfloresTalk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, see my comment at one of those AfDs. His first image at Mark Dalton (porn star) was "unsure," so OrphanBot kept removing it from his articles (and he kept replacing it), so he must have gotten annoyed or something. --Rory096 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about the magazine's "notability" is incorrect. I checked Google and Men Magazine is a well-known magazine in the gay community, easily exceeding the circulation suggested by the guidelines. YellowPigNowNow 23:56, 6 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 as attack, also noting WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trangleball

edit

Doesn't seem notable. About 200 Google hits. Removing the insults doesn't leave much. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 6 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. SushiGeek 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENEW

edit

Support. Borders on vanity page, possible copyvio, verifiability problems. --metzerly 17:43, 6 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 (G7) by author request. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMoo

edit

Non-notable web-based software toy. This was originally put up for speedy delete for this reason, but the article's author has debated it in the article's talk page, so I thought this could do with some wider consensus Barneyboo (Talk) 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. eMoo is not only a software toy but is a cult icon in our local peer group. It is a humorous item we have and we would like to share it with the world. This is my first article and I am upset that you choose to riddicule something of ours, which I have prooved noteable. My Website is noteable as it provides graphical design services (3rd Party Reference: VGFuture). eMoo is neither rude or offensive and is a fully justified existant item.

The page you cite is not in itself of note - its forum has less than 100 registered members, for example. Also, please put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages so we know who's posting :) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsoft Designs does not pick or choose whom it designs graphics for based on the size of the website but on discussions and relations with the website owner. (sorry, didn know about the tidle thing) CarlBooth 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but that is irrelevant. You originally cited the website as evidence of a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, which it is not. It does not show the notability of your website, or of EMoo. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well how can I proove its notability then? The site is notable to people that use the graphical design services. And btw, its eMoo :) CarlBooth 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I'm trying to show you in a fairly long-winded way that if you can't prove its notability, it's because it is not notable ;) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is notable. Why are you being a Kill Joy? Im not offending anyone or causing trouble I'd jsut like our cow to be on wikipedia for people to chuckle about when browsing. CarlBooth 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm appearing to be a killjoy is because I choose to isolate the article from its author. You made a perfectly valid point that there are many policies, guidelines and criteria and it's close to impossible to know which are enforced, which are just unspokingly assumed and which are ridiculous. So, whilst this article is unlikely to threaten any endangered species, and I'm unlikely to lose too much sleep over it, I still have to make a judgement based on the various widely held perspectives about matters such as this. It just so happens there IS a widely-cited guideline for this very type of article, and since I have seen no verifiable evidence that it meets the criteria of WP:WEB the judgement I've had to make is that it is in Wikipedia's best interests to not include a somewhat frivolous advertisement. Make sure you've had a look at WP:NOT for similar information. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell that noone really cares? Its a bit of fun for christ's sake. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) MrLiam

Why would I advertise an 8-ball? I have removed the link to my website to show I have no interest in using it as advertisement. It is purely intended as an ammusing article to brighten the day of people who read it.CarlBooth 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. for cyring out loud, what is it with you people? I cant be bothered with you anymore, ive wiped the article and you can do wtf you want cos your all idiots. im just trying to make people smile and if all you can do is sit at your computer all day picking holes and pull it to bits then thats pretty sad for you.CarlBooth 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nn per their own admission: "a cult icon in our local peer group." --Hetar 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[sarcasm]Your observant![/sarcasm] You clearly havent read that I would now like this article deleted.

  • Delete non-notable meme(?) and unencyclopedic. Don't take it personally CarlBooth; you can make people smile at your website, but this is an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:12, 6 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. SushiGeek 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quad toilets

edit

Delete - no claims of notability. There is really no need to have this article about a specific bathroom. Wickethewok 17:56, 6 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.  Grue  18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embarazada

