Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< February 7 February 9 >

Purge server cache

February 8

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 gone. DS 14:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

اب سیاه

edit

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Don't know which language. Kusma (討論) 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild guess... It's using the arabic alphabet, so I'll guess... arabic? It could also be Farsi, I think, but it's probably arabic. There's also the english word Glaucoma in it, which doesn't have an equivalent article in arabic wiki; my hypothesis is that this is an article meant for the arabic wiki, and we should move it. СПУТНИКССС Р 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not Arabic - it uses a number of letters found only further east; but I'm not sure which language it is. ColinFine 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Farsi and it means Glaucoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.234.199 (talk • contribs)
La langue est "arabe" en francaise, merci beaucoup. Daniel Case 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can read the script (with a bit of effort) but don't understand the language. As for finding that source page, Google is your friend. Lukas (T.|@) 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was sppeedy: copyvio dump from http://www.fenerbahcegazetesi.com/ . mikka (t) 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahce Gazetesi

edit

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Turkish. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since that's what the only guy who so far has known what the page is about says. - Bobet 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Almost unanimous concensus amongst people not the subject of this article. W.marsh 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Winer

edit

Notice - - I have revised the page. This renders all of the comments irrelevant. Like beating a dead horse, you know. Leon Winer, Feb. 12, '06

Notability only marginally established through mention of "book" authorship, which turns out to be a 12-page university publication. However, my main concern is that the article is self-authored and therefore probable vanity. See Wikipedia:Vanity_page for more information. --Alan Au 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Royboycrashfan 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note. I have revised my page. It now includes the fact that I have published 100 articles and papers that were peer-reviewed in the double-blind process. Also, about all the excitement displayed above about my linking to my website: If I have a done a lot of important original work, who am I supposed to link to, the ignorant hacks who keep quoting each other and have not had a new idea in their entire lives?? See Leon Winer. Lwiner 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazuli

edit

Hoax? In any case he is not notable. Ezeu 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Done. Ifnord 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enronomics

edit

This article contains no content that isn't already at Creative accounting, a much more thorough article. The term is also not widespread; there are under 1000 google hits including Wikipedia. The term also falsely implies that there is an economic theory behind what happened, as opposed to fraud. --Bletch 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyObjects.NET

edit

Non-notable website, spamvertisement. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What search term did you use? I entered EasyObjects.NET and it only returned one result. [6] Royboycrashfan 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for EasyObjects.NET then asked for pages that contain the term, giving [7]. -- Mithent 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said 183, but I see only 181. ;) In addition, it only lists 43 unique results. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I still see 183! I do get 43 unique though. -- Mithent 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A6, attack page; content of talk page was, "Seriously, if you knew the guy, you would not want the article deleted."). howcheng {chat} 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fistel

edit

Neologism, and I couldn't find any reasonable or relevant google hits [8] that would confirm it is what it actually says it is. Since {{PROD}} was removed, it has to come here. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was del. Discounting unqualified editors, the score is del:16, keep/redir: 7 (or 5, if to discount Mmirabello and Thatcher131, who have insufficient edit history). mikka (t) 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood

edit

del nonverifiable, It looks like only Mark Mirabello who wrote a book with the same title can say something about it. Since the article was created by a user:Mmirabello, I smell original research, too. mikka (t) 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete. Yes, Professor Mirabello wrote the book. University of Glasgow (Ph.D.),University of Virgina (MA), University of Toledo (B.A.). Writing the book qualifies me to write an article. Please feel free to e-mail at mmirabello@shawnee.edu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirabello (talk • contribs)
Sure, to boost the sales of the book; it would be a good idea. Are there any independent confirmations of rich fantasy of Professor? Please read the policy wikipedia:Verifiability. mikka (t) 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I must respectfully disagree with HroptR, Dieter, and any other folk who wish to redirect the article in question to any Germanic neopaganism article here at Wikipedia, as that would lend a false credibility to Dr. Mirabello's book which it does not deserve. I base that judgement on having read the book itself, my education in relevant subjects, and finally on the rules governing Wikipedia articles. Odinism is, to my POV, a valid variant of Germanic neopaganism in our time, and to grant The Odin Brotherhood the status of being a valid academic reference, or even a commonly used spiritual source text for that religion would be quite inaccurate.

Note about this AfD

edit

Tracking all mentions of an entry or link across wikipedia and deleting them before the AfD is even completed is a form of harassment. I also perceive users placing 7 warning templates on the entry as a form of malicious harassment. There seems to be a total lack of assuming good faith and civility by many here, as well as the most severe violations of attacking new comers which I have ever seen. The editor has less than 25 edits, and has only been a member of wikipedia for three days. He doesn't even know how to sign his name with four tildes (look at the top of this page). This entry was not even 10 minutes old, before it was submitted for AfD. I think we need to wait and see if he is going to add further content, verifiable sources and clean up the entry - or whether it should be merged into another article. Contrary to what has been stated here, I have heard about this alleged secret society elsewhere in print and even on a radio show. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dab and myself are in fact the only editors who have voted in this AfD who have edited or contributed content at wikipedia about Germanic Neopaganism, Ásatrú, Odinism, Odinic Rite, Polytheistic Reconstructionsim, etc. and I feel that those who have not contributed to these subjects do not know if it is relevant or not because they don't know the subject matter whatsoever. Relax everyone. HroptR 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have knowledge about the topic. That I do not edit on these topics does not matter. --KimvdLinde 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point; just because someone doesn't have anything to add to an article is no basis to automatically assume they have no knowledge of the subject matter.--Isotope23 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most earlier contributions went through 146.85.84.60 contributions. Just for completness sake. --KimvdLinde 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he has been editing since the 3rd of February? How does this justify harassment? Regardless, of your expertise on the subject matter, NPOV dictates even more discretion if you find it personally disagreeable. HroptR 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a list of links to all possible (fantasy) books written on a certain topic. --KimvdLinde 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some well made points HroptR and I apologise to Mr Mirabello for biting... Still, as the creator of the page is clearly monitoring the debate one might reasonably expect any changes to happen quickly. We all appreciate very few among us have knowledge of this, perhaps because it is an inherently niche topic. We all want to promote our own interests (and commercial publications) but don't lose sight of whether this is really a topic for WP... It's a promo for a book, and would need to be completely rewritten to become some kind of objective article about the society, a society which you state is "alleged" to exist, and therefore doesn't sound extremely verifiable. ++Deiz 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

edit

I have gone through and done a quick wikification of the article, so it is a book entry and not an advertisement. I ask editors to consider whether this should be redirected to Mark Mirabello (which also needs clean up) or elsewhere, and whether it is NPOV at this point. HroptR 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The cleanup is better, but I still have a few reservations about this article. The excerpt section is overly long, and in my opinion unecessary. See The Jesus Mysteries for a better example of how this article could be done. Also, the controversy section is POV, basically attempting to defend the lack of sources by casting aspersions on the sourcing of unrelated works. Most importantly, I'm still not convinced this book has reached the threshold of notability. There are no set standards for books that I'm aware of like WP:MUSIC, so it's a judgement call.--Isotope23 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am planning to nominate the Mark Mirabello page for deletion this evening as it is an autobiography of a non-notable person. The book remains non-notable, it claims to be non-fictional, but without any verification and consequently not a usefull contribution to wikipedia. There is no indication that the website is from someone else than Mark Mirabello, or that any of the advertisments, or radio interviews were with anybody else than Mark Mirabello himself (there is documentation of a radio interview with him). Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists (some responses still pending). If he, or others provide verification for the non-fictional aspect of the book (or I get word from others within the community), I would reconsider whether there is potential of a seperate article on the brotherhood themselves. If not, it appear to be fictional work sold as non-fiction. Until then, I remain for deletion of the page as nom. --KimvdLinde 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Edited error on my site --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are advocating purging all reference to him on wikipedia? You stated: Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists which community would this be? I don't think the argument is whether the group exists or not, but whether mention of a book should be purged because the content is questionable. Deleting the biography just seems like sheer malice. HroptR 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about deleting an AUTObiography Wikipedia:Auto-biography, in clear conflict with the policies of Wikipedia. And to answer your question, the Asatru/Odinist community in Europe and the USA where I am part off. --KimvdLinde 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) It was an error on my site. --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to revise that - the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are talking about deleting an autobiography in clear conflict with the GUIDLINES of Wikipedia. Strongly discouraged, but NOT absolutely forbidden. And if HroptR is correct, not an autobiography in the first place. Jcuk 09:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now: No opinion. Mandrake of Oxford is a vanity press, as such its publications are not inherently notable and likely to be inherently non-notable. Ikkyu2 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monicasdude asserts Mandrake is not in fact a vanity press. I have no way to verify this, so I've changed my opinion to No opinion. I note that [Mandrake's own web page], while maintaining a pretense of editorial standards, requests that books be submitted in ready-to-print CRC format, and can require authors to pre-order a quantity of books; a reputable publishing house would never permit either of these practices. Ikkyu2 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still a vanity article about a seriously unnotable vanity book, written about a seriously sketchy, unencyclopedic topic. Even after efforts by someone acquainted with the subject to shed some light on things, the article has proved impossible to wikify. Vote remains: strong delete. I would also support nomination of the AutobioVanityCruft article Mark Mirabello. Said page (particularly the external links to a self-made profile page at "Shawnee State University" (which in turn is the least wikified article I have yet seen on a university) and a so called "radio" interview (click to see the term "radio" stretched to breaking point)) is as VanityCruftlicious as they come. ++Deiz 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what you just responded to?  :) Ikkyu2 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ik, if you mean was I responding you then I wasn't (we seem to be in agreement here) and have reformatted.. otherwise...? ++Deiz 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Now that it's cleaned up it's clearly nn. Comparing one's lack of sourcing to biblical prophets just proves the point: when the book sells as many copies as theirs has, re-submit the article. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Minimally notable book by minimally notable author. Current publisher doesn't seem to a be a vanity press, doesn't show up on any author alert lists I've seen. Book is actually in-stock at Amazon (as are several others from the publisher) which isn't the norm for vanity presses. [14] I have little doubt that the book itself is of little intrinsic merit, but the same applies to Pokemon, Celine Dion music, and the collected works of Jackie Collins. Monicasdude 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a real (if obscure and un-authoritative) book from a legit publisher. The article has come a long way from its beginnings, and with further improvement (such as a reduction of the "Manifesto" section and NPOV work on the "Criticism" section) it'll be worth having on the server. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative book and article. Good reference source. butterflyblues 20:20, 9 February 2006
  • Keep. Interesting work. I think the author is well-researched and knows what he is talking about. dogbytes12 21:19 9 February 2006
  • Keep. As a practicing Odinist, I use the book. The original article was flawed, but updates improved same. Good work HroptR! warhammer 21:25 9 February 2006