edit

WP is not a manual of how to speak good Spanish. Flapdragon 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Embarazado (pregnant -- and yes it should be quoted in the masculine out of context) is not even a word of English, and though the content may be useful it's certainly not an encyclopaedia article. Maybe Wikibooks could find a home for it? Flapdragon 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just has to be streamlined. Much of the article isn't notable, but the fact that it's so commonly misused as to be part of an international marketing campaign makes it worthy of an article. Much of the article can be removed, and the important parts expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiter (talk • contribs) , at 19:38, 6 April 2006
  • Strong keep. Responding to Flapdragon: An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge (it comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education.) This article is not a user's guide, it simply describes the word. This includes how it is usually used by people. The fact it isn't in English is irrelevant, as that sounds like an argument to delete other entries like "Russian language," as well. That article describes how Russian is spoken. Does that mean it is a how-to?--Primetime 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "Russian" and "language" are words of English. So in a Spanish encyclopaedia, would you expect to find English words commonly misused by Spanish people learning to speak English? No, an encyclopaedia is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of "all forms of knowledge" (and the Greek etymology is neither here nor there). For example, it's not a place for bus timetables, details of how to work my washing machine or your sister's school timetable. It's also not a manual of how to do things such as change a car tyre or speak a language. Articles on the grammar of a language are not aiming to teach you to speak the language, and more than a diagram of the brain is there to help you do brain surgery. Can I suggest read you read the page on What Wikipedia is not? I'm not saying what you've written is no use to anyone, far from it, but this is definitely not the place for it. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I were reading the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana--a Spanish encyclopedia with embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries--I would expect to see it. Also, Wikipedia is larger than the Espasa (as it is sometimes called). I have read "WP:NOT" several times, over time, and I think you are misinterpreting it. For example, there is the Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia passage, which states: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability . . . since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments". Finally, I hope you are not inferring that the entry is a collection of indiscriminate, non-notable information, as this word is used by millions of people every day. I think it illustrates how complex the history and usage of a word can be, and how much meaning can change over time. It also illustrates the need for native speakers when preparing advertising campaigns.--Primetime 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above -- the fact that WP has lots of space, the fact that a word "is used by millions of people every day", nor incidentally the fact you've worked hard on it -- makes this an encyclopaedia article. So in your ideal world you would just go through adding every word of every known language detailing its nature, etymology and possible misuse by non-natives? That would be, well, kind of, a dictionary, wouldn't it? Just like the ones you mentioned above. I'm not trying to be snide but I really think you need to sit back and think a bit about what an encyclopaedia is. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, under what circumstances do you picture anyone ever looking up the (Spanish) word embarazada in an English-language encyclopaedia? Flapdragon 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been here long. But this article does not fall under the description "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes" that do not belong in an encyclopedia...it's not a lesson on speaking Spanish, it's an exploration of a linguistic phenomenon. You'll find other such phenomena with their own articles, such as nucular. Whether or not someone would look up the word is irrelevant; no one can really judge what information someone will have a need for in the future. Who's gonna look up Atif Rauf? Keppa 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, maybe someone who's just heard the name Atif Rauf and wants to know who he is? Nucular is a word of English (well, more or less!). Embarazada is the Spanish for pregnant, and not even the citation form under which it would normally appear. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have a problem with the form of "embarazada" then suggest the article be moved, not deleted. Yes, "nucular" IS a word, just like "embarazada." Both have their own articles because both are examples of linguistic phenomena. I really think that because "nucular" is more well known, being English, no one's disputing its article, while this article remains under fire. Keppa 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a great example of a linguistic "false friend." If a major corporation made the mistake, I'm sure plenty of others with little Spanish training do also. I think the etymological comparison and the exploration of various aspects of the confusion are things that very much belong in an encyclopedia article, and considering the obvious amount of work that went into this, why get rid of it? Keppa 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're not judging the quality of the material or the points it makes but its suitability for Wikipedia, which is not a compendium of false friends. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see the Inclusionist community out in such force, but please guys, read WP:NOT. Also see http://en.wikibooks.org. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it and I don't understand what your issue is...could you perhaps cite a particular part? Keppa 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? As I've already mentioned more than once, WP is not there to teach you how to do things, for eaxmple to help you avoid pitfalls in learning a foreign language -- it's not an instruction manual, nor is it a usage guide, dictionary or manual of idiom: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" if you want a verbatim quote. I'm sorry but I really think I've explained this about as clearly as it's possible to. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Parts of the article do fit the passage you just quoted. But it is, for the most part, an acceptable encyclopedia article in my eyes. I think certain offending sections should be removed or altered to a more appropriate form, but I don't think deleting the article is the answer. Check Wikipedia:Delete; deletion is clearly the last choice, when all other forums have failed. That's what this discussion is for, and so far the people who have responded are overwhelmingly in support of the article. So try to fix it before you throw it away. I don't want all this work and an interesting article to be lost here. Keppa 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said (and I think this demonstrates that some basic concepts have not been fully understood here) that while some of the content may be useful somewhere, it's inherently inappropriate here -- which is the case with dozens of sort of useful or entertaining information. It's not possible to "fix" it, since there is no scope for an article on the "subject" of embarazada, which is a word of Spanish not a subject like Russian grammar. That's why it should be deleted. What's so wrong with simply giving it whgere it belongs? Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't know if this is relevant, but I notice that Keppa and Boddah were responding to Primetime's identical messages on their (and about 10 other) talk pages, asking them to vote simply because they were listed on the inclusionist wikipedians category. ConDemTalk 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. Nothing wrong with that, though. Thanks to Primetime for pointing it out to me because of our shared interest. It's not like we have an agenda. This is still my opinion. I reviewed the article and made my own decision. Notice he didn't say how to vote, he just asked us to vote. Keppa 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly "like you have an agenda". And yes Primetime did ask people to vote to support him. He contacted you without (AFAIK) any reason to believe you would have specific thoughts on this article, but because he saw your names on a list of people who inherently disapprove of deleting stuff. Furthermore he didn't just bring it to their attention, but specifically asked people (most of them very new to WP) to support him "as a favor" (or even "a huge favor"): "I would be greatly in your debt" -- no doubt a favour that could be returned when asked for. Even so only a few of the people contacted have shown any interest, so maybe that shows that even among hand-picked inclusionists itr's hard to find a much interest in keeping this one? Of course Primetime didn't mention that this was the reason for the sudden appearance of a troop of inclusionist cavalry over the hill. While I'm not aware of anything that specifically forbids this behaviour, this is certainly not the basis on which such decisions should be made or influenced. I wonder how it squares with good faith? Perhaps I should alert a gang of deletionists and then we can have a great big generalised debate about the merits of deleting versus retaining things?Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not quote snippets of my message out of context. I asked some people not to support me but simply to vote. Your first quote is not even what I wrote, so I think that it should be crossed out. In any case, tallying the votes of those who weren't invited shows that consensus is clearly for keeping the entry. Further, your assertion that Keppa has an agenda is unsupported by evidence. He has given a much more clearer rationale for keeping the entry than your "because my unique interpretation of a phrase in a policy told me to". (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition. That WP:NOT passage seems to me to be designed for banning descriptions of slang and dictionary definitions.)--Primetime 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context? How does the context change things, please? And if we're getting snippy, please withdraw your allegation of misquotation. The three phrases I quoted come directly from your appeal for support. Clearly the people you contacted wouldn't be doing you a "huge favor" by voting to delete your article. You appealed to their sympathy, but the question of how much work you'd done to it is of course not a valid argument for keeping an article. Again I ask, why would it hurt you to move your lovingly-honed text to an appropriate place? Flapdragon 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is largely over. But I want to re-emphasize just what an encylcopedia is by asking you to read these definitions from reliable dictionaries: Funk and Wagnall's (Encarta), Oxford Concise, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, Random House Unabridged, Cambridge, and The American Heritage Dictionary. They all emphasize how encyclopedias cover all fields of knowledge (or rarely, everything about one subject [e.g., literature]). You are advocating moving a two-page article from an encyclopedia onto a site for books. Think about how ridiculous that seems. It doesn't help that moving it there would make the entry nearly impossible to find (as no one would look for it there and few visit the site).--Primetime 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He may not have said "Vote to keep my page!" but he certainly implied that he'd like you to vote to keep it. Anyway, this is not a poll, it is a way of finding consensus, so no one is actually "voting" here. And I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought it might defeat the point of this if people go round asking people to give their opinion simply because they are inclusionist. I just wanted this to be taken into account when administrators try to see where the consensus lies. ConDemTalk 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that Keppa sincerely believes that the page should not be deleted. Your implication that he did so simply because I would like it if he did is proven false by his well-reasoned justifications given above. In fact, he has given the clearest justification of all the voters for his opinion. For example, you have not stated what you think deleting the page would accomplish. You have not stated why visitors to Wikipedia do not deserve to get an explanation when they type in embarazada in the search box. If one were to distill Flapdragon's reasoning for nominating the page it would look something like this: "Because a phrase in a paragraph designed to bar short definitions and slangwords from Wikipedia told me to do it." (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition.) In any case, those who browse through the articles nominated for deletion do not represent the general Wikipedia usership, so I'm unsure what your definition of "consensus" is.--Primetime 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I wasn't passing judgement - I'm new, and I noticed it, and thought it might be relevant to the discussion. My reasons for wanting the article deleted are that I don't think the word is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, and that Wikipedia ought to have articles on things, rather than words. I agree that the fact that the word Embarazada can be funnily confused is interesting, but an etymology of the word doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you remove this section of the article, you are left with a short fact about a false friend and an example of its usage which is now also on the false friend page. I also think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would try and find an entry for the word Embarazada in an English encyclopedia. ConDemTalk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said numerous times in numerous deletion votes, or whatever we're calling them now, telling people about a vote in progress isn't stacking the vote. I should hope that we're all independent enough to read the article and form our own opinions.
Speaking of which, I just did that, and will abstain due to an insufficient understanding of the material. Rogue 9 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but urging a dozen or so strangers to vote in a particular direction as a favour doesn't seem exactly in the spirit of the thing. Flapdragon 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles that contain information about etymology. I gather from this fact that etymology is something that the wikipedia community finds acceptable in an encyclopedia article, or they'd all be up for deletion. I think the comparison of etymology is appropriate in this article. The only thing I would object to is the many examples of possible usage of the word; I think this is what most people refer to when they say the article should be "streamlined" and I agree. If it doesn't directly relate to the linguistic phenomenon being discussed it should be removed.
But please don't complain about the army of inclusionists that has suddenly come to persecute you. Inclusionists do alert others of pages that may deserve attention. We're still free human beings. I reviewed the article and formed my own opinion. If there are people who share your viewpoint, they're obviously not aware of the issue, so find them and bring them here. It's really the only way we can even try to determine consensus. Keppa 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia debe estar avergonzado cuando nosotros quitamos palabras españolas famosas como está para nada. Que Lástima--God Ω War 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's three more words that should be added to WP on the grounds they can be misused by learners of Spanish: este (ésta), porque (por), que (qué). I'm not trying to score points, but where is this going to end? Presumably not till every word of every language has an entry in the English encyclopaedia. Surely we can all see that's ridiculous. Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, Flapdragon, but this seems to be such an important issue, that may well be required to be in the public eye, precisely because I am sure a lot of people will want to refer to it in an encyclopaedia and it has nothing to do with textbooks, tutorials or readers as such. We are not trying to teach anybody anything as such but it has become important enough to become a concept, and as the "embarazada" concept it has taken on a life of its own and people, will appreciate to be warned not to "embarrass" themselves using the word in the wrong context. By all means, use an disambiguation article and put all this and similar problem usages into it, but somewhere people should be able to read up on it in Wikipedia. It was bad enough to keep the English "hopefully" controversy out of Wikipedia's pages, but at least you would not have embarrassed yourself using "hopefully". But this... Well, I think it needs to be in Wikipedia. Dieter Simon 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've put the question twice now, but no-one has been able to explain how someone would find this entry (except perhaps by the far-fetched links from irrelevant articles that Primetime has been adding!). Hopefully is a different matter: it's a well-known linguistic controversy in English that someone might well look up to see what WP had to say on the subject. This is just one of untold numbers of mistakes English-speakers might make in translating into Spanish. Are they supposed to look up every word they produce in WP to see if it might be a mistake? And why the obssessive emphasis on this one single example of the well-known phenomenon of the false friend? Are we to expect in-depth articles on every foreign word an English-speaker might be misled by? The mind boggles. Flapdragon 12:46, 11 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 article was redirected — sjorford (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004-05 OHL Season

edit

This page is identical to 2004-05 OHL season, which is properly formatted without the capital letter on "season". BoojiBoy, 18:20, 6 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. Flowerparty? 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4

edit

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page has been deleted only by PROD and so it is not a speedy candidate for reposting previously deleted material; I removed the speedy tag and am listing here as a courtesy. No vote. Stifle 18:21, 6 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. Flowerparty? 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mogroide

edit

Unverifiable, does not google, non-notable. Note: Prod'ed, tag removed without improvement or comment. Accurizer 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • do not delete* he is an inspiration and thank God i found some one to write a short play about in my school-- 03.23, 7 april 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.193.38.10 (talk • contribs) .
  • you guys are very unfair, would you stop a erson from growing, just give him a chance although the articles' kinda scanty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.38.10 (talk • contribs)

thats no reason, am still working on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mogroide (talk • contribs) .