Nice try User: butterflyblues or should I say , User: dogbytes12 or should I say User: warhammer, but faking votes does not help you out, see for the trace that you just left here: [15] See also history for attempt to hide the fake voting by removing my and the fake entries. --KimvdLinde 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Desperate newbie / sock-meatpuppet scramble eh?? Nothing lends more credibility to a page than that... Been making some new friends HroptR?? ++Deiz 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it was HroptR, but some students from the university that like the professor very much (nothingb wrong with that). One of them made the page about him. When one of them got hold of the deletion request, things started. HroptR is sincere as far as I can tell, strong in his arguments, but not deceptive or anything bad. --KimvdLinde 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and please nobody think I'm accusing HroptR of anything, just remarking that the new postings mention him. ++Deiz 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In this bizare play that is curently at stage, I just wanted to clarify things. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sockpuppetry and stacking votes is not my modus operandi. I know plenty of established wikipedia users I could encourage to vote or comment, but I have not. Mob rule is still mob rule. For me personally, not citing sources and verifiable research has undone this book entry, not group consensus or lack of notability. However, I think there is a fine line between fanatical deletionism and revisionism. People are being way too emotional about this on both sides of the issue. HroptR 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to OCLC FirstSearch-WorldCat, the FBI sees fit to keep this book in their academic library. The book has been published now by several publishers, Mandrake of Oxford is the most recent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.124.121 (talk • contribs)
  • That's interesting, a link to sources which verify that claim would be useful. ++Deiz 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
FBI library. I have found that as well. But that is not surprising as some Asatruer/Odinists are neonazi in line with the misuse of our symbols during Nazi Germany, so I can imagine that the FBI would indeed get everything available. But I think we are digging very deep at the moment, and yes, we will find some stuff..... --KimvdLinde 02:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we'll discover that the previous edition of the book was published by Holmes Publishing (who seem to have no website) and has a sales rank of #1,509,755. Far from being "little-used" and "obscure", Amazon is actually quite popular and well-known. Probably because it does more than sell books about the occult and Norse secret societies... ++Deiz 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I am the student who created the article on Mark Mirabello. I did not create the article for The Odin Brotherhood and I have not encouraged any students or anyone else to create excess log ins to influence a vote. I find that accusation by KimvdLinde to be a bit upsetting. While I have only been a member at Wikipedia for a short while, I have used it for years and have never tried to add anything false or engage in any unethical practice. Stege1
I am not accusing you of adding the fake stuff. I am only saying that as soon as the word came out at the university, it started to rain anonymuous and new people at this page. I will change the wording to take away the confusion. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite There are only about 10 University libraries worldwide that own this book. That's 10 more than any book I ever wrote, but its not a ringing endorsement either. Would it be acceptable to rewrite the article so it wasn't about the book but about the "Odin Brotherhood" as a possibly imaginery movement, listing the book as the source. That way it's not just a book advert any more. If somebody does hear about the Odin Brotherhood somewhere and tries to investigate at WP they would find an entry explaining where the term originated and why it is highly suspect. WP must have an article on Bigfoot, which probably doesn't exist either, right?Thatcher131 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can point me to either A) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the historical claims made in this book by someone with academic qualifications, or B) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the book by a member of the polytheistic reconstructionist community and an indication that this is considered an essential text by some segment of the community. Until then, there just isn't enough information for us to write an NPOV article on this book. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AdelaMae. I don't think any recons would subscribe to the Odin Brotherhood just because of the occult elements and secret society bit. For what it's worth, it is on the reading list of several neo-heathen Asatru /Odinist groups like the AFA with a blurb: "a fascinating, poetic, visionary, and many suspect, metaphorical, look at Odinic religion" and is mentioned on several Asatru webistes and forums briefly like this one. The radio show from Odin Lives linked in the article goes into the works impact as well as the veracity of the order. I just think it is a poor precedent to delete fringe authors because their works or beliefs aren't seen as valuable to the mainstream. Many subcultures are not highly represented on the internet. HroptR 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a secret society. Perhaps it will be hard to find a critical historical study of it. In answer to AdelaMae's criteria "B" the Asatru Alliance considers this work to be important enought to include in in their suggested reading list of contemporary works. Click this to see.[[17]]stege1
    • Daughters of Frya also reportedly respect the teachings of the Oera Linda Book. ::shrug:: And the point is? Recommended reading lists from the Asatru Alliance are not particularly relevant to whether the article on The Odin Brotherhood is worth retaining here at Wikipedia. If the AA decides to laud Dr. Mirabello's work as sacred scripture/divinely inspired/whatever (which I doubt they would ever decide to do), then it would be a different matter entirely. A very small religious organisation recommending a book as being 'interesting' and 'possibly useful' does not give a book inherent credibility or verifiability. The book, and its respective article here, must stand on its own merit and on the rules found at WP:V and WP:CITE. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors:

edit

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Wild debate. Note that the book has a sales rank of 9,395 at Buy.com [[18]] Maybe its rank is lower at amazon because smart people look for deals--it is cheaper at buy.com! --146.85.84.60 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Different retailers calculate their ranks based on completely different formulae. Amazon.com is an often used standard, so when an Amazon.com sales rank is quoted, it is being compared to other products with Amazon sales ranks, not the same product's sales rank on a completely different site. As you will see if you become a more experienced WP user, Buy.com ranks are not considered any kind of standard measure by Wikipedia editors. Your post also sounds like an advertising jingle. On those two counts you might want to strike that one. ++Deiz 02:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


COMMENT. The Oera Linda reference above is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda The book has its name from the Linden family. Is it coincidence that Mirabello's middle name is "Linden"? --146.85.84.60 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a favourable coincidence to you since you have been adding (and been reverted in each case) links to The Odin Brotherhood in numerous articles here at Wikipedia. Please stop doing so. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is the link to the FBI Library Collection. Type "Odin Brotherhood" or "Mirabello" to find it. http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/webopac/cgi/swebmnu.exe?act=3&ini=splusweb So, if the Odin Brotherhood does not exist, why is the FBI reading about it? Do you think they have titles on the "Fantastic Four"? "The Justice League"? What do you think, Mulder? Scully? --146.85.84.60 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A simple reason is that the FBI does research on neonazi and white supremacist groups, some of whom are Odinist oriented. Just remember Nazi germany and the misuse of our symbols by them. So, they want to have the background knowlegde and make a library. Simple enough. --KimvdLinde 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is an interesting Portuguese-language site. http://paginas.terra.com.br/arte/sfv/Asatru.html Note they believe the Odin Brotherhood is ancient and is real. --146.85.84.60 22:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not of an Odinist group. Furthermore, all my sources within the Asatru and Odinist community report back that they think the book is a fantasy (or they never heard anything about it at all). --KimvdLinde 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an Argentine site of Odinists. Note they believe in the antiquity of the Brotherhood. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/ --146.85.127.124 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The Odin Brotherhood in Spanish! I found this through the Argentine site. see their links. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/odinhood.html --146.85.127.124 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove here 146.85.127.124. If you're suggesting that new sources have come to light which will enable you (you're clearly some kind of expert) to write an encyclopedic, verifiable, unbiased and objective article on this topic then maybe you should stop piling stuff onto this AfD page and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WHICH HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION. The majority of editors on this page know nothing and care even less about Odinism. What we do want to see are submissions which belong in Wikipedia. As it stands the article flies in the face of several of WP's criteria for inclusion and if you tot up the opinions of experienced editors (per the warning at the top of the page and the "Notes to new editors" piece by HroptR, several "editors" opinions will be discounted due to the evidence of sockpuppetry) you'll see the article could do with less hot air and more hard work. ++Deiz 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. I have been systematically demolishing the uninformed with facts. As for the article, it is already a murder victim, killed by people for emotional reasons.... --146.85.127.124 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Babajobu 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Engineering Society

edit

I'm wondering if this meets the notability criteria. It is mainly a social club at a university, which is typically concerned with the consumption of alcohol?? I go to this university, and so am abstaining. It is very well written though. Blnguyen 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
    • Thankyou for the compliment Blnguyen. Kino, if you had examined the logs, you would see that the edits such as contact us and our website were done by a different user to the main editor of the page (that is, me). To those who say most of the socities activities relate to pub crawls, this is partly true - they hold a single pubcrawl which is quite large, however, that is by no means the limit of the scope of this page. As the page is still being written, I ask everyone to give it a chance. This is my first major contribution to the wiki, so any guidance would be greatly appricated over straight out deletion. Shenki 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After closely re-reading all of the relevant documentation on deletion, I believe this article does not qualify for deletion as those below have mentioned. I agree with Blnguyen that the article must not become just a advertisment for some student club which just drinks alcohol (infact, I was concious of this when creating the article in the first place).Shenki 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you had read the page, the discussion here, or any comments posted by myself to admins who have experience in this area, you would know that the society is considered noteable as a number of famous students were members of the society, and it is on this basis that I belived the society notable. There are plenty of societies that I know of at the uni who could not be considered notable, but this one is. Shenki 08:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Pictures

edit

Vanity interview with the founder of a non-notable video production outfit; doesn't even come close to WP:CORP. Claims "production" work on a few unnamed projects. No sources. Delete. Melchoir 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans

edit

Asserts global reputation but I doubt it Ruby 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha College of English

edit

The article is spam! It is a commercial project, is not a university. DELETE. -- Tim User:Tim54


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack page. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Chris

edit

pov/vanity-laden rant about a local radio show, not notable and nothing in this article is salvageable. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Utilitarianism

edit

Delete Original research. 20 Google hits[22], none showing the existence of the concept Ultramarine 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skanks

edit

Non-notable band. Only about 1,140 hits on Google, and I'm not even sure if all of those are for the band itself.[23] KrossTalk 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly (ecologist)

edit

I believe this to be a non-notable bio, although the article does attempt to assert some notability. I've had some discussions on the talk page with the article's creator regarding sources, but those that were provided (such as the "very exasperated person in the White House who reads his letters then hands them to the president") don't really fit the criteria at WP:V. Joyous | Talk 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 03:04, January 31, 2006 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (either vanity or nn; no links, no notability attempted, and a quarter of the article is an attack on yours truly)
  • 00:24, December 12, 2005 Eugene van der Pijll deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (content was: '{db|nonsense / not-notable}Paul Kelly is a ecologist. He is currently writing a story called "Quarantine Zone" and is in the process of publishing ...')
  • 02:47, May 18, 2005 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (vanity)
Creator has no history outside this article, except for one piece of trivial vandalism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Revolution

edit

Entry on a webbased turn game that does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry I did not know you could not post content like this here. It is a game that has been around for 3 years now. Maybe there is some other way I can add it without flaging for deletion? First every page, I should have read all before posting it I just was thought I could post it and keep on editing it.. A simular game has one, please let me fix this to the setup that it should be set at before it is removed. - c4smok


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

The result of the debate was moink 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VanHalentines Day

edit
There was a glitch or something, I didn't see the AfD banner in this article and sent it down, but I fixed it in due course. Ruby 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Crocker

edit

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO; a couple of minor human-interest profiles hardly meets the "100-year test". Also has zero internal wikilinks. Aaron 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 after userfying. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh saklani

edit

Vanity/Advertisement page. Only claimed notability is publishing a book with only 5 unique Google hits. Or, to use the new term: WP:VSCA Wingsandsword 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:VAIN. --Kinu 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not userfy. Userfying is pointless when the author only contributes to their own vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy is what I would have done. Andrew, consider this: person comes along and creates article on themself. Maybe cluelessly, maybe deliberate vanity. Scenario 1: delete, chomp. Scenario 2: Move to user space, subst template:nn-userfy and leave a welcome message. I would say that the trivial effort in doing 2 is justified if as many as 1 in 100 people go on to contribute properly instead of just walking away. I haven't userfied my 100th yet so I don't know if that is going to happen, I am a notorious idealist. But anyway, userfy is what I would do here, the user page is redlinked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. The point of a user page is to describe a Wikipedia contributor. Someone who comes here just to write a vanity page wants the page as an article, and would not have written it in a user page no one would ever find. Elfguy 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio of [24] (and others) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ghrelin

edit

Blatant advertisement, possible copyvio too. Wingsandsword 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect to stoner film moink 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner-comedy

edit

Author inhaled and created a genre on the spot Ruby 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 action is keep. Babajobu 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mier

edit

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Esprit15d as nn-bio, but that was contested by Colin Kimbrell. Colin's reasoning is pasted below. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Martha Mier: Seems fairly well-known and prolific as a producer (writer?) of sheet music for piano/organ. 31 author credits on Amazon [26] for various sheet music collections. Not entirely convinced of notability, but at a minimum should go to AFD rather than speedy. -Colin Kimbrell 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancom

edit

NN Internet cafe. Daniel Case 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and glitches in Battlefield 2

edit

Almost exclusively original research, with no attempt at verifiability. A previous article on the same topic, Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits was deleted for the same reason. Remy B 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Powell

edit

The article claims he has a "small but dedicated following" but there is no listing on allmusic.com. A Google search of his first album and his last name turns up one hit - his own web site. This doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MUSIC -- DS1953 talk 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:UninvitedCompany.--Alhutch 06:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplayfucks

edit

Has nothing.