Comment Hi, Wikipedia has some guidelines on what makes a person notable - see WP:BIO. If Mogroide meets one of these criteria, please add verifiable sources to the article. Remember that the requirement for Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth" so you need to show that Mogroide has made an impact that has been recorded by third party sources. Otherwise it is likely this article will be deleted. Good luck, Gwernol 14:17, 11 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. SushiGeek 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Story Teller Discretion

edit

This article has been unsourced since January 2006 and the subject doesn't seem like a very notable term, based on what I find: [30] or [31] PJM 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or Very Weak Transwiki). At best, this is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic topic. However, I don't even think it merits a transwiki to Wiktionary, as it's simply an example of the use of the word "discretion". Fluit 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at closing admin's discretion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term isn't notable, just common words strung together. "Rule Zero" at least is a more common neologism for it that is more notable, but I wouldn;t suggest an article is needed for that one (didn;t check if there is one). DreamGuy 13:26, 9 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of games in the public domain

edit

First off, in it's current state, the list is wrong, and is completely uncited. Also, it is redudnant with various other entries on Wikipedia, like Abandonware and List of freeware games. It is simply un-needed. THollan 18:47, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Blogs

edit

Inherently POV-centric listcruft. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is an experiment in using community knowledge as a filter for authority. Technorati, Google Blogs, and other blog related search engines have constructed mathematic algorithms that do a poor job of filtering through unique content and informationally valuable blogs (primarily because of the relatively new explosion of blog popularity and the inherent vulnerabilty of the blogosphere to spam). I'm interested to track the progress of this page as it gets edited by wikipedia visitors, to see if "the group" can come up with a better top ten list than the search algorithms.

If allowed a significant lifespan on wikipedia, i beleive this page could generate a very interesting reference page on a) the wisdom of crowds theory, b) verticle blog communities, c) user perceptions of authority in the blogosphere. —This unsigned comment was added by Kbzimm (talk • contribs) .

Comment then this falls under WP:OR. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a forum for experiments like this, no matter how well intentioned or interesting. There are plenty of other places on the web where this would be a welcome addition. if it takes off, then an interesting Wikipedia article could be written about it. Gwernol 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm open to suggestions for other sites, but wikipedia is the only wiki-format site with such high traffic and participation. I expect it'd go thru phases of blog spam at first, but even out eventually to collections of "the most relevant accumulated knowledge on each subject."--kbzimm 20:47, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REC Studios

edit

Non notable, juvenilia Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 6 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 Userfied to creator user:Geoffreyclarke, clearly a personal work in progress. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romance (novel)

edit

Unsalvegable gibberish Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 6 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Baptist colleges

edit

This article has been tagged as original research for a month now and nothing has been done - I think because nothing can be done. Although it survived its previous AfD as no consensus, two months ago, and there were some thoughtful comments, the fundamental problem of the institutions not identifying themselves collectively (at all, let alone by this label) and a complete lack of any sources whatsoever remains unaddressed. Some proposed merging it with another article which no longer exists as it, too, was deleted as unverifiable and original research. The article is an orphan, the only inbound link in main space is a redirect, which itself has no inbound links. I think this is a hangover form the bad old days of the Gastrich Wars and should be given a quiet funeral. Just zis Guy you know? 19:20, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik S. Bäcklin

edit

Twice prodded as a hoax. No google hits on article title. 53 unique hits if you omit the middle initial. I can't read Swedish, but several of the hits are clearly different people. As far as I can tell, not notable (WP:BIO), not verifiable (WP:V). NickelShoe (Talk) 19:28, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiciest Hits

edit

The existance for the greatest hits album has been continuously denied by EMI and Virgin Records - not just in Britain, but in Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries. There is no evidence whatsoever that the album will be released - or if indeed ever even existed. It is pure speculation based upon an email recieved by a fan - who is known to be unreliable. Rimmers 19:33, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BFI (game)

edit

This article was nominated for deletion on 13:29, 1 April 2006 by User:Trevor macinnis, but the nomination was orphaned. Listing it now. Elkman - (talk) 19:34, 6 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 3x G7 speedy deletes at request of author. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celegaytions, Celegaytions.com, Www.celegaytions.com

edit

Just another website. There are millions of them, you know. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

I fixed the duplicate - it was accidental!

COMMENT: Look harder. Here is the google link. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=celegaytions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.108.130.11 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Um, I don't mean to be rude, but other than the first two Google hits, the rest all appear to be a massive spamvertising campaign of "customer" reviews and guestbook signings. Links from non-notable sites do not add to the notability of the website in question. The first two hits are to the website itself and to Delaware Pride, an unrelated organisation. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't mean to be rude either, but you act like this website is the holy grail, when basically everything on here is an advertisement.

Please delete Celegaytions.com today. We do not wish to be affilated with your site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.108.130.11 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment To do that, you'll need to sign into the account you created the articles under and request deletion by putting {{db-author}} at the top of each page you wish to be deleted. We can't delete on the say-so of an anonymous IP address. Thanks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:06, 7 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endor Holocaust

edit

Renominated for the 2nd time in hope that discussion will generate a clearer community consensus. Previous nominations: 9 May 2005, 19 November 2005

Delete Per WP:NOT:

1.3.1 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not primary (original) research such as proposing theories.
1.8.3 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Speculation on fiction is still speculation. See WP:FICT

If this article is actually about the debate on whether the Endorian Holocaust actually happened then delete per WP:CITE or WP:VERIFY since no reputable sources can be provided to verify that the debate even exists. Also the current page for Forest moon of Endor has a section of the Endorian Holocaust, which states "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. Page should be deleted. The stub in the Forest moon of Endor is all that is needed.--Geedubber 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous nomination four months ago, when these same issues were raised. This is article is not research or speculation original to Wikipedia, it is about other people's research and speculation - sources are cited liberally throughout. The nomination claims that no sources are provided to verify that the debate exists within the fandom when down at the bottom of the article in the clearly-labelled "external links" section are two links to very extensive pro- and con-Holocaust pages. As for the section in the article on the moon, after the first AfD an attempt was made to merge the whole subject in there and it was ultimately split back out again because it took up an inordinate amount of space there. Bryan 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that the point that fan discussions are not reliable verifiable sources was ever properly addressed. Ziggurat 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're reliable, verifiable sources for an article that's about fan discussions. I refer once again to Star Trek versus Star Wars. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things have changed. As I said above "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. PS. can someone help me list this on today AfD page, I had trouble getting it on.--Geedubber 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that only supports my argument. If Inside the Worlds sees fit to address the issue, that indicates it's considered significant even in official circles. The "topic" is not nullified by this. Bryan 08:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way. I think that proves that the discussion is cruft, not canon.--Geedubber 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the book addresses it in such a way that it's clear the moon was never damaged and that the supposed event never happened. I still think we can merge it in the Forest Moon article and note that it has been a significant discussion point between fans, but an entire article is overkill. Perhaps the forest moon article can get a link to the Star Wars Wiki. Surely they have a similar article there. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The first two nominations did not reach consensus, but there are virtually no verifiable sources for this, so it should absolutely be deleted unless reliable sources of the information can be found. Ziggurat 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does cite sources. Most significantly, these sources indicate that the debate has some presence within "official" material:
      • In one of the Star Wars Tales comics, an Imperial veteran of Endor makes an apparent reference to the holocaust theory, after telling the story of his unit's trouble with the Ewoks in a bar. Another character dismisses it as a myth, saying that most of the Death Star's mass was obliterated in the explosion, and that the Rebels "took care of the rest."
      • Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy describes how the Rebels managed to use shields and tractor beams to protect their strike team on the moon of Endor
      • The First issue of 2005's X-Wing minisiers from Dark Horse comics, begins one week after the battle and shows Rebel ships dousing a forest fire begat by debris from the Death Star.
    • And of course the two external links at the bottom of the article show how much attention has gone into the issue in the unofficial "fan" community. Other sources are cited throughout the article when specific issues such as the Ewok's survival post-RotJ are discussed. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability requires multiple reliable sources about the topic, and the information contained within the topic. Of the three official sources you cite, only one of them even alludes to the possibility of an Endorian Holocaust ("apparently"), and contains none of the information about it presented in the article. The other two refer to circumstances around the destruction of the second Death Star but don't actually talk about even a hypothetical Endorian Holocaust. Fan discussion is not verifiable, and the overuse of phrases like "are speculated to be", "Pro-holocaust debaters", "some also argue", and "has been proposed by fans" are indicative of inherent unsourced POV. Which fans? How many? How do you know this is a representative sample? Are you referring to Internet fandom only? This is the reason that verifiability is required, because these claims are not falsifiable or provable in any reputable source. Ziggurat 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire when ready, commander. Sorry, that should be delete. In May last year I said This is not canon. Everyone lived happily ever after, that's why they all were dancing (badly) at the end of the film. It wasn't in those awful books set after the films either. Delete, lest be we swamped with articles like Theoretical genetic mutations that would have arisen if Leia had married Luke or The sex lives of Ewoks. Is every piece of fan speculation on anything that exists notable? This isn't about being pro or anti star wars (I love Star Wars), or even about how much genuine Star Wars information deserves to be on Wikipedia, this is about non-notable non-canon unverifiable speculation about something that didn't happen in a film., comments I stand by. It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. And as a debate meme it isn't notable as say, Star Wars versus Star Trek. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So books don't count? Star Wars books are canon too. Just because it wasn't in the film doesn't mean it's unimportant. Feel free to vote delete, but don't use the argument it wasn't in the film on its own. You need to address the comics, books and other media too. - 131.211.210.17 09:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All books and comics refered to suggest it never happened. The only people who do are fans. Thus, Cruft.--Geedubber 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. In the books and comics that I have read (in some cases to my misfortune, Kevin J Anderson should be thrown into the Sarlac) that had references to Endor, said forest moon and it's irritating furry semi-sapient race were fine. Ergo it never happened. Thus not only is the debate pointless and daft in the extreme, but it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has). As such while maybe worthy of a brief mention on the Endor page (with the citations being used to show why the wretched place survived) or fthe Star Wars fandom page, it does not require a detailed examination of the evidence on it's own page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic conjecture. It's original research/speculation about a fictional event that exists only in fanon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. One thing deletionists forget is that this article is NOT about the theory itself. This article is about the PHENOMENON among the Star Wars fandom. It's purpose is to explain the issue, and give the two points of view. Please take that into consideration. The Wookieepedian 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I forgot so badly that I wrote it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has) and It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "among the Star Wars fandom" exactly! that means it is cruft!--Geedubber 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good grief, weren't two AFDs enough? --maru (talk) contribs 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculation, trivia, and industrial-strength fancruft. It's a real testament to the systemic bias against reality that this wasn't deleted sooner. Brian G. Crawford 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't there a Star Wars webspace or Wiki that this can live on instead? A description of the phenomenon experienced by some fans as they speculate about unfilmed non-canonical happenings. This appears to be on the upper limits of fancruft.  (aeropagitica)  21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:(aeropagitica). --Hetar 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention it in the Endor article. --Tone 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The paragraph this gets in Forest moon of Endor is more than enough. David Sneek 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with David Sneek that the paragraph in Forest moon of Endor is enough, and the whole thing is non-canonical at any rate (a notice on the Wookieepedia article notes that "Events, opinions, and individuals described in this arcticle are neither present in any authorized source nor claimed to occur in the Star Wars universe"). It might be worth adding the two external links from Endor Holocaust to the main Endor article, so people can read the arguments for themselves if they really care, but a seperate article is too much, even for me. I love Star Wars, but this is really exactly what Wookieepedia exists for. BryanG 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Wikipedia is not a crystalball for hypothetical fictional futures. Bucketsofg 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean hypothetical fictional pasts? In a galaxy far far away? *grin* Ziggurat 23:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Future" refers to ROTJ as the starting point, I guess. But nevertheless, we can't say if the Star Wars events happened in the past or future compared to our time. Their location in the timeline is simply unknown. - Sikon 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always assumed that the "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" in the opening of Star Wars referred to its relationship to our time and location. Not that it's important... :-) Ziggurat 04:12, 7 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. SushiGeek 05:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tchernobog

edit

A two-liner about a character in Blood (computer game) - It should be merged in that article, and the article change to a redirect to Chernobog, as it's an alternate spelling (of German origin) for the god, occasionally found in English sources. bogdan 20:14, 6 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 as a non-notable (probably non-existent) person.--Alhutch 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah dudziak

edit

Unverifiable, hoax article. Prod'ed after finding that he was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence as claimed. Author removed that claim with the prod tag. Upon further checking, John A. Campbell was the first Governor of the Wyoming Territory appointed on April 3, 1869. Francis E. Warren was elected as the first Governor of the State in September 1890. Also, I'd bet decaf coffee wasn't available in the 1700s. Reads like Forrest Gump of the American Revolution. Accurizer 20:19, 6 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painterwork

edit

After reading this EB-11 article, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't apply today →AzaToth 20:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and cleanup, possibly move to more appropriate title, possibly Painting techniques (currently a category with no main article by that name), merging any excessive content from the individual sections to the appropriate articles, leaving only a brief description. Add links to main articles where appropriate, such as Marbling. All of these techniques are still being used, and are considered skilled labour techniques. Some, such as gilding, are considered practically art forms, and skilled gilders are in demand. Consider also the historical aspect. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: those working on cleaning up and updating the 1911 Britannica articles have expressed a desire to keep such articles for the time being so that they are not mistakenly reuploaded (with all of the OCR errors and formatting, it takes a lot of work just to cleanup the articles enough to be able to post them to Wikipedia, let alone update them, so this is not a trivial amount of work). -- Kjkolb 12:29, 7 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automoboat

edit

Neologism. Prodded by another user as non-notable, but tag removed without comment. Eight unique google hits [32]. Delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:50, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furry Broadcasting Corporation

edit

Anonymous user removed {{prod}}, so posting here. Site does not meet WP:WEB. "Furry Broadcasting Corporation" returns 19 google hits from 13 sites. Official webpage is hosted on a subdomain, but even still *.jaieproductions.com has an Alexa rank of 3.5 million. Delete or possibly Redirect to 2 the Ranting Gryphon Vslashg (talk) 20:50, 6 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. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana jagarana sena

edit

Press release? News report? Unencyclopedic. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:55, 6 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 - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latent human factor

edit

"Latent human factor" gets seven google hits. None when filtered by "Lisa Williams". The survey "published online" is a blog. If this is a real study, there should be real sources. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe this is a joke article. User:Reyhani, not the article creator, but the blogger cited, removed external links in the article and the prod notice without comment. I'm not sure why, but the article still appears unverifiable. I'm open to verification if provided. Otherwise, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly, it might be unverifiable right not, but see what happens in a few weeks time when this study is circulated in academic circles. Being new to wiki I am sorry for any mistakes on our part but please do not just dicredit this study. This study is of great importance to our interpretation of how teams work when they have to succeed. It explains the phenomena of why "underdogs" win at time when it seems impossible. In short, please bear with us. We hope to also post the entire study or at least important pieces of it. We feel that this study is a contribution to the content of wiki and will be appreciated by informed readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs) 17:48, April 6, 2006.

What a pity that you are all looking at this matter so pesemistically to not value good material. Can WP not pride itself by being timely and even ahead of other medias. WP should be proud to contain such material and I truly hope that this research will not be deleted and we will not be robbed of this valuable contribution. PS googling something should really not become a standard of judging, especially when we are dealing with fresh academic research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs) .

  • I understand your position, but "fresh academic research" needs peer review, yes? And Wikipedia doesn't have the kind of setup to do that, so we have to wait it out. You read WP:V and WP:OR, I assume, but simply disagree.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusible plug

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 keep without prejudice against a re-nomination for individual articles. This is too many articles, only tangentially related to each other, for there to be any meaningful consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 please relist seperately. -Doc ask? 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Rayburn

edit

This is a child actor that appeared in 5 episodes. Not notable. And the same goes for more soap opera child actors (funny, several of them played Kyle Jenkins on The Young and the Restless). IMO, cildren that appear in the show without singificant contribution, do not belong into enciclopedia. MAybe when they become adult and perform in prominent productions with important roles but certainly not now.