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British democracy 1919 until 1939

edit

It's clearly original thought, as the article itself says that it's an essay by Julian Malt. --Rory096 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pway

edit

WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable group (CSD A7).--Alhutch 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latus Rectum and the Asymptotes

edit

Delete. not notable according to WP:MUSIC adavidw 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Vandenberg

edit

At the center of a school-finance scandal, but not notable as 43 Google hits demonstrate. Daniel Case 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,I'm showing 77 Google hits and notable as he has been accused of misuse of school funds in now 3 differnt school districts. Two in Michigan and 1 in Arizona.
77 Google hits is more than I got, but still doesn't begin to break the threshold. Nor does being accused of a crime in two different states ... if that established notability (notoriety?), we'd have tons of articles on two-bit crooks. Daniel Case 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's accused in a 2-count charge of stealing up to $21,000 of school funds. nn. By the way: the delete debate is using the "-burg" spelling and the edit tag misdirects. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-mein code

edit

Has exactly one google hit for "Lo-mein code" in a short story archived here [27] Ruby 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider

edit

On a free web host, so its Alexa rank of 683 would be misleading. Seems to be pretty new, thus article is promotional. Daniel Case 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by Yanksox as G4/A7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider

edit

Article is about a non-notable website, and the subject is similar to another article that was recently deleted. JD[don't talk|email] 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Woohookitty Adrian Lamo ·· 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Speak Like A German Day

edit

0 google hits, not an established holiday, despite this "declaration" [28]. I suspect we might get a lot of new users showing up to tell us how important it is, I'd like to remind them that we need verifiable evidence from third-party sources, personal assertions are not sufficient. Kappa 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

edit

Give us 5 days to actually gain notoriety about this holiday. If I fail, then delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)

That's not how we do things here. Gazpacho


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

The result of the debate was gone DS 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Parsnip

edit

Delete. This is an obvious hoax. A bit of Googling found a page in which a Dave Briggs admits it's concocted: http://davebriggs.net/?p=389 . Lockley 05:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric gersham

edit

8 hits on Google. nn/vanity Amcfreely 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egocomplacency

edit

neologism Amcfreely 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echolance

edit

Only wp hits on Google/original research/nn Amcfreely 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Salt with Meat

edit

An obvious hoax. Funny, though. I've already BJAODN'ed it. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 an attack page.--Alhutch 06:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban kaaos82

edit

An internet meme like this wouldn't be very useful on an encyclopedia, so delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hammond

edit

Correcting flawed re-nom, have contacted originator, no opinion yet. brenneman(t)(c) 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted before. Nothing's changed. Delete it again

Going through the previous versions on here. The article seems to swing wildly between a self-promotion page and a personal attack page. As others have noted, the subject of the article is of negligible notability. Delete the article.

Relisting to February 8, 2006. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:50, Feb. 8, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy’s girl (second nom)

edit

Previously nominated. Failed to meet concensus, but the clear requirement was for it to be expanded. Many doubted that it could be expanded, and indeed the article has hardly been touched since then. I believe it's beyond redemption. Delete.

I apologise for relisting so soon, but the closing admin encouraged such action if the article showed no signs of useful expansion. --kingboyk 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ruby.--Isotope23 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneHQ

edit

Delete Only a Fansite of Runescape, not particulary notable of its own article J.J.Sagnella 07:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem with it? Come on, a) what harm does it do by staying here? b) It is interesting to those who want to know about it, so just because you couldn't care less doesn't mean that it isn't important to some. c) What gives you the right to decide what articles are on here? It's a free encyclopedia... Viralmonkey 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I will address these succinctly without biting. a) As it has ended up on AfD, the operative question really should be "What good does it do to stay here?"; b) Interesting and important do not necessarily equal notable; c) A "free encyclopedia" does not equal a "free-for-all". --Kinu 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2: c) The democratic process of Wikipedia policies. If you don't like it, maybe moving to a less democratic website might be the thing for you? --Agamemnon2 07:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment3: Eh? You linked to "what wikipedia is not" and lo and behold, there is a heading, "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Huzzah! Anyway, the article is only a stub so how can you form an opinion about whether it is worthwhile. Although it is a website, we made a point of not advertising it, we are trying to build some kind of history using evidence, it would be interesting and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralmonkey (talk • contribs)
      • Read on; it rationalizes that: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting." Hence why you're on this page, where people are discussing reasons for their opinions, and simply not saying keep or delete for a simple count at the end. --Kinu 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... despite Alexa ranking, seems more like gamecruft and/or WP:VSCA than an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a member...THAT'S what gives me the right to decide what articles are on here. Batman2005 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Free as in beer, not free as in lawless. (Please point me to a link for that quote....) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm agreeing with ViralMonkey here. There is no reason why this should be taken off because it is not hurting anyone. An encyclopedia is a database of knowledge. In order for it to be complete it must have an article about everything. This has never been achieved and won't be for a long time but if you take off this article you are just moving wikipedia farther from that goal. And just because this is a fansite doesn't mean it should be removed. Just go to the main page and do a search on "Fan Site" and 11 pages of matches will come up. --Eddie 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jantzen

edit

Seems to be an nn sports reporter. Article is orphaned and unverified. A Google search for "Christian Jantzen" "SBS television" brings up only 1 hit. In addition, article reads suspiciously like a copyvio. Abstain for now, will take into account further arguments first. Zunaid 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per Capitalistroadster and Blnguyen, this guy doesn't seem notable enough. Zunaid 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It seems like a copyvio but it's not. This user ben.carbonaro is a young journalist whose style happens to resemble that of a marketing biography. Google searches for notable Australian figures don't prove anything. I can tell you he is much more notable than Max Walker (Canadian), but due to the locality of Walker, he gets more google hits.
  • You ever thought of adding meaningful content to wikipedia instead of deleting everything you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat (talk • contribs) Rogerthat Talk 09:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Reporter for national network but for not notable enough yet for mine. 10 Google hits for "Christian Jantzen" SBS see [29]. The page that this page could well be a copyvio is his bio at SBS [30]. I was considering speedy deletion as a copyvio before seeing Rogerthat's explanation. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said, Google hits are very unindicative of a person's notablity when based in Australia. For example, search for "Mark Doran journalist", and of the 300 hits there you will find very little related to the Mark Doran who is a very big sportscaster in Australia. The fact that Mark Doran is a common name boosts his hits, it's unfortunate than Jantzen has a unique name ;) :p Rogerthat Talk 10:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Australian and I'm unconvinced by that argument. There aren't that many more Canadians that Australians. I follow sports fairly closely in Australia and I've never heard of Mark Doran. I hadn't heard of Jantzen either. Capitalistroadster 11:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not hearing of Jantzen, I'll give you some leeway, although most sports fans should certinaly know him. But not hearing of Doran makes me question your interest in sports because he is a big name in journalism, radio and TV. That was just an example the Max Walker one, but there are many American journalists you could search for that are as notable or less notable than Jantzen that would get a much higher number of Google hits for the simple fact they are based in America where there is information on everyone. Australia doesn't have a huge presence on the Net compared to America. Search for "AFL DVD's" and the game's huge popularity does not give the expected amount of hits. Rogerthat Talk 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Personally, I think the profile of Christian should stay there as he does virtually everything from down here in Melbourne and he does a good job at it as well. His general knowledge of sport is great and he isn't afraid to have a go at reporting on lesser known sports, for example he did a gret job covering the World Gymnastics Championships including an exclusive interview with Western Australia gymnast Olivia Vivian and her parents. --Ben.carbonaro 10:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the user who added the links to reporter profiles and other information to prove he is a real report and works for SBS. 203.51.144.245 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Gurubrahma under WP:CSD Clause A7. --Gurubrahma 11:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hariharan S

edit

Delete. Not notable.Jisha C J 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arabian goggles

edit

Speedied once as (appropriately enough) complete bollocks, was linked from Dutch blindfold (recently AfDd and deleted). The article makes it perfectly plain it's a protologism, lacks reliable sources etc. I'd speedy it as a repost but it has been somewhat expanded since original deletion and is now no longer "patent nonsense" but instead simply nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Cyberservices Corridor

edit

Delete for two reasons. One, this is definitely already a promotional article, no matter how one salvages it, and wikipedia is not a promotional tool. The corridor is not even notable. There are so many tech facilities spread out all over the country, the whole country is a corrider? The Philippines also does not have a high technology district, that can be compared to Silicon Valley, even just in notability. Two, part of its title "cyberservices" is not used in technical or mainstream in any language, other than by its marketing inventors, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyberservices. Note to everyone, I am Filipino, and I am not race bashing.

Simply put, it does violate 2 sections of policy. Deliberately promoting what is definitely 'not there, and predicting way too far in the future. A new administration can change alot. I rephrased in order to not sound offensive to any newbies. ;) --Noypi380 10:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high-technology business district, the same as the others listed in this Wikipedia entry. This deserves its own entry as much as the rest.

Its not a high-technology business district, its 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga. Pls try comparing that to Silicon Valley. That distance is almost the 9/10's of our country! Definitely not notable. --Noypi380 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to pursue logic of Noypi380, we would have to delete all other entries in the category High-technology_business_districts as well. The reason why Noypi380 has targeted this entry is his/her anti-Filipino attitude, as can be seen from his/her other posts.

I'm not anti-Filipino coz I am Filipino, and proud of it. I challenge you to cite a post that is anti-anything. My user name "Noypi" when reversed is "Pinoy", which at home is short for Pilipino (Tagalog), or Filipino in English. Pls read all of my work before you judge me. Pls see our Filipino community portal. The corridor is also not a high technology district, the Philippines has none, and I am a Filipino who is honest about that. :) --Noypi380 09:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

You may be right about Noypi380. For this person to say "the corridor is not even notable" is a contradiction to the Philippine president's statement that over 100,000 people are employed in the corridor. It seems this person is biased against the Philippines, and I would not be surprised if this person comes from a country that competes with the Philippines for offshore work.

Why target the Philippines? Why is Noypi380 silent about other corridors in other countries?