--Tone 21:16, 6 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 05:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadha

edit

Excuse this confused AfD nomination... This editor has added several identical articles under many different titles. Some of them he was kind enough to upload with nonsense vandalism intact, allowing for G1 deletions. Others are like this one - I don't think the article matches the title and the picture. So the question here (and it is a valid one for AfD to consider) is: can this article be rescued or should it just be vaporised? No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge in case it is the same person, otherwise Delete as it is confused. --Tone 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redraft to be about the correct person even if it's a minor stub.
Note that I've been a little bold and created Asin Thottumkal, turning Asin (actress) into a redirect as that is what I understand to be the case with all people known by a nickname or pseudonym. MLA 10:43, 7 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Mark 5

edit

As the article states, there is (as yet) no such coaching stock, the 390 vehicles aren't designated mk 5 LHCS, and although a future possibility (see HST2), anyway is a WP:NOT a crystal ball. See also cruft. — Dunc|☺ 21:26, 6 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 and expand. Kusma (討論) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealership

edit

dicdef UtherSRG (talk) 21:46, 6 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. -Doc ask? 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarabbean Society

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 keep. SushiGeek 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veloso (artist)

edit

Abstain This is a page about me. I don't make this nomination lightly: It feels slightly improper to nominate "your own" article, and as such I have abstained from voting. I feel odd simply nominating it, and have posted an essay for those who want to know my thoughts and motivations. That said...

Animation may be notable but artist is not. Personal web page has Alexa rank of 1.2 million. Article is a stub that doesn't appear it can ever be suitably expanded. Redirect to Yatta#Irrational_Exuberance and fix disambiguation page Veloso to do the same. Vslashg (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's not that I'd prefer not to be on the wiki. Having an article here is actually pretty cool. I'm just not sure how the article could ever be expanded beyond its stub state. If Wikipedia concensus is to keep, I'll happily live by that. I'm not on a crusade to get the article removed, and beyond my notability concerns, I don't have any problem with the article existing. Vslashg (talk) 07:32, 7 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. -Doc ask? 12:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical Power Levels

edit

Absolutely no proof, sources quoted, badly formatted...just pure fanon. Delete. Thanos6 22:40, 6 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. GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Ljalková

edit

No real notability claimed, although she had a pretty productive military career. Google pulls less ~125 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:37, 30 March 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!
Stifle 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle 22:42, 6 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 both as self-referetial dictionary definitions. Kusma (討論) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia war and WikiWar

edit

Irony of ironies, it appears we have a bit of a war going on over whether WikiWar or Wikipedia war is the name used for an edit war on Wikipedia. One must die... or redirect to the other... or both can go if it's a self-reference. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text at WikiWar implies that the creator copied all the text from Wikipedia war, not having enough seniority to be able to just move the article (isn't the threshold 25 edits?). Henning Makholm 00:22, 7 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. (I would relist for too few votes, but since no-one is arguing for deletion, it seems pointless. This closing should not prejudice an immediate renomination, if someone wishes to presss for deletion)-Doc ask? 12:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboos Pourgol

edit

Tagged as a non-notable bio, but the article does assert notability (an album with 3 hit singles and heavy international airplay). I haven't checked to see if these are verifiable or not. no vote. Thryduulf 22:46, 6 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.  Grue  18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Starcraft

edit

Delete: Game instructions and strategies aren't encyclopedia material. Lhlhlh 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: ShardPhoenix fails to disclose that he/she is a previous contributor to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.90.110 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete cruft, and yes it reads exactly like a cross between a manual and a gameplay guide. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You guys seriously need to read the article. I admit I used to contribute to the article, and I've been a fierce opponent of fancruft, but realize the article isn't so much about how to play the game as much as an analysis of the gameplay and the professional scene. It's well written; it's not just a compilation of strategies; at the very most it should just be rewritten. Certainly not deleted.--Etaonish 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Request I don't see how any of this is "cruft" in the sense of being either a strategy guide or a manual. Can someone quote some objectionable section if you think so? I didn't write the upper sections but to me they read like a description (that could be useful to a number of people), not a prescriptive guide. People seem to be aggressively slinging around terms like "fancruft" just because this is an electronic game. I doubt a similar description of a sport would attract this level of negative attention. Even if the article needs to be modified somehow, simply deleting it would seem a huge waste given the large amount of information here that is not easily available in compiled form elsewhere. Also see Magic:_the_gathering for an example of a similar article that is also perfectly worthy of Wikipedia (it's even on the "good article" list). ShardPhoenix 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MtG article isn't similar at all, actually. Transwiki-ing it into the existing StarCraft wikibook would save the effort from being wasted. -156.34.95.245 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do apparently have things such as Category:Football (soccer) tactics and skills, American football strategy, American football defensive schemes, American football rules, Category:American football plays, etc so there is clearly acceptance of this sort of thing. That doesn't mean I like it though. Kotepho 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIN -156.34.95.245 13:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a gameguide at all, but a reference for game mechanics and history of professional players. This featurette has a wealth of information and the author put a ton of research into it. The analysis of gameplay is spot on, this article is very well written and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.183.233 (talk • contribs)
Still doesn't belong on WP. 156.34.95.245 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there someone besides the anonymous IP user crusading against this article that would like to comment on:
    • How this is different from the football articles noted by Kotepho, and the MtG article (which is in fact quite similar, especially many of the subarticles)
    • What sections in particular are "cruft" (As ShardPhoenix pointed out, it isn't a manual so much as a guide to the mechanics of the most popular nonMMORPG online game; it isn't a strategy guide so much as a description of what top-level games are like)
    • Why things like player rankings (objectively determined) are not permitted for an electronic sport, but entirely permissible for say, tennis
    • Why deletion is preferable to say, putting up a request for sources; cleaning up some of the bad sections. Considering the fact that so many think it is an encyclopedic entry, do you really think it merits deletion insofar as it is "beyond hope to ever become an encyclopedic entry?" --Etaonish 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the accusations of cruft seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it happens to be on a game. As a non-player of Starcraft, it seems entirely permissible to me, considering what else we allow on Wikipedia.--TheEvilLibrarian 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a player of starcraft, I still think it's cruft. The majority is OR; the rankings may be barely notable but it could go either way. --Mmx1 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has anyone seen how much time has been put into this article? Take a look. You delete it and relevant encyclopediac information goes down the tube. This article isn't a "guide", it merely describes the mechanics of the game and how professional gamers play. Relevant information.--Nissi Kim 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this should be in wikibooks- Melaen 16:08, 11 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. -Doc ask? 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TR-3B Stryker

edit

Homemade flight sim aircraft. That's it: a non-notable fake aircraft for a PC flight simulator, created by a group of hobbyists with pretensions ("Made by Aeroworks-Technologies...", which was the subject of a speedy deletion today. Calton | Talk 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is there some way of speedying this? Proto||type 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. PJM 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A homemade aircraft for flight sim 2004 that is extremely popular/notable at 3000+ dowloads from just one website. Made by one of the most notable concept developers for flight sim. Whats wrong with listing a concept Flight Sim aircraft? Not so different from the X-02 model under fictional aircrft in my opinion. The TR-3B is based on a rumored aircraft in the real world named the TR-3A Black Manta. This artical has been aronund sine 2005. If its the fact that I added a snip about who made it, I can simply delete it if thats the main problem here. Elgae Nacirema 04:03, 31 March 2006
    • 1) The fact that an article flew under the radar (as it were) says nothing about its value or whether it should be kept.
    • 2) The "this other article exists, so mine should too" argument is one of the most common -- and least successful -- arguments seen around here. It's also irrelevent: we're talking about this article, not any other. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is just pointing out you are pretty well going after the same thing my friend. If you're going after this, you might as well go after all the other fictional aircraft. --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk · contribs), 05:55, 31 March 2006


  • Keep I agree with the above statement. 3000 plus downloads seems pretty notable. As a designer of Flight Simulator Aircraft I must say EVERY aircraft is notable and unique, even if it has been modelled after a real world aircraft. To have a wikipedia aritcle on a unique aircraft that MAY BE real, but has been modelled in a flight simulator constitutes a unique and notable a)article and b) aircraft. To say that the aircraft is not unique is to say that every fictional plane or aircraft based on rumor is not unique...and obviously this is not the case at hand. Although I see how bandwidth may be an issue, I do not agree that the stipulation of non-notable applies. That would be the equivilent of saying a hand built model is not unique, and each modeled aircraft for flight simulator is painstaikingly modeled part by part. ASSUMING the black manta is not real (which it may or may not be, I don't know) just because there is an article about an aircraft that was made for a flight simulator is in itself unique. Therefore the aircraft itself is not entirely unique, however, it is notable that a designer went through the effort to build an aircraft. I will also add that this aircraft is worth of distinction and has already won an award from another design group. I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. As per your guildlines for deletion, all of the titles of non-notablility, non-excellence, and not worthy of distinction do not apply.MachJok 04:42, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, AND NOT THE LAST
    • I have adequately shown that this aircraft is both unique and worthy of distinction and excellence. Ah, making an argument and judging the quality of the argument, both done simultaneous. No no, one person makes the argument and others decide the argument's validity, that's how it works, otherwise it's just talking to yourself.
    • And as for our guidelines -- which according to you, you understand better than anyone else here despite this being your very first edit -- look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) for some hints as to why this very minor piece of a minor hobby is up for deletion. --Calton | Talk 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton, I claim not to be an expert on wikipedia, my username maybe new but I have been using wikipedia for years. I do not appreciate your assumption that I believe myself to be a self proclaimed expert, and would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth thank you. MachJok 05:51, 31 March 2006
      • I put no words in your mouth, merely observing your (sadly common among new posters here) behavior. As for your "self-proclaimed" -- well, you had no trouble proclaiming rhetorical victory based on your interpretation of policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis aircraft, although fictionary, has a significant impact on the users of Flight Simulators. This aircract is, to my knowledge, a commonly "flown" aircraft in the world of flight simulator. People deserve to know the origins of the aircraft; similar to the reason why people need to know about the orgin of the United States just on a smaller level. If this article is deleted, it might fluster up some commotion within the Flight Simulator community. There are also lesser articles on Wiki which i will leave unamed that make this article stand out beyond belief. Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts and concerned regarding this article. kflyer89 05:35, 31 March 2006 User's first edit

You can't judge the aircrafts popularity based on google hits my friend, mainly because there are only a few MAJOR flight simulator sites where you can download such things, Flightsim.com, and simviation.com are the two most major sites to download aircraft for flight sim, and if you were to look up the aircrafts stats just at flightsim.com you would see that there are 3000+ individual downloads... If you need proof of the aircrafts downloads, then go to www.FlightSim.com and do a .zip search on tr3bjt.zip. At the time of posting this it had Downloads: 3226 --MongoComment actually by 24.152.131.230 (talk · contribs), 05:58, 31 March 2006


  • Here are the notability guildlines:

Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer. A single story in major news media or an independently written book would be sufficient, but multiple works would be needed for lower-profile sources.

2. The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer.

3. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.

4. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that for very large distributions such as Debian, some of its packages are not widely used; use judgement or statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest.

5. The product is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization. (ibid.)

6. The software has won an independent award or honor, including mention as one of the top ten applications in its class in an independent published list. Notes:* Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it.

- * The number of users has been considered for some times as a criteria for notability; however, a fixed number does not make sense when evaluating different kinds of software, and agreeing on a specific number does not seem feasible.

- * Software that can be proved to have a consistent number of users (beside the creator(s) and their friends) but do not meet the above criteria may be merged into the article describing their main functionality (for example, JoeBloggsDiskEditor may be merged into a section of disk editor.)


1) does not apply, this work is not trivial. you may find the aircraft at www.flightsim.com, www.simviation.com/aeroworks and others.

2) does not apply, 3000+ downloads plus numerous repaints is influetial, as no degree of influentiality has been required this does not apply.

3) This is a core product for this developer. Not everyone is a bigshot like M$. size of a developer is irrelevant. unless the name adds profit, since this is NON-PROFIT it is irrelevant

4) Are you telling me that 'ALL of the fictional aircraft are part of a "major operating system distribution"??

5) Not all of the fictional aircraft are well known...sorry this stipulation is irrelevant

6) THE SOFTWARE HAS WON AN INDEPENDANT AWARD see http://www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com/CDAAWARDS.htm

As I have shown the article follows wikipedia's guildlines. MachJok 06:09, 31 March 2006

Ah, yes, more unilateral declarations of victory. However:
1) "Because I said so"? Less than a convincing argument for saying it's not trivial. See Begging the question. And finding a piece of software on a website doesn't a priori make it non-trivial.
2) That barely rises to the level of assertion, let alone argument. How many copies of Flight Simulator have been sold? What percentage is 3,000 downloads of that? Why does such a remarkably influential thing like this get only 18 unique Google hits?
3) You somehow left off the adjective "notable" from "software developer". Hmmm.
4) Irrelevent/inapplicable.
5) Clearly fails, though not really applicable.
6) Ah yes, the "Team MoTIS" award. Clearly very major, despite that fact that "Team MoTIS" gets only 21 unque Google hits and '''www.motisvirtualjetdesign.com''' shows NO incoming links according to Google.
  • Your comments fail.
1) This article also fufills the first criterium.
2) the number of FS2K4 copies sold does not reflect anything, every plane is influential in someway and once again no definition of influential has been given.
3)Are you saying that I have to be a big wig to post my stuff on an open source encyclopedia? hmmmmmm I thought encyclopedia's where about expanding the knowledge of the human race and sharing it with others.
4)you are right #4 is totally inapplicable to either argument
5)No generalization....on any of the fictional aircraft
6)The Motis award fufills the stipulation for an independant award. web engines are not reliable for "unique" or incoming links.

Re-rebuttal

1)Objectively speaking it fufills the terms of deletion There you go, I'm glad you agree with me.
2) If you're going to claim that this is "influential", its installed base as a percentage of FS2000/FS2004 copies in circulation is completely the point. Once again no definition of influential has been given. Then why the claim it is?
3) Boy, as Wolgang Pauli once said, that's not right, that's not even wrong. What it is, is a bunch of tangential handwaving.
6) The word "objectively"? I do not believe it means what you think it means.

--Calton | Talk 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

First, This is not a "ballot stuff" - I don't know who originally put up the TR-3 article but I am sure they never thought it would get contested. Really, deleting things from an encyclopedia? I am the designer of the aircraft in question so consider my bias. I use wikipedia religiously, and to see one of my own creations on this site was the realization of the sum of all our efforts (I didn't create this plane alone) and to the impressiveness of how the Wikipedia works. How do you define notable? I think the fact that the Federation of American Sceintists has their own page on the alleged aircraft TR-3 speaks volumes. A quick google search on the aircraft in question should yield plenty results. Or perhaps it's the fact that it is an aircraft for Flight Simulatorand you may be thinking the flightsim hobby itself is not of any notoriety. If you go to www.flightsim.com and do a file search for *.* all your doubts about the popularity of the flightsim hobby will swiftly be laid to rest. What is the problem with leaving the article? Logic suggests, that if it's not notable to you - don't read it. Leave it for those who enjoy such things and let it go. Alot of aircraft designers for FS make aircraft such as Boeings and Cessna's - this is the rule and not the exception. People get what they expect when they download common aircraft. But every once in a while an aircraft comes along that people download and they just have to ask the question "why not?" When people download an aircraft such as the TR-3 it makes them wonder and ask questions. It inspires creative and constructive thought - something all too rare nowdays. That is the driving force behind what I do and why I make "fake airplanes" So it's fictional - yes. So is Star Trek - it's still here. So it was created by a bunch of flightsimmers - yes. Pretentious? - Well it's not any more pretentious than people who feel they are obligated to correct and cleanup things, and leaving it here would do no more harm that useless pages such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton You see, in our hobby alot of people spend their hard time making things for free - Microsoft has known this for years and has always created their sims as an "open source" that anyone can edit and modify as they see fit (Hello Wikipedia...?) red_ace1 12:14, 31 March 2006 User's first edit, quelle surprise