Pls try to compare the corridor which is 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga with Silicon Valley. That is almost the 9/10's of our country! The government is trying to make our whole country a corridor? Truthfully, no. --Noypi380 09:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on is the government is taking credit for those over 100,000 tech workers. Those over 100,000 are being employed in tech-related enterprises, spread out all over the country. The government conveniently credited themselves, by calling it all a "corridor", as if the government planned it ahead of time. That is why it is not notable, and it would be more politically correct to remove it. Silicon Valley is definitely a corridor. Though I am Filipino, I am the first person who would admit that there no such place in our country remotely like Silicon Valley, no matter what the government labels it. --Noypi380 09:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, I believe that the votes about this point, 2 votes and comments all in all, are from one and the same person, source, or organization. Wikipedia is not for promotion! Even though its from the government!--Noypi380 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not with the government. Heck, I don't even like the government. I'm certainly not Dondi, either. I'm Mike Abundo, from mikeabundo.com. --Mikeabundo 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not refering to Dondi, source does not matter, that article is clearly promotion. Articles in wikipedia must be notable, or are expected to be notable! Its not even notable in the Philippines! --Noypi380 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I am the author of the article)

That is the problem, there is no intended district, just 600 miles of country, in a small country. It is not a notable tech/business district because it is not a district at all. The article is like a hypothetical United States Tech corridor from San Francisco to Chicago! All that land is a corridor!? --Noypi380 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a scientific research corridor called the International Northeast Biosciences Corridor that stretches from Quebec to Connecticut, over 1000 miles. Yes, all that land is a corridor! Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, but pls compare further. Firstly Mr. Commissioner, is your corridor existing, or is just hype? Does the effort at its current stage, if ever, warrant an article in Wikipedia, or just in local newspapers? Just because the plan is big does not mean it should be in Wikipedia already. Wait and see. The goal is too far off, too unpredictable. Or can you say "600 miles of fiber optic cable" is equal to "the corridor", and then put an article here on the whole corridor? No sir. It is best that the article only exist if/when that dream is almost a reality, unless crystal balls are back in fashion. Secondly, the article cannot deliberately mislead readers promoting what is not there. Perhaps, alot have already been mislead. --Noypi380 09:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Noypi380; the "Philippine Cyberservices Corridor" doesn't really exist, except as a concept not yet fully realized. Since the only sources cited for its existence are two speeches by President Arroyo, and she doesn't even name it as "Philippine Cyberservices Corridor," I see no reason why this article should exist at this point in time.Note: I am Filipino. Noelle De Guzman 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the link to the 2005 State of the Nation Address. Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked it now (although it's not really a link to the text of the Address itself, but a link to the Executive Summary of the address), and I stand corrected. Perhaps it would be better to talk of this Corridor NOT as a defined land area (as the article says), which perhaps is the source of Noypi's delete vote. I would say Keep if the article is reworded to include the following information from the Executive Summary of the SONA:
"Philippine CyberServices Corridor, an ICT belt stretching 600 miles from Baguio City to Zamboanga which is envisioned to provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards."
Noelle De Guzman 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons below:

Although President Arroyo mentioned about a "cyberservices corridor" in the speech cited on the page, it is only but a mere concept. The Philippine Cyberservices Corridor does not even exist yet in reality as of yet. Also, the chosen resource in itself is faulty. If President Arroyo talks about the concept of the Philippine Cyberservices Corridor, that does not mean that the corridor exists, even if she tries to promote forming a corridor by the end of her term. As of now, while cyberservices are booming, there is no concrete proof that the corridor even exists.

--Akira123323 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Just for the record, I'm a Filipino too. I may be critical of the concept but that does not mean I am anti-Filipino, judging by the comments I read above.

-Actually, as with the International Northeast Biosciences Corridor that stretches from Quebec to Connecticut, only selected locations are allowed to call themselves part of the corridor. Specific criteria must be met. Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the precisely the point Mr. Commissioner, international readers may be misled that the thing is up, or is going to built soon, when you compare it to such examples. It seems you are still planning you're corridor. For now, it would be best to remove this article, and build a new one when you're corridor is nearly finished. Your successor might even change its name, there are so many unpredictables. Am I right to assume that you do not yet have the criteria for selecting locations for the corridor? We cannot promote what is not yet there, sir. It might not be even notable when it already built. That is why the article should not exist, yet. :)--Noypi380 09:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good suggestion. will implement. some salient facts to point out!
-the backbone of the corridor (fiber optic network) was established in the late '90s via the telecomms deregulation
-the true resource of the corridor are the people, product of decades of enlightened educational policies
-the job generation was the result of a conscious effort of government to attract investors by establishing financial incentives and special economic zones
-promotion of the industry has been spearheaded by trade missions led by senior government officials since the late '90s
-for cities to be recognized as bonafide locations within the corridor, there is a defined process and criteria Dondi 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is there... the land is there. There is controversy on its characteristics but the stretch of land does exist. Even if it not what the President of the Philippines claims the fact that it is important for her government indicates the general importance of the topic. --Vizcarra 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Merge, see below) Noypi, your motivation for deletion seems to be based on the fact that the article is biased towards the Philippine Cyberservices Corridor being a "real" high-tech district, not whether the concept is notable or not. I believe the concept is notable, considering the government is actively promoting it. Now, whether this 600-mile stretch of land should be considered a high-tech district or not is for the two sides of POV to battle out in the article. Noypi, I have added your point of view to the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-08 21:59Z
Well, I also thought of using an NPOV tag too, but I still seriously doubt that the article should be here in wikipedia. Pls allow me to clarify the terms first since there is a confusion, I was not able to speak properly when I read those offensive comments, and I was emotionally swayed. --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment let us all call the corridor "PCC". There are two PCCs in question here. One is the planned future PCC, which is based on a source, (only the presidential speeches). The other one is the "current" PCC, (subject of the article before you edited it). That "current" PCC is not sourced, is not planned, is not a district, and it does not exist, never mind about the area. That is why I argue against its notability, because there is none. Speaking in an NPOV way, it violates this policy. The one who started that article is also a government official in our country who is responsible for promoting the local industries. I apologize that he is promoting now something that is not there, and is also in doubt. On the future planned PCC which is not the subject of the article, that I concede is notable. However it is just a plan. Over 50% of long term government plans in the Philippines do not push through, even elections, and on that regard, that is why users Noelle, and Akira, and Coffee, all Filipinos, voted delete. We only start important Philippine-related articles only when we are already sure it is almost built, as too avoid this violation. That is how we do things in order to accomodate wikipedia's policies. The future PCC is a long time away, and "PCC" is certainly not the correct name in the future, and that is assuming we are using the PCC as defined in the speeches. The article was deliberately misleading, sourcing the "planned" PCC, and saying that is already here to a "current" PCC, which does not exist, and I was vehemently against. That is basically all of it in NPOV. That is why I urge everyone to delete it already. It can be brought back anyway, in perhaps 5-10 years time, assuming all goes well. But for now, it is a soapbox, stuck with little useful data --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the anon user, and Mr. Commissioner (User Dondi). I am disappointed that both of you did not assume good faith, when I proposed the AfD. You both deliberately attacked me even though you both knew that I am Filipino, even calling me anti-Filipino which is a common stereotypical tactic used by government officials against opponents. It is worse when it comes from people of your age and status. I hope it does not happen again. More importantly why can't you just contribute in the article called Business process outsourcing in the Philippines, an article that is supposed to accomodate, without being a soapbox, the sector you are working in. --Noypi380 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Out of line myself, pls observe, good faith thanks. --Noypi380 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my decision to delete, a piece of evidence that I found can probably explain why:
"The development of the Philippine CyberServices Corridor which shall provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards was pursued. The Corridor, which is connected by a US$10 billion high bandwidth fiber backbone and digital network, shall serve as a “one destination” for investors, stretching 600 miles from Baguio to Zamboanga. Certain areas have been declared as ICT hubs with high-speed networks and connectivity: (Pasig-Ortigas, Makati, UP-Ateneo-Eastwood, Alabang-Paranaque, Subic-Clark, Cebu-Asia Town Park, University Belt, Davao). Additional 9 areas have been identified as potential ICT hubs: Leyte, Camarines Sur, Pangasinan, Iloilo City, Baguio City, Davao, Zamboanga, General Santos City and Cagayan de Oro." (THE 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION, 2005)
What I question is that why would an article talk about a concept that is only a concept and does not physically exist. It is concedable that the Arroyo administration is pursuing the corridor, but pursuit of a concept does not mean that such a concept exists in reality. In fact, there is still no hard evidence that the PCC even exists except for the concept. Note that the first line of that quote mentions "The development of the Philippine CyberServices Corridor which shall provide a variety of cyberservices at par with global standards was pursued". Pursuit, as mentioned earlier, is not tantamount to formation. President Arroyo herself did not even give a timeline on when the PCC concept would finally take shape and when it would be completed. Because of that, it's still a non-existant concept and I still stand by my decision to delete. --Akira123323 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your considered responses and explaining the distinction between the current vs proposed PCC -- the Wikipedia article definitely confuses the two (I have not yet checked to verify your claim that the two are indeed distinct). If indeed "over 50% of long-term government plans" are empty "electoral promises" then that should be mentioned in the article. I did not previously see the article Business process outsourcing in the Philippines - that is a very appropriate article. Merge to Business process outsourcing in the Philippines. Again, let me remind you that the existance of a Wikipedia article (or section of an article) on a subject does not make it "better" or give it more credence, it can also be bad. Corporations often advertise on Wikipedia, only to have their article become a description of all its horrible business practices rather than a description of the things it sells. For example, if President Aroyyo has made promises in regard to the PCC / PCC proposal that she does not hold, then this could serve as documentation for future reference that she failed her promises. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-12 13:40Z
Yes, thank you very much. :) --Noypi380 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems another option is to remove the categorization of the article from the High Tech Business Districts. With regard to suggestion to merge to Business process outsourcing in the Philippines, this would not be acceptable as Cyberservices is more than just BPO. With regard to crystal-balling, this is not acceptable as the $10B high bandwidth telecomm backbone already exists and can be verified physically, as well as the call centers and other companies mentioned in the article. There is actually going to be a MOA signed between the governors and mayors within the next 60 days to formalize the existence of such corridor on a local/regional level (it is already part of national policy on a country level). Upon such signing, article will be updated. Dondi 07:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mr Commissioner, but the work you are doing now in office is not equal to the "corridor". Telecom backbone + call centers + contracts is not equal to a "present" corridor (subject of article, non-existent) and is not equal to a "future" corridor (based on vague speeches of president who can be deposed even tommorrow). See how deceiving? I urge you to vote delete, and don't worry if it is removed. I'll help you out create encyclopedic articles related to the Philippine information/communication technology industry. Pls, I mean pls, vote delete, based on the reasons I said. I hope you change your mind. :) --Noypi380 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It's not good practice to publish planned projects. If it does 'nt push through it, becomes a fiasco/embarrassment. Better to wait a while. Maybe mention it under Business process outsourcing.--Jondel 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Akira123323 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case let's delete Superman 3, and all of the Category:2007 films... just kidding. --Vizcarra 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair comparison. Read the text above again, particularly my discussion with Quarl. This is clearly not like Category:2007 films or Category:2007 elections. Those things are almost certainly going to be done in 2007. The films have definite release dates, even down to the hour in so many countries. The elections have poll voting and counting schedules planned beforehand, with contingencies. The future "corridor", assuming the sources, does not even have a deadline, and has so many other uncertainties. There are so many plans but no completions in the Philippines. The "future" corridor is not even the subject of the article, for the subject of the article is a "present" corridor that does not even exist, read Akira's earlier comments. That is why there is no apparent NPOV dispute. No corridor, no dispute. You're confusing the future uncertain, unfinalized, plan with a corridor that is not there. See? That article has already been proven to be blatant act of deception through wikipedia. The planned 600 mile "stretch of land" does not automatically present itself as a corridor now unless the thing is fully or nearly built, if it is built. I urge you to reconsider you're vote to delete. Of course, all of this assumes were not kidding... :) --Noypi380 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coven

edit

NN band. "Played a few gigs" with no apparent recordings. This actual name may be appropriate for something, but not this material. Marskell 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Stanton-Reid

edit

My speedy tag was removed by the author, User:Thierry Henry, twice. I'm bringing it to the attention of the community, who knows, maybe he is notable, but I doubt it. Delete. Grandmasterka 10:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was unanimous keep. Peyna 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gbeogo

edit

was proposed for deletion, appears to be a real village [35]. Melaen 11:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason for proposed deletion was Subtle linkspam. No verifiable content.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeop

edit

Unverifiable, non-notable, and has no place here. Kevin 11:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corser

edit

was proposed for deletion, I bring it here for discussion. Melaen 11:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the reason given was Lacking information on its {importance} since last edit in 24 April 2005.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plectics

edit

A proposed neologism - by a Nobel winner, yes, but it doesn't appear to have caught on. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, the content is mostly copied fom [37]. I've refrained from tagging it with "copyvio" since it's being quoted, albeit very extensively. I'm not sure, though, to what degree this is admissible. Sandstein 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism just isn't in wide enough use. Etymological discussion quotation isn't pertinent to the encyclopedic article and I don't see enough content for this to be more than a neologism dicdef.--Isotope23 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Copyvio. - Hahnchen 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANGTORIA

edit

Does not appear to satisfy guidelines for band inclusion. brenneman(t)(c) 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Macchietto

edit

delete: vanity. complete hoax since december 2004 . see the article's talk page Melaen 12:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm italian and I've never herad of him , plus no italian google reference. the hoax confession on the talk page seems 100% genuine. --Melaen 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander M. Hankin

edit

Smacks of non-notable vanity page. It was tagged for dubious notability, but after some investigation I decided to elevate it to AfD. Article was created by User:Hank21 (note the surname). One notable Google hit indicating subject did indeed graduate from Germantown Academy. Other than that, the rest of the article appears to be fictional or exaggerated. User:Hank21's other edits were to upload Image:393008325 l.jpg (Alexander M. Hankin with one of his many girlfriends.) and an initial edit to remove a reference from the article Caprice Bourret claiming that Ms Bourret was dating Mr Hankin, presumably added as anon user 69.136.79.245 the previous day, before Hank21 decided to create an account and this article. Canley 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Mike Rosoft 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kevin

edit

Neologism CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gen-so fantasia

edit

The two guys in the group Akimasa Nihongi and Jack Hsu have been deleted for not notable. The group only has 18 Googles and that's myspace stuff they create themselves. This is also from User talk:Jack71483. Defunkier 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United_Snakes_Of_Amerikkka

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 redir to Celebrity. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people

edit

Original research abakharev 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Mobile

edit
  • Keep, I'm not sure what you want me to do. I sent an e-mail to Jump Mobile over this forum listing, and they did not seem to have a problem with it. I only made this link, because this company is part of Leap Wireless. Just because they are new, does not make them any less of a company. I am having a hard time keeping up with these comments. I do not know why you keep trying to get it deleted. I am doing my best to correct any and all errors.