  • calton, I appreciate your personal message. I did not delete anything but that red box. Do no accuse me of deleting comments, those are people's personal ideas that I would never touch. So please once again: do not put words in my mouth and do no accuse me of actions that I did not commit. That red box does nothing but discouraged a vote.MachJok 06:36, 31 March 2006
    • I did not delete anything but that red box. You deleted that box -- period/full stop -- which the weasel-wording of "anything but" doesn't change -- and your claim also happens to be untrue: you changed "User's first edit": you DON'T do that. Capiche?
      • are you making a personal threat? If this is open source why can i not change anything that is directly related to ME and you made an INVALID comment about me deleting a comment. I deleted no comment. Ma tu pensi che puoi usare Italiano a un Italiano? Ma va.
    • That red box does nothing but discouraged [sic] a vote. Read what's in that box, and the fundamental misunderstanding in your sentence will become clear. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have thank you for your help.MachJok 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepWhy get rid of it? I think it's a neat idea and it's also something that has a right to be on here. This is a stupid dispute to get rid of it CmpsdNoMore 01:12, 31 March 2006User's first edit, quelle surprise
  • Merge all fictional aircraft into 1 article, leaving redirects as appropriate. The information remains, but it is clearly flagged as fictional. Non-notable craft can be elided as the transfer progresses, and someone knowledgeable can monitor subsequent additions. -- Simon Cursitor 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the better idea in my opinion. --Mongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.131.230 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 March 2006, and altered by User:Elgae Nacirema

  • Merge all I agree but those stipulations are still there and prevent people from making articles about not well known aircraft. Deleting this article does more harm than good. You are saying that you get to decide what people get to see, now for profanity and illicit articles yes i agree but not about an article that has none of thoseMachJok 08:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Not an especially well-crafted article, but hardly a candidate for deletion. Simon Dodd 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • current vote as of 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) is 6 - 4 infavor of keeping the article.


Calton - please stop putting silly remarks after our names because it is our first post, big deal - we havent had a need to post before today - accept it.

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!
Stifle 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, and noting what I perceive to be sarcasm, what does that have to do with the validity of this nomination? It has to do with flight-sim, not real life. YellowPigNowNow 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • excuse me but would you mind EXPLAINING why you think this is non notable. and if you would like to seach the database of Flightsim.com and look at all of the conceptual aircraft 3000+ downloads is quite significant for the type of aircraft that it is. plus it fufills the articles of deletion. all aircraft could be argued not to have an impact of the flight simulator community, there are so many aircraft out. However, the fact that someone not affiliated with the company dedicated the time to create an article about this aircraft shows that it had an impact. And Obli most of the Fictional Aircraft have NOTHING to do with real life...unlike this aircraft which is rumored to actually exist. The purpose of Wikipedia was to create an online encyclopedia that people could access. If you want to split everything up into Fictional and Non-Fictional on 2 seporate Wiki's good luck handeling the overlap.....and Obli are you telling me that ALL the article contain only "deep, esoteric knowledge"??? AND WHY is every one counting google hits? the plane will be more widely sene on the download page for Flightsim.com not the company page...........you are making assumptions that have no credibility...google hits count for very little when the most widely seen page is the page on flightsim.com where it is downloaded. So far the main aircraft has been downloaded 3266(main aircraft) + 560(non company repaint) + 372 (non company repaint) = 4198 times....where as the most identifible airliner the 747-400 has been downloaded 9107 and both were put up within a month of each other, and for a concept aircraft that is really good. If you want proof look through all of the concept aircraft at flightsim.com MachJok 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You may receive more favorable results from improving the article rather than arguing here. I would also point out that the 747-400 has notability outside the scope of a flight sim model, and is probably not a good example for comparative purposes. In other words, a dedicated article about a particular flight sim model representation of the 747-400 would probably be equally (in)appropriate for inclusion. --Alan Au 08:25, 11 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. -Doc ask? 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalachakra King

edit

Jonas Silk has no past on Wikipedia and is requesting deletion practically exclusively for this page. He created his account at Wikipedia just for this. Not reliable. Request for deletion to be rejected by Wikipedia. No experience on Wikipedia. Sock Puppet. Unreliable. Geir Smith 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removal of deletion tag and clean up tag. Wikipedia policy on deletion says that deletion should not be problem and create unnecessary disruption. In the case of doubt one can always keep the article and/or undelete an article. This is a case of doubtful nomination.Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have a link to the latest person, Nat Krause and his intervention on the deleting process of another page in which he shows excessive use of deleting without exchanging, and thus shows unrestrained use of his account bordering on vandalism but also POV in view of his belonging to a religious group. Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now today, Nat Krause deleted two times without previous talking to people on one page, repeatedly (the same section of the same page), in his usual pattern of behaviour. POV and against Wikipedia of wrongful deletion. I've warned him there that three reverts in less than a day makes his editing rights be suspended by policy : so he's been warned if Wikipedia chooses to suspend him. His vandalism is wrong and his POV in his obstinate reverting and deleting is also wrong. How much can one stand from the same person over and over ? Geir Smith 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new version of the deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kalachakra. It's a POV fork of Kalachakra, most of which is reproduced wholesale. unsigned by Jonas Silk

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!
Stifle 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment:: I believe that this is at least the 3rd delete on articles within this direct subject-area, and on at least 2 I feel sure I have seen notes that there is a "dispute" on theological grounds between two sides. I know nothing of either, but I feel that whichever admin resolves this nomination needs to be sure that Wiki-process is not being used to push one PoV and throttle another. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite plausible that there is a real theological dispute here. Unfortunately, this has never been documented on Wikipedia with anything resembling useable sources; instead, what we get is a series of half-intelligible rants citing mostly unrelated websites. Assuming that there is an underlying real-world controversy, it's actually quite unfortunate that the one user who seems to know about it has so far been unable to productively add info to Wikipedia about it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a dispute about this. Simon Cursitor, the camps that are hashing it out in this are the following : the Dalai Lama camp that's trying to silence the camp of Shugden that suports a kind of demon-spirit called the King-spirit aka Gyalpo or "Dolgyal", another of its names. Then there's the camp of others that are not really concerned with this mess in politics of Tibet, which is my Sakyapa, (Ngorpa) school, Tibets second bieggest behind the Dalai lama school (both the feuding parties above - Dalai and Shugdens - are of that same school feuding amonst themselves !!!). ALso compounding on this dispute and overlapping it is another closely related dispute : that around Jonang. They're actually the same because Shugden was taken from our Sakya school in the 17th cent. and used by the Gelugpas and produced their fighting about it today. (It's very complicated unless given good space on the page to elaborate scholarly a bit and not just quick like here). Now, Kalachakra was the main teaching of Jonang and passed down to all from it. It's main master was Taranatha. Now the person who knows about this all is me. I can make this page go in other directions : englobing the subject of the king-sprit and the Jonang page of Ban on Jonang. This will thus make it lose even more of what was part of the Kalachakra page (which is already not important on it). I know this seems complicated for those who don't know about it, but I'm tryig to explain here. Those who know here, will understand this though, and maybe weigh in seeing the intent is honest and good on my side. I can make an effort to reformat and wikify the page. I can encyclopedize it with references to all the words in the first introductory part and so forth. I've never taken the time to go into such detail because of the flak from either of these parties involved always meddling in each and every move I make. Now the people intent on getting me deleted are doing so from POV motives because they're either with the Shugdens or with the Dalai. There are also those who want to further the ban on the Jonangs against the Kalachakra being claimed back by the Jonangs and this is POV too, of course. This is furthering a three hundred year old ban. But all these guys want me deleted so they can basically go back to bashing each other. My article doesn't really bother them, because I speak about neither of them, just about my own schools approach that's non-sectarian and non-confrontational, being part of a tradition that came before them, and has no links to them (either of them). The Jonangs belong to my school before the Dalai school took it over and banned it forcefully. If I can get even half a mandate to be able to work peacefully and just work on making this page legible, well good. Or else I give up. These boys jumping me and ganging up for lynching because this is a disputed subject makes me laugh honestly, because it's like building a sand castle in a hurricane. They're so POV that it's laughable too. So, yes, Simon, it's a disputed subject. The people deleting it will only go POV back into in their own camp and the subject will still; not have been resolved. I propose to make a different article altogether and take it into real historical research without POV whitewashing which is what is going on at the other page that doesn't accept anyone giving a different version of a history that they admit themselves is "a mass of contradictons" (that's what they say on the page itself. Ha ha ha ! They can't go forward and are too stubborn to back up and admit they're stuck in deep trouble. Ha ha ha ! None of them have done my research and can't even match their own facts up. They just say they don't know and it's all full of contraditions. Ha ha ha !). If I get that mandate peacefully from you all, then I admit you all pitch in for correcting and so forth but not all the POV attacks. I can scale down the similarities of the pages and make up for different approaches to the subject. We can enlarge the new approaches and minimize the common parts. This is thus an honest proposal to solve a problem that indeed is an internal Tibetan dispute. I'll make all efforts to make this good with all my best efforts. I'd like people to carry this with me and bear with me in this. This is not a clear and easy case but a difficult thing to be worked out peacefully and relying rather on scholarship than on fanatical POV writing. Geir Smith 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is Rudy Harderwijk, (webmaster of www.kalachakranet.org, www.jonangfoundation.org and www.rimebuddhism.com); if I may give my POV; I think the basic information on this page is OK, but this page is called Kalachakra Kings - to begin with, an expression I've never seen or heard of before, then the page meanders out on all kinds of subjects - very good as such, but why is that information not simply where it should be - on the pages of the Kalachakra tantra, Shambhala etc.? All the references to the "ban" and Shugden give the strong impression that this page was not created to supply information, but to give a POV. (Rudyh01 - April 9, 2006).