The2ndflood

This page is back up, with an AFD template. I vote to Delete but I guess an admin needs to clear the old debate away first? --kingboyk 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the VfD notice was removed on 2nd February, re-added on 8th February. See previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jump Mobile) which resulted in speedy deletion as copyright violation; the article is no longer a speedy candidate. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSIK

edit

Delete. An article about an activity unit of an university. The website given redirects to a forum with only 22 members. *drew 13:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva orthodoxy

edit

Blog with low Alexa ranking and Google results. Does not seem to meet WP:WEB. This is not a vote. Brendan 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; asteroid is covered by List of asteroids (18001-19000). Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18190 Michaelpizer

edit

Non-notable asteroid; one of many named after science fair winners. Delete. —Brim 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowri

edit

Dicdef, already transwiki'd Alai 09:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexarelin, GHRP-6, Hexatropin

edit

Previously speedied as spam (1 and 2, not 3) and subsequently re-created by the editor, whose only edits are in relation to the area of human growth hormones used as anti-ageing treatments (see HGH quackery). Article is unreferenced, probably a copyvio (most of the author's contributions to date have been) and undoubtedly spam ("we have created a more potent GH releasing mechanism than ever heard of"). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 userfied to User:Brianq. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian quintana

edit

Bio started by User:Brianq, which makes several nonsense claims to notability. Hollywood movie producers without imdb listings don't really exist. Only Brian Quintana that google finds is some guy who's suing Paris Hilton, googling ""Brian Quintana" - hilton" gives 133 unique results, none of them mentioning a film producer. - Bobet 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scare

edit

Delete. Does not appear to be a notable ensemble. BD2412 T 14:52, 8 February 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. W.marsh 22:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waffleball

edit

Delete as a non-notable game made up in school one day (and then refined several times since last year until it reached its current state, of course). The creator removed my {{prod}} without comment. --Rory096 14:55, 8 February 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 delete. W.marsh 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooball

edit

Delete as non-notable game, per above. The creator also removed this {{prod}} tag without comment. --Rory096 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Speedy deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven. PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boner!

edit

Non-notable, unreferenced game. Borderline speediable, although I couldn't find any criteria under which to do so - perhaps this is an example of WP:IAR. In any case it's here now, it's unreferenced, it's non-notable, and it's original research.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimes - I am afraid I completely disagree.

This is a real game. and whilst the rules written in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner (i.e very verbose language was used) it was the best way to describe a relatively complex game.

I agree it is unreferenced, because we invented the game! How else will it get referenced without a start point at which to document it?

Bit of a catch 22 huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.38.54 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worden, Germany

edit

Even though it is very hard to search for Worden since it's a common word, it does not seem to appear on any map, German wikipedia and the only mentioning I could find is a weatherstation and I get the impression that the weatherstation is most of Worden, Germany. Listed here since {{prod}} was removed. delete Dr Debug (Talk) 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, the name is actually Worden, sans the umlaut.--Isotope23 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Discussion appropriateley moved to WP:RFD. Peyna 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Medicine

edit

Page points to stub on the French institution; considering that the articles which point to the page suggest that the intended target is an American institution, for which a page does not exist at the moment. Folajimi 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence this English term is ever used for the French organization it currently redirects to. If someone is interested enough to write up an article about the Atlanta, Georgia historical site of the same name (and can demonstrate some notability) I might support a keep.--Isotope23 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing that I have yet to submit an actual vote, I shall do that now: "I support giving the page the deep six." While I might eventually write a stub for the historical location, I shall refrain from committing myself at this time. Folajimi 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modd Squad (SimCity 4)

edit

No vote. AlabamaLlama was apparently trying to put this up for AfD, but did nothing but put it in the Feb. 8 page, so I'm fixing it up. His reason (given in the edit summary) was, "This can be merged with the "SimCity 4" or the "SimTropolis" article." Rory096 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; information would be totally out of place in RuneScape. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Holiday Items

edit

Delete Fancruft, very useless information which does not deserve its own article J.J.Sagnella 16:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixyeux

edit

WP:NOT, posiblly Vanity page eLNuko 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Truth

edit

Non-notable blog. Alexa rank of 22 is misleading, as it's hosted on blogspot. An IP who has never made any edits before removed the prod tag without comment. Rory096 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STFG

edit

Neologism. Fails Google test with 109 unique results. Vizcarra 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filolidia

edit

Delete as a neologism. One Google result, which is completely irrelevant (it's part of an email address). Even the breakdown of the name makes no sense, why would someone use Greek and English in a word? The prod tag was removed by the creator without comment. Rory096 17:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comic shouldn't have been deleted, according to guidelines for webcomics It meets the #1 requirement for being at least in the top 30, on Top Web Comics every month, and #6 for being the first actual pokémon webcomic.--70.185.237.167 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon-X

edit

Pokemon fan fiction webcomic, found here. It's hosted on Comic Genesis, which if you don't know is like the Geocities of the webcomic world. Although the main author of the article keeps on insisting that the webcomic is popular in the article, I see no evidence of this. The alexa report for Comic Genesis do not even mention this comic, as seen here. How is this random website notable? How is it more notable than a typical blog, geocities personal or random fan fiction? I don't think it is. - Hahnchen 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Answer: "It's hosted on Comic Genesis, which if you don't know is like the Geocities of the webcomic world." - Keenspace or as it's called now Comic Genesis, is a well established and respectable webcomic hosting service and is nothing comparable to geocities. "How is this random website notable? How is it more notable than a typical blog, geocities personal or random fan fiction?" - Random website? Wow, really reaching there, aren't you? First off this isn't anything like a blog, it's an established webcomic that's been around a pretty good amount of time. Geocities personal? You of all people should know the difference between a geocities personal (You've posted enough) and a webcomic. Random fan fiction? Well let's see here, first off.. it's not a fan fic, it's an adaptation, definitly not a fan fic, so if these are the reasons that notorious webcomic basher Hahnchen, has to delete this article, and these are the reasons behind this whole AFD, doesn't it seem a bit pointless, I really don't think Hahnchen has even checked out this website to verify anything.--70.185.237.167 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote/Comment — Comics are similar to copy & paste material, and content of latest comic is rather crude and immature. Inclined to vote delete due to non-existing alexa ranking, but will hold off until other editors drop by. Kareeser|Talk! 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: - How is this comic similar to copy and paste material, I don't see any evidence of that at all. Unless you're refering to how the frames of the comics are the same everyday so he must be cutting the images from his own source and pasting them into a template or something with each page. And what exactly did you think was crude, was it when Brendan said "I'm going to go on deck and play with my rod?" Yes, Brendan is a bit crude, that's how he is as a character. --70.185.237.167 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, comicruft. Royboycrashfan 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promo. Daniel Case 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Alexa doesn't list individual comics from comic genesis or keenspace, only keenspace or comic genesis in general, I've worked hard on this entry at the request of several members of this comics fan base.--CrazyWaffle 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Alexa gives a break down of where the incoming users visit on Comic Genesis, and it's just that Pokemon X wasn't there which was why I mentioned it. I know that you've worked on this entry, and I'm sure that the comic has it's own fan base, but so does every comic out there and I didn't see anything here which made it stand out from the masses. May I direct you towards Comixpedia, the webcomic encyclopedia? They'll gladly take your contributions, even if it gets deleted from Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic.--Isotope23 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete This comic contrary to what you may think is quite popular, all of it's fans are very loyal to the comic and the comic is very funny!-Rick_Xeros
  • Delete. Whether the comic is funny or the fans are loyal is immaterial. This comic is neither popular nor widely discussed, and as such is not noteworthy or encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hanchen, you have been told repeatedly in the past that alexa is a poor indicator of popularity. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I know how Alexa works, and am reminded of it with constant patronisation. I have also mentioned to everyone who mentions it that Alexa ranking is a circumstantial thing. I provide a link for people who are interested, other website nominations normally do so, why should webcomics be treated differently? - Hahnchen 06:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why do you guys want this deleted so badly? What do you have against this comic? --CrazyWaffle 01:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I'm enjoying watching all the Don't Deletes pile on, though; it makes it easy to see which people have never even heard of an AfD before. Ikkyu2 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 02:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Instead of being negative and biased, why don't you people suggest ways to make the article more suitable to what you want?
  • Comment: Actually "he of little maturity" I know how to add sigs, I guess it just slipped my mind to hit the sig button at the end, too bad they don't make a button that would fix your problem.--CrazyWaffle 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic, doesn't meet WP:WEB.--み使い Mitsukai 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I went to go read this comic after seeing this dispute, it doesn't really qualify as "fan fiction" as for popularity, since everyone knows Alexa doesn't list individual comics hosted by keenspace or comic genesis, you can't really check through them, this comic has been around a long time, updates frequently and has a pretty big fan base according to the amount of people registered at its forums, I think before you condem this article, you should work on better ways to prove it's not notable, rather than Hahnchen going off his hatred for all webcomics.--70.185.237.167 07:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Delete. Pretty much your standard Internet fad AfD, complete with the nerfherders suddenly appearing in its defense, no doubt alerted by whatever party put the article up in the first place. For the record, once an article is on AfD, the burden of proof is on the "Keep" side. Articles are Delete-worthy until proven otherwise. --Agamemnon2 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete: I see no evidence supporting that this ISN'T popular. All I see in support for deleting this page due to it's so called lack of popularity is this Alexa rankings page, which has been said by multiple commentors to not be an accurate ranking of a comic's popularity. I also see one commentor saying that Hahnchen, who appears to be the creator of this delete motion, has a hatred for all webcomics. Isn't this a bit biased? I believe one should have to provide more proof than an inaccurate rankings page and his/her hatred of webcomics. And just because YOU haven't heard of Pokémon X before doesn't mean the comic isn't popular. I feel more proof should be provided as to the status of popularity (and on that note, popular to who? The entire population of the earth? Wikipedia users? Web comic readers? Please clarify this.) before a deletion occurs. Mjc0961 13:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm a fan of these comics. This comic is running for two years and a half now, and even has its own small cult following it around. Nevertheless, I don't see many claims of notability provided on the world wide web...I actually don't see any at all, apart from some minor webcomic-lists, such as Top Web Comics. It received 67 votes last week..that's not enough to justify a keep in my opinion. Therefore, delete. SoothingR 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Elfguy 13:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point: - I don't think it really matters how popular this webcomic is, the point is this, it's an established comic, that much is obvious, it's been around almost 3 years. It has over 400 pages, and it has a lot of history behind it. It may not be mentioned all over the web like some webcomics, but it does have a rather large following. And if some of you would take time to read it, it's actually a quite inventive adapataion of the games.--70.185.237.167 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - Alexa seems to be a very unreliable source to base this judgement on. bigbboy1234 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT dELEtE!!!œ

  • Delete nn webcomic; it always makes me smile to see "do not delete" from the astroturfers Ruby 04:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Seems to me there's just a lot of arguing going on both ways without anyone giving any actual proof of anything. Alexa's rank means little, as Comic Genesis hosts many extremely popular comics, meaning a comic could actually become quite popular without getting a mention on Alexa. What this page actually needs is some reference to notability, and possibly a report of how many members reside in their forums. The only things I've gathered from this discussion are that it's not mentioned on Alexa, and it's been around for 3 years with a large archive. I took a look at it myself and while I'm not a fan of sprite comics it's certainly on the higher end of the quality spectrum. I will vote upon further proof of notability but for now I'd lean toward keep. Zaron 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer In my experience only about 1/3rd or less of the people who become fans of a comic actually join the forum, but I went to check for you, Currently the Pokémon-X forums at Proboards has 807 members. --70.185.237.167 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on the above information I see much more reason to keep the article than to delete it, even despite the ballot stuffing. -- Zaron 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've vaguely heard of it, somewhat well known, at least, within the pokemon sprite comic community. But dear god, please get rid of the midi on the site! Having a midi automatically play on your site is something of an automatic decrease to your notability, I'm afraid. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This webcomic is of great quality, has a consistent plot, and owns a reasonable fanbase who cares about the comic and its author. I began reading it four days ago under suggestion from a friend, and I was surprised to look it up here and see that it is in danger of deletion. This comic has been in the works since 2003, and although I know there are people like myself who are willing to read though the whole archive, a Wikipedia aticle will benefit those who want to just start at the current page, by providing the in-depth information on the characters and plot the site itself cannot produce. For those who have been reading it for a long time (and from I have seen, there are quite a few), an article can also provide any information they might have forgotten. I find it ironic that for a comic that is "unpopular," its article is quite a bit longer than say... Inverloch, which nobody dares to challenge. I am aware that there are WikiCities or the like specifically tailored for webcomics, but in my opinion those are more aimed towards those who read a large number of comics and/or have the patience to even find those sources. Finding the article on the main Wikipedia site is quick and easy. -Sarranduin 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. HotWings 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet webcomic notability standards. Savidan 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Gumbo

edit

Is http://www.lazywally-hq.net/2.html a popular notable website? What about a webcomic hosted on Lazy Wally, is that any more notable? I don't think so, Google doesn't seem to think so with 20 or so links the majority being wikipedia, and nor does Alexa, which doesn't even rank it. Let's get rid of this please. - Hahnchen 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve's Shades of Grey

edit

A webcomic, found here. The site it's hosted on, the gamespact network is apparently a blogging portal and community, with its forums garnering a rocket 115 members (mostly non webcomic related). It has zero Alexa rank. Now, I wouldn't even think that the Gamespact community is notable enough in itself for a wikipedia article, yet alone the webcomic hosted on it. - Hahnchen 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InSONICnia

edit

Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic, found here. It's hosted on The Mystical Forest Zone, a Sonic the Hedgehog fansite, do you think that website is notable enough for wikipedia?! Google gives just under 50 links. I don't think this fansite or its webcomic are notable enough for wikipedia. - Hahnchen 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Babajobu 08:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Deli Creeps

edit

Non-notable album from non-notable band Nv8200p talk 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 action is keep. Babajobu 09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deli Creeps

edit

Don't meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Eagle

edit

Hoax society - see talk:Royal Eagle. If the author manages to get the University to list it, the the deletion grounds become non-notable student society. -- RHaworth 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin

edit

Copied from Article's Discussion Page:

With the exception of one small book of short stories in Hebrew, which may have been formally published some time ago in Israel, he is entirely self published ("Narcissus Publication" is registered in his wife's name and produces Sam Vaknin's works exclusively, always in soft cover).

It seems to me that, if there were an Hebrew Wiki, there might be a case for his inclusion in a Hebrew Wiki. There is certainly a case for his inclusion in http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/ where regular users are better placed to assess his real validity, but apart from that, it seems to me that if there is a place to draw the line between valid articles and vanity this is it, as Sam Vaknin would seem to me no more than one of the droves of people who use vanity presses and self promotion on the internet to chase their "15 minutes of fame". --Zeraeph 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete Narcissism is all about superfluous vanity, and attention-seeking. It is in keeping with the nature of the behavioral disorder to simultaneously utilize and attack a source of narcissitic supply; in this case, Wikipedia. This site is simply another object to exploit for the sake of self-gratification. The deletion of Sam Vaknin and his tiresome reposting of innumerable links to his articles would be tantamount to doing the world (and Wikipedia) a great service, high Amazon sales ratings notwithstanding. --72.16.41.16 06:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

  • Delete A superfluous vanity page created by a user currently involved in attacking Wikipedia in the online Press see: http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1590&cid=1&sid=19 --Zeraeph 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Adam  (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, may satisfy WP:BIO as an author; I'd need to see some sales figures to determine that. Otherwise a clear delete as non-notable. Pretty funny that someone who attacks Wikipedia's value would be such a frequent contributor though. It's also a bit suspicious how close his userpage bio is to the text in this article... --Isotope23 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't believe that just because one of his columns involves Wikipedia it's given a separate section. How is it more notable than any other column he's written?! This is the kind of self fetishisation that Wikipedia doesn't need, I'm sure that if he had published a critique of Britannica, it'd be absolutely ignored. Anyway, this isn't a vote from me, he has a phd, so I'm guessing he's published some books. You'd have to examine them a bit more for an informed decision. - Hahnchen 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Currently published author with relatively high Amazon sales rating, extensive editorial reviews [44], and well over 150,000 pertinent Google hits. Hard to see this as anything but a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia is not censored to eliminate mention of its critics. Monicasdude 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. The PHD was purchased from a recognised degree mill (Pacific Western University).
  2. The google hits are the result of years of deliberate self promotion and search engine manipulation.
  3. Is there any evidence, apart from his own assertion, for the Amazon Sales figures?
  4. I know, in one sense, the article (that really IS more a blatant attack than a critique) shouldn't matter, but it really is extreme, and is open to charges of being some kind of "reaction" to[45]
  5. The "reviews" are largely the work of two people using several identities, and if you read them, rather obviously so
  6. "Bad Faith"? Can't argue with that, but trust me, he EARNED it.

--Zeraeph 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. My reference to the Amazon sale ranking is based on the Amazon pages, not on anything the author may have said. And however fake the customer reviews at Amazon may be, the "editorial reviews" are, according to Amazon, selected by Amazon itself from outside sources, not user submitted. Monicasdude 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion. He's got a user page, that's enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The frequent contributions to Wikipedia and simultaneous attacks against Wikipedia, made by Sam Vakin, are simply a presentation of NPD in action. SAM BE GONE... Delete, delete, delete. senihele 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zeraeph is absolutely right in his assertions. Vaknin has been a known entity for years to just about anyone who's ever been part of any online site even slightly related to psychological issues. But that's not a very large community overall. And for the record, the number of unique Google hits he gets is only 386. --Aaron 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If his PhD. gets referenced in his article, I want my degree-mill D.D. referenced in mine ... Adrian Lamo ·· 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on the idea that the subject doesn't deserve to be notable. That's not an encyclopedic criterion. If applied evenly, next up on the deletion list should be Paris Hilton, Ann Coulter, a fistful of serial killers, and most of the US Congress. Informally, the real "notability" criterion here ought to be "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" By that standard, it doesn't matter how much of the subject's prominence comes from self-promotion, or whether the number of unique Google hits out of the 150,000+ is 3, 300, 3000, or 149,999. If somebody rummaging around the web can find him in 150,000 places, that's the relevant number for assessing notability. Monicasdude 02:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Damn you, Monicasdude, for making such a reasonable argument that I'm forced to agree in principle, despite my gut saying this gentleman should go :) . Adrian Lamo ·· 02:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a funny man, that article was quite a nice read, although the ending was off: In the absence of such third party accreditation, the Internet risks both irrelevance and disrepute. Now, I don't know about standards at Mr Vakin's social circle, but where I come from, the Internet already IS irrelevant and disreputable, and justly so. --Agamemnon2 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Is this a person who someone might reasonably want more information on, and look up in Wikipedia?" With 150,000 self produced and promoted, frequently duplicated hits, on Google WHAT ON EARTH would anybody want further information for? Seriously? Since it was posted this article has remained a promotional stub, almost identical to his user page, so there can't be very much more anybody wants to know or say about him, including himself. There are some nasty (in various senses) people who are "notable" but they have all actually achieved some aspect of that notability offline, the only thing Sam Vaknin is notable for is artificially generating an huge internet presence under his own name. There are several MLMs that have done the same thing and we don't have entries for them? --Zeraeph 10:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if you look at the google hits that author does seem to be notable. Elfguy 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

349 Broadway

edit

A NN New York building MNewnham 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick

edit

Notabilty appears to fall short WP:BIO criteria for notability. Was listed {{prod}} but this was contested, so I'm bringing it to AfD.--Isotope23 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn documentary maker and radio and television presenter. Google search for "sean patrick" "AFN Europe" -wikipedia iraq brings 6 unique hits. Movements of a single infantry division in a large-scale war are not notable and neither is reporting on them. Zunaid 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Penis Enlargement

edit

This article is a very small joke. Ruby 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PrivateEquityCentral.net

edit

Non-notable commercial spam. Choess 19:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship of UFO Reports"

edit

Obvious POV fork. None of information verified; if verified, info could be added to Unidentified flying object and daughter articles could be created from there in a way that does not violated wikipedia's forking policies. Savidan 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay, the shuttle thing didn't really happen, but neither did the UFOs).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. {{db-empty}} Shanel 20:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatSe

edit

Delete, not informative and has no place in an encyclopedia Jim 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat in detail