  • Kalachakra is a page that doesn't respect NPOV. It's not a space where anyone but the Dalai lama followers can write. It's a cult-following ambiance recreated on a Wikipedia page... using Wiki for POV purposes. Plus it admits itself that "its sources from Tiebtan historians are a mass of contradictions". So, that's the blind leading blind, (even admitting it themselves). Better be on ones own and sticking to real scholarship. Kalachakra is all lies and blind. Don't bluff people with your fake sites, Rudy. You know your site closed down because the things I published didn't jell with the offical Dalai Lama line. Don't try to tell people here you're just an innocent poster. You're here to bait me for the Dalai Lama. He's not that kind of person but compassionate and you're using him for your own agenda : protecting your sites that would be invalidated by this page because it invalidates most of your outdated, sectarain and POV data. Admit that much, eh ! You're trying to claim that the Dalai lama didn't ban the Jonangpas in the 17th cent. Ha ha ha ! Geir Smith 22:10, 10 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 and delete. SushiGeek 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trains Command

edit

Dicdef which doesn't seem capable of expanding to be a proper article Kcordina Talk 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to Wiktionary. This article is just a definition... --Francisco Valverde 18:59, 30 March 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!
Stifle 22:43, 6 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. — FireFox • T [11:34, 12 April 2006]

Warring Factions

edit

Non-notable browser game. -Lhlhlh 18:22, 9 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. --JoanneB 10:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal branding

edit

Article reads like a sales pitch, totally unencyclopedic and non-contextual, half of the article consists of vanity editing, while the subject of the article seems legit, judging from a Google search, there's no way of understanding what the article really is about at its current state, and having it around certainly doesn't improve things. It might qualify as a neologism too, I'm bringing it here because I'm uncertain. -Obli (Talk)? 23:06, 6 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. --JoanneB 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakland

edit

Non-notable bass guitar company. Delete. DMG413 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lakland is a very prominent bass guitar producer in the United States, and has dealers in 20 countries. Lakland's bass guitars are considered as some of the best production basses available, are endorsed by several influential and highly regarded artists, and have received national recognition numerous times through publication. "Non-notable" is nowhere in Lakland's description. (255,000 Google Hits, By the way.) Stephenrheard 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lakland is a bass guitar company that has created a unique series of instruments that major artists and recording session players have adopted as their primary instruments. (UTC)
  • Keep. Lakland is a reputable instruments company whose basses are used and endorsed by professional bass players worldwide. Their sound and workmanship is second to none, and their customer service is without parallel in the industry.
  • Keep. Used and endorsed by major studio players and recording artists throughout the world, both old and young. Attention to detail is superb, value for the dollar excellent. Revolver323
  • Keep. Lakland is a widely known and respected manufacturer of high quality bass guitars used by many top name professionals. However, if the likes of the Rolling Stones and U2, as well as bass playing icons such as Joe Osborne, Bob Glaub and Jerry Scheff are "Non-Notable" then I guess Lakland would be also.
  • Keep. The endorsement list and signature models offered by this builder make up a who's who of the bass playing world. The basis for the designs are from time tested classics, refined by many of the best players out there.HighMileage
  • Keep Lakland is possibly the most notable bass manufacturer to crop up in recent years gaining many many big name endorsements including Bob Glaub, Joe Osbourne, Jerry Scheff, Adam Clayton, etc. Even the import Skyline series is being utilized by many professionals and rivals the quality of Fender.--tplyons 20:16, 8 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 SPEEDY DELETE, CREATION BY SOCK OF BANNED USER. GTBacchus(talk) 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Tannen

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 Delete. --JoanneB 10:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etwe

edit

Wikipedia is not an English-to-Akan dictionary Booyabazooka 23:36, 6 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. — FireFox • T [11:33, 12 April 2006]

Chinaclimb

edit

Non-notable rock climbing company. 340 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Chinaclimb is the most notable rock climbing company in China and has played a big part in the history of tourism development in Yanghsuo. Gkeys 06:49, 8 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, unverifiable. --JoanneB 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of the Unexplained

edit

Recreation of PROD'ed article. While the claim that it is heard on 100+ stations would make it notable, I am througly unable to substantiate or source this claim. It's clearly and obviously self-promotional; Ommnisound is doing massive Internet promotion, with little actual information that I have been able to identify. Delete as unverifiable, promotional and simply not yet notable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:39, 6 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 keep. — FireFox • T [11:33, 12 April 2006]

Sean Hood

edit

Non notable screenwriter, possible hoax ("uncredited writer?"). Also a violation of WP:AUTO. Rory096 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a hoax. All the information is true and verifiable on the internet movie database. But I'm new to Wiki... so I see that I may have violated the guidlines by writing about myself. Seanhood 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even when you kick out all the "uncrediteds" and uncast films "in production," there's still a residual body of produced screenwriting that qualifies him as notable enough, even though I wouldn't watch a frame of them except under duress. Monicasdude 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Translating one into Polish and one "screenplay," which I take to mean a minor part of writing it, and the rest aren't even notable enough for articles. --Rory096 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empathic delete as this article runs contrary to WP:SELF pure and simple, and reason being the article becomes subjective and thereby violates WP:NPOV. If a 3rd party had created a new page of this individual, I may have decided differently. I do commend him on being WP:BOLD in using his real name rather than an alias, and look forward to his future contributions. Netkinetic 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reserve judgement for the moment. Sean, if you read the guidelines on notability and biographies of living persons and verifiability (WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:N), and think you meet the guidelines, you can take a crack rewriting the article as if a neutral 3rd party wrote it. I would consider overlooking the fact that it is an autobiography if it otherwise meets the guildelines. The key to remember is that wikipedia aims to be a verifiable neutral encyclopedia; why would someone look you up, and what should they be able to learn here that they won't learn from IMDB or a myspace profile? And are you prepared to have your article edited and rewritten by others, possibly to include negative information about you (assuming it exists and is verifiable)? Thatcher131 01:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/ReplyThanks for the feedback. I've editted the article so that it is brief, neutral and verifiable. I think "Sean Hood" is notable because he has written several produced movies, one of which, Halloween:Ressurection, made 30 million at the box office. See Halloween (film series). I understand the problem about writing my own bio, but I leave that to the judges.Seanhood
  • Keep, cleanup, and refer Seanhood to WP:AB - please refrain from writing your own bio. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep supportive of KillerChihuahua's suggestions. --ElectricEye 04:56, 10 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critias (Dragon). — FireFox • T [11:31, 12 April 2006]

Critias(dragon)

edit

Duplicate of Legendary Dragon Critias, a notable card in Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. kelvSYC 23:49, 6 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. — FireFox • T [11:29, 12 April 2006]

Eternal paths

edit

Non-notable advertisement. The only google result on it is the author's MySpace page. Booyabazooka 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my Googling doesn't even yield that much. Also very crufty, almost reads like a sycophantic review. --Sam Pointon United FC 00:48, 7 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. — FireFox • T [11:29, 12 April 2006]

Critias (Dragon)

edit

Another duplicate of Legendary Dragon Critias. kelvSYC 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time Thatcher131 14:07, 7 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. – 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 [34], 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_6&oldid=1233275136"