edit

Paul August deleted my prod tag without comment. Wikipedia is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. James084 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "slang term" see for example its use in the following Britannica article: [46] Paul August ☎ 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, if it's in Britannica, then it must not be slang...--Isotope23 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a merge & redirect to Maneuver warfare.--Isotope23 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless better verification shown, or cleanup if kept. Little more than a dicdef as it stands, and one which makes contradictory usages of another term. Not really a strategy or tactic or operational consideration that can be expanded to encyclopedic scope. Unsourced. The first two pages of Google hits are about a pair of books by a single author and about a single wargame, with only one hit relevant to the article's topic among those twenty items. In truth it sounds like little more than "wipe out one squad and hope the other ten brigades are all on lunch break at the time." Barno 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to merge and redirect per Isotope23. It's a well-known term (I was familiar with it from wargaming and military studies), but it's really just an idea, not a specific maneuver tactic. If your primary strategy is "defeat in detail", and if your tactics are aimed toward that end, you will almost certainly lose unless the opponent is heavily outnumbered or heavily damaged. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well-known military term describing an important tactic/strategy. Why do you think there there is a "pair of books" and an "wargame" named after it? There are innumerable references to this term. Besides the Brittannica reference above, and the others provided by Avi above, see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. I could go on and on. It would probably be easy to find thousands more. Paul August ☎ 23:49, February 8, 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's so easy, and you clearly have references up the wazoo, why can you not be bothered to improve the article by adding some? That would be more productive in terms of making the case for keeping than sniping at people in AfD. —rodii 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my view while the links above are sufficient to show that the term is legitimate, none of them are a very appropriate reference for the term. An appropriate reference would be some authoritative book on military tactics, strategy or history, unfortunately I don't have any such reference at hand. As for making any other contribution to the article, as I said below, this is not my field of expertise and I'm unqualified to add anything to the article. The only contribution I feel I'm qualified to make, is to try to insure that this article doesn't get deleted. I apologize if I've been "sniping". That hasn't been my intention. Paul August ☎ 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, OK, me too, sorry. :) —rodii 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you just toss out the {{prod}} tag without bothering to improve the article in the slightest or engage in any discussion, then you don't deserve to survive an AfD. --Aaron 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I'm the person who removed the "Prod" template. There is no obligation on the person who removes the the prod template to improve the article. I have engaged in discussion. What do you mean I "don't deserve to survive AfD?" This is about the article not me. Whether Wikipedia should have an article called "defeat in detail" has nothing to do with anything I do or don't do. Paul August ☎ 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, improving the article is "optional", but I agree where the template reads "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." The "Defeat in detail" talk page is blank, so you didn't discuss it until after the nominator brought it here for proper process. Removing the prod template without doing something proactive to advance the discussion isn't grounds for "don't deserve to survive AfD", but it's likely to cause other editors to discount your assertions. It looks more like edit-warring than consensus-building. Despite this, I'm modifying my vote slightly given the further citations. Barno 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barno above. At least leave some kind of comment when the prod tag is removed to explain why the article deserves to be kept. Furthermore, if you feel strongly about keeping an article that, at least in this case, is little more than a dictdef, why don't you feel strongly enough to improve the article a little bit? Just coming in here and voting to keep and improve doesn't seem to get these articles impoved in any way; thus, leaving a hoard of bad articles. BTW, I would like to point out that the reason that I nominated the article for deletion is legitamate and until the article is improved it remains legitamate. James084 01:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I know just enough about this term to know what it means, and to know that it is a very common and important military term, and consequently to know that this topic deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. However military strategy and history is not my field of expertise, and without going to the library and doing some research, I am unqualified to make any real improvements to the article. That an article needs to be improved is not a legitimate reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Paul August ☎ 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would refer you to WP:NOT to point out what Wikipeida is not and that is it is NOT a dictionary. This article was a dictdef. James084 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And I'm well aware of WP:NOT, which says "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia." Thus, that an article only contains a definition is not a legitimate reason for deletion. A lot more can be said about this topic than just a definition. Paul August ☎ 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote seems to conflate the editor and the article. Just because there is disagreement over the tag and you dislike one editor removing it does not mean that the whole article irredeemably needs to be deleted. You can vote as you like, however, I urge you to reconsider this particular stance. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been Cleaned Up significantly. I've done a couple of passes through the article; I suggest anyone who voted Delete might want to re-read it now and reconsider. It's not done but it's a reasonable first pass now, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above.
above unsigned Keep apparently by User:Pypex - Georgewilliamherbert 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per aboveMike McGregor (Can) 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Deb as patent nonsense. - Bobet 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duckduckmoose

edit

Page describes a site that is not notable Jim 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sorry, i dont follow you, could you re-phrase? The Site is there, just in the stages of a re-shuffle. ok. is it still ok to leave this here, and update when the site is back in working order?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Thue as a resume of a non-notable person. - Bobet 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill_Ogletree

edit

Looks like someone wanted to post their resume... Jim 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symetrism

edit

Non-notable political ideology. Probably with no existence outside the life of User:Symetrist. -- RHaworth 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I (the author of this article) am insulted by the presumption of these pseudo intellectuals. Just because YOU haven't heard of something does not mean it is a hoax. YOU are neither omniscient nor are you by any means an absolute authority. tell me this...aside from having a bunch of people flood wikipedia with requests for this...how would you suggest I prove symetrism is a valid political ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symetrist (talk • contribs) 18:05, February 8, 2006
Please note the use of the word possible. Without verification, there is no reason to assume that you are not trying to create a concept for the purposes of self-aggrandizement or plain tomfoolery. Anyway, if you have created it, it violates WP:NOR; if you have not, it needs sources. Until such point as you can bring adequate and verifiable sources, it is a possible hoax. My apologies for inadvertantly hurting your feelings. -- Avi 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be hard on the guy - his comment is no more a violation of etiquette than calling the idea a no-brainer. Symetrist: how do you prove it? I will weaken the criterion I gave on your talk page - have a Symetric Party candidate stand at any election and receive more than a derisory number of votes. -- RHaworth 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ftp Search Engine

edit

This appears to be an advertisement. It was linked earlier to File Transfer Protocol. I say delete. - CorbinSimpson 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Linguistics in IIT Kharagpur

edit

Non-encyclopedic. delete UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To take up some of your points. The external source happens to be the IIT Foundation itself, and the main problem with your dictionary is that it is merely of interest to students of the IIT Foundation. You may be aware that many schools and colleges develop local slang. It serves no purpose for the general community if every school in the world made lists of their own slang and then used their own school website as a verifiable source.
You point to the internet slang list which you feel is comparable with your own list. It may help you understand why people are rejecting your dictionary while accepting the internet slang dictionary if you consider how many people use the internet as compared to how many people attend the IIT Foundation.
It would seem that a reference on the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi page linking to the page on slang would be sufficient in this case. SilkTork 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now to address the point raised by SilkTork, I would like to add that just by knowing that there's a word faccha in the lingo of IITs is not sufficient unless you know that it refers to a first year student, which the IIT Foundation's site doesn't quite do. About the Internet slangs article, I feel that we should compare the utility of the article and not the scope. What I mean is that instead of comparing how many people use the internet, we should see for how many people this page would be helpful. Obviously you can't include those who use the internet for only e-mails and googling into the audience of the article, but definitely include those who use usenet groups and discussion forums. Compare that to the IIT Slang page which makes the social fabric of the IITs. If you are inside the IITs, you have to know what these words mean to really be able to talk to any student. I am not saying that the student are rude, but many a times they don't realise that they are using the slangs. At any point of time, there are 25000 to 30000 IITians studying in the campus. Add to that the 4000+ students who pass out every year. Seeing from an alumni's point of view, suppose you are an alumni from a batch that passed 30 years back and you want to get nostalgic about the student life you had, then each and every word will be invaluable (this work is not made up in class one day, but is a tradition of over 50 years). Take a look at the statistics that the IITs have been functioning since the early 1950s and you will understand the target audience I am refering to is enormously huge. For those who still don't understand the importance of IITs, take a look at this video. I know that giving examples is not quite relevant as some might say that they are exception, but I take the liberty of quoting one for those who might be interested. This incident took place some 15 years back in an auditorium in Los Angeles. There was one IITian who was sitting in it and was not very happy with the movie projector's focus. He became increasingly irritated and blurted out Tarapado, focus as he used to do in his IIT days. Within a few seconds, a voice came from 2 rows behing that said Which Hall?. 203.110.243.21 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it is sufficent that we are aware that a particular school, website, village, hobby, etc has developed local jargon. We don't even need to know any of the words, let alone the meaning of them. Once involved in a school, website or hobby you might need to know the meaning of faccha for IIT or lege for RateBeer. But the rest of the world doesn't need to know. That the IIT website does not have a glossary itself is even more argument against including one on here as this is not the place for original research. I suggest you approach the IIT website with your work. I am sure they would find it of value. And that is truly where it belongs. You may notice that I am not voting against your article. I am only here to engage in the debate you requested. SilkTork 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to know most of the stuff in Wikipedia. Including the material in Internet Slangs, marijuana slangs, or in the Jargon file, all of which have entries here. Nonetheless, they may be of use to some people. Arundhati bakshi
  • The argument pointed by SilkTork will lead nowhere. I can apply the same thing to the Internet Slangs article and say that we only need to know that the internet users have developed a slang of their own. So let all those websites/discussion boards that have users frequently use these slangs maintain their own listing of such slangs. I will now give a gist of what I believe should be debated upon.

Given the fact that the Wikipedia community considers the atricle on Internet slangs worth keeping, then it can be concluded that the claims that the page under consideration is non-encyclopaedic and no brainer do not hold. The debate should actually be on whether it is a listcruft or not. That is, whether the people who might be interested in this article big enough to grant it a place in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if its not, will merging it with an article on IIT_Lingo or something equivalent will make it satisfy the criteria. When deeptrivia suggested that I go ahead with making an article general to all the IITs, I considered it well before deciding to start an article on Kharagpur's Jargon alone. This was because it will require significant editing and morover will discourage people from other IITs to start such page. Even now I feel if the article is deleted, it should certainly be made a part of a larger article involving all the IITs. The reason why I felt that IIT Kharagpur itself merits such an article is that the IIT community (comprising of students, professors, workers, etc.) is 20000+ strong at any point of time. And since the culture of this jargon dates back half a centruy, a lot many non-students have also started to adopt to a good part of it. The only argument that feels that can go against it is that most of the workers here don't use the internet. But I feel that this should hardly be the reason for not allowing this article to be posted. This is because if it doesn't get posted, when these people WILL start using the net, they will refrain from making such a page because they would come to know that such a page was not allowed to be hosted before. Unfortunately I will not be around for the next 3 days, the time when the fate of this page will be decided. It that happens, and is decided on polls rather than merit, here's my choice sheet for the single transferable vote: 1) Keep.

or 2) Delete and merge with IIT Lingo.

or 3) Delete and move to user's sub page.

Ambuj 11:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too specific topic, and more importantly, Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. If there is a general academic slang in India in general, it would merit a mention or even its own article, but this is way too academic-crufty. JIP | Talk 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except here and here and here and here. Shouldn't rules be enforced consistently? Why is English boarding school slang OK but Indian IIT slang not OK? Arundhati bakshi 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of the articles you listed, while I feel all are more notable than this IIT Kharagpur thingy, none meet my criteria above. So my opinion is that if this article is deleted, then the first three should also be proposed for deletion (I thought the list of sexual slurs would be fairly long and complete, but it turns out it's far from it), and the last should be stripped of its slang section. JIP | Talk 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one of my points. Why is this list being singled out and the others not? And why is British schoolboy slang more notable than Indian IIt slang? Arundhati bakshi
          • Pointing to examples of bad use of Wiki is a very poor argument. I would be more inclined to vote to keep if I was shown a good argument for the value of this particular dictionary of school slang. SilkTork 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And why is it a bad argument? If the rules of Wikipedia apply to one article shouldn't they apply to others as well, or is that only for certain users to decide? I would prefer to see the list incorporated into an aticle maybe of IIt culture -- then it would make more sense -- but if this one goes, why should not the same criteria for deltion not be applied to similar articles of no greater value? Arundhati bakshi


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan (character)

edit

Delete. Non-notable webcomic character Oldelpaso 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I needed that :-) -- Avi 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movescope.com

edit

Looks like an ad to me. Delete. — Ливай   20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essca

edit

NN Corp, on Dead-end pages since July 2005 MNewnham 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Moorlock

edit

Hoax or non-notable. Only mention google finds of this famous philosopher is a guest book signature on a gaming site. Google finds no mention of the book "Should we praise the deaf?". Was prod-ed but tag was removed without comment. Weregerbil 20:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect to Rajkumar. The massive ill-formatted stuff posted at this title was probably a copyvio. -- RHaworth 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. RajKumar

edit

Now come on! What is there to say, this is one of the most need-to-be deleted articles :-)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five Star Painting

edit

The creator of the article (User:MA77) bears a username similar to that of the owner of the business the article is about (Matt Anderson). There are only 177 Google hits for '"Five star painting" Minnesota', and the creator of this page has edited the Painter and decorator article to include this business. [58] This seems very much like an advertisement/vanity page for a small business. — Indi [ talk ] 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD A7: unremarkable people or groups. --M@thwiz2020 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Long

edit

Delete this minor English schoolboy's vanity page G N Frykman 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7.--Isotope23 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Sceptre with the reason "csd a7". - Bobet 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Inc

edit

No assertion of notability. Apparently a consulting firm.

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thievery

edit

how-to guides are inherently POV and non-encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Under Heaven

edit

86.128.193.98 deleted my prod tag without comment (Which, by the way, is getting very annoying). The article itself admits that there the importance or noteriety of the subject is not known yet. Perhaps we should wait until we do know? James084 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about that too. Seems to be an initial step to AfD most of the time...--Isotope23 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain utility to PROD when an article is obviously going to lose on AfD but doesn't quite fit the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, which are rather strict. Ruby 14:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual 4Mat (demogroup)

edit

Page about a demo group, doesn't establish notability, 73 unique google hits. - Bobet 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion G7, author request). howcheng {chat} 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vncscan

edit

Non-notable software. No mentions on either Slashdot or OSnews. Lots of Google results, but they seem to all be simple listings on software directories prompted by the company itself. Couldn't find a single independent review. Delete AlistairMcMillan 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Ruud 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? 71.13.81.74
Why keep? —Ruud 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should atleast provide a reason, such as per nomination, not notable, etc. Mike (T C)   23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, I stand corrected. I had no idea that this opinion was held by the majority here. I am sorry for causing this stir and I'm sorry for going over the top on Alistair. I am clearly in the wrong here. I will delete the VNCScan wiki and I will also delete any negative posts that I made about Alistair. Sbostedor
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Web Content Solutions"

edit

Appears to be nothing but an advertisement, company non-notable, page is also an orphan - no link to the company website is given, but the article is still an advertisement SFC9394 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and redirect to Space: 1999. Despite the low voter turnout, the consensus of those who did vote (even the nominator) seemed to be to merge. And doing so cannot permanently harm the encyclopedia, so I decided it was adequate. moink 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodgrove Trilogy

edit

Glorified dicdef and neologism; could probably stand to be merged in to the Space: 1999 main article. Otherwise, the content in this article has no place on Wikipedia. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - you cannot dismiss Kriss Akabusi as "some fitness guru" but you can dismiss this article as some schoolboy's ramblings. -- RHaworth 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ak Pride

edit

I'm not really sure what ak pride is, but Google says it's a musical group, the article also says it "aims to get into the oxford dictionary by 2010". Go figure. Obli (Talk) 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. W.marsh 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sacculitis

edit

Given this user's history (Seinfeld01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), this appears to be nonsense. -Jcbarr 22:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, decision to merge should be handled on talk page. W.marsh 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race trivia

edit

Unencylopedic article about trivia from the reality show, The Amazing Race. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Pepsidrinka 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By Iamnotanumber

edit

not a notable phrase. Maybe this could belong in Wikiquote, if well-known. —Brim 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention deficit disorder

edit

Indiscriminate, hard to verify list, of little value. Also delete List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder which is just a redirect to the subject of this AfD. Peyna 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baloonkaz inc.

edit

Advert article for some comic book with no references and no hits on google. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Moy

edit

Advertisement. Delete —Brim 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonalism

edit

nonsense original ¿research? stuff-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat piss man

edit

Neologism, gets 345 google results [59]. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Apparently the phrase was used in some self-published magazine but that's about it. W.marsh 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's fairly often used on web forums, e.g. rpg.net([60]); that's where I first encountered it.Bicornis 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mirabello

edit

Delete Original Autobiographic, wikified by others, still not notable. Has published three unnotable books, furthermore nothing worth mentioning at the level of importance for wikipedia. See also the discussion about one of his books at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Odin_Brotherhood for more discussion on this. Page about him from before has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mirabello KimvdLinde 23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my obvious error --KimvdLinde 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others, has notable published works yet is considered not important enough by a user happy to include a page on Drosophilidae, even though he states himself that nothing much is known about this subject, i quote "The knowledge of the phylogeny of this family is incomplete". 82.23.107.27 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
feel free nominate Drosophilidae for deletion. But we are not talking about me, but about the Mark Mirabello article. References to where he is mentioned are appreciated, did not find any that pointed at him when searching wikipedia --KimvdLinde 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of article is, among other things, author of two nontrivial books published by non-vanity presses, one of which has five editions, indicating satisfaction of notability criterion for published authors. If publishing lousy books was grounds for deletion, let's start with the Jackie Collins' of the worls, and the guy who wrote the Da Vinci code nonsense. Monicasdude 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KimvdLinde you've edited your earlier thing. that's bad. i got told off for that you know. i've never heard of mark mirabello, but clearly having 3 books published is kind of a good thing and worthy of recognition. he appears to be a professor of some repute on at least two continents and is in need of inclusion as much as your remarkable collection of studies into flies. 82.23.107.27 23:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "subject is mentioned in wikipedia by others" - dubious - only mentioned in article on The Odin Brotherhood, book by Mark Mirabello, also up for deletion. 82.23.107.27 - your case is not helped by trolling KimvdLinde, and reference to Drosophilidae is completely irrelevant to this discussion. (You won't get far if you try to say that that article is a candidate for deletion). Please try to come up with a better rationale for keeping the Mirabello articles, rather than launching ad hominems. Monicasdude comment is pretty lame too - although I agree both authors mentioned are trash, they're read by tens of millions throughout the world, so are obviously notable. (No Vote as yet) Camillus (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, if KimvdLinde has read the books in question then I am happy to retract my comments but as I suspect she hasn't then surely her comments that the subject in question's works are not notable and nothing worth mentioning are, as you say of another user's comments (hypocrisy eh, gotta love it) pretty lame. Not having heard of something cannot possibly be a verifiable reason for deletion in a worldwide encyclopedia. You'd have to be an ubermensch of the highest variety to KNOW and be able to comment on the notability of everything in the world. Carry on though. 82.23.107.27 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (change of sex edit btw)[reply]

Comment: I realize no one here probably cares, but the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my error. Remains nn. --KimvdLinde 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was user's fifth edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several arguments here are ad hominems directed at me (primarily by new editors), but whether I (or the new editors for that matter) have heard of the person is irrelavant. Arguments should be independent of that. The argument that there are other comparable articles is irrelevant (they might indeed qualify for deletion as Not Notable), inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on more objective criteria, as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Based on the criteria as a professor, I should be able to find at least a substantial number of references to his work from other scholars, such as in Web-of-Science (zero hits) or google scholar (1 or 2 hits) or google itself (found one, missed maybe some, but likely less than 5 hits). Notability as a writer, even for a subculture (who especially interact at the web) should result in substantial mentioning of the author at the web beyond book reviews, sales lists etc and that is fairly limited. I surely believe he is a nice person (based on what people write about him and from his email), and that he is liked by his students and such, but that does not make someone of encyclopedic value in my opinion, who's main entry at the page is the courses that he teaches. --KimvdLinde 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy is clearly a respected and published academic, which is more than can be said for most of the cretins who moderate this site who apparently think a Transformers convention is notable. "Judge not a man to be non-notable lest he goeth awag in a bad way on your face, mother bitch" --BCFC Dan 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was user's first edit. --Craig Stuntz 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word was "webspazzer" you benny. --BCFC Dan 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sadly, the act or condition of having an exceptionally annoying fanbase hasn't made its way into CSD yet. I'm confident it's an oversight, however. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My reason for voting keep earlier was due to the fact that in order to become published, the professors work needs to have undergone peer review and as such this makes him notable within his field of work. For this to have happened 3 times adds weight to this argument. I do not see how google's failure to bring up references to an academic is relevent in this case. JohnnyCrabcakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.1.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Dudes, seriously, he's a non-notable professor who writes non-notable books and none of the arguments for or against can distort those facts. Fails professor test and author test. The simultaneously hilarious and sickening newbie / sockpuppet / meatpuppet fest going on here, the total failure by more experienced users who are apparently independent of Mirabello and claim expertise in said field to show why any of this is notable or wikify the articles plus the huge amount of spidering these pages are currently getting (ka-ching!) leave me exactly where I started with the Odin Brotherhood. Strong Delete. If people want to nominate other articles just because something they have an interest in was deleted, go ahead and they too can be judged on their merits. Just because you think extreme ironing is nn but wouldn't be deleted is not a reason for keeping any other article, nominate it and see what happens. If people think it's more worthy than what you're into, that's just something you're going to have to deal with. ++Deiz 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that generally listing other articles for AfD, because someone listed your favorite article for AfD is considered a violation of WP:POINT. Peyna 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true Peyna, y'all play nice and don't listen to everything uncle Deizio has to say... It has to be said that nominating Extreme Ironing for deletion just because an article about an obscure occult book / author was put on the block would be pretty spectacular. ++Deiz 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I have no intention of nominating anything I dislike for deletion. Its not my place to determine if Extreme ironing is meritorius, only I am using it as an example to illustrate the content on this site and how Mirabello is appropriate. User:Stege1
          • That's generally bad logic. Most of the time when someone says "Well page X exists, so why can't page Y?", page Y has never been nominated for AfD; OR is in no way analogous to page X, so it is an invalid comparison. Peyna 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From my little experience, this debate should purely be about this reference, the relevance or irrelevance of other articles is a separate isssue. This article is well written, informative and fully has a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Google's little brother, who gives a damn if the author is not massively referenced on there? Google is a corporate whore, a behemoth of the internet which makes it's own rules. When people use the 'lack of google points' reason for requesting a delete they are striking at the very heart of what they are supposedly defending. Wikipedia is the anti-thesis of Google, and will in time slay it like Saint Dan slew the dragon. In the words of JFK, "ask not what Wikipedia can do for you; ask what you can do for Wikipedia" -- Ruth User:Daley_Lama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.58 (talk • contribs)
      • I agree with Daley_Lama, I won't bring in any outside references. Note: I recently edited the page with More info on Mirabello, apparently he is also a Kentucky Colonel. A distint honor given by the governor of the commonwealth of Ky. Other notable recipients are John Paul II, John Glenn, and Dave Thomas. stege1
Delete. Not enough information available on Mirabello to write an NPOV article. His historical claims strike me as highly questionable, but I can't find a critical appraisal of them online (other than Wikipedia's), or indeed, any appraisal by someone with relevant academic qualifications. Also, his reputation as an academic does not serve to shore up his reputation as a writer of works of "dark horror fiction" with "hardcore, X-rated content." I would support an article on Mirabello if either A) his historical theories attracted attention within the academic community, or B) he became well-known for his fiction. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His book “The Odin Brotherhood” is relevant to many topics. Norse mythology and neo-paganism, secret societies, Nazi occultism (which is heavily influenced by Nordic culture) and cults are sources of scholarly attention around the world. The articles on Mark Mirabello and his book help contribute to Wikipedias ability to have information on the wide spectrum human affaires.— Preceding unsigned comment added by zoddoom (talk • contribs) (user's first edit)HroptR 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors

edit

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should add that some of the votes considered sock puppets are from Shawnee State University.I do not know much about IP address but I think since all 4,000 students are on the same network at the school, and there are only so many computers on campus, some may log in at different times from the same terminal. I ask that you consider this. stege1

Note I would like to add that I am neither a sockpuppet or a student of Shawnee State University, if the above user would like to check my IP address he/she will find that I am resident in Europe at the moment. I stand by every point that I made.

Regards

Ruth User:Daley_Lama


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Ivalice

edit

From its proposed deletion: "doesn't seem notable, it gets ~20 unique google hits, forum has just 136 users". PROD tag was removed by an anonymous user without comment. Fails WP:WEB hard. Nifboy 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Don't know why people bother taking these to AfD. enochlau (talk) 13:15, 9 February 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 delete. W.marsh 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bookcase Store

edit

Tagged for {{prod}}, but was removed. nn local business. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_8&oldid=1234127583"