Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 15

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< January 14 January 16 >

Purge server cache

January 15

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Croatian Serbs

edit

Rule from Starting new page: whether a separate page is justified; perhaps it is better to add the text to a related page (especially if the text is not very long); that page can always be split later, after it has grown. The history section from Serbs of Croatia isnt expanded enough already and this article is already made. Luka Jačov 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Le Luan

edit

Hoax. Article indicates subject's term as Bailiff was 1971-1975. However, during this period the Bailiffs were Sir Robert Hugh Le Masurier (1962-1973) and Sir Herbert Frank Cobbold Ereaut (1973-1988)[1]. See also: List of Bailiffs of Jersey <-- note there is a discrepancy of dates here. —ERcheck @ 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. NN Vanity Madchester 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Holliday

edit

Non notable advert for a website - google brings up no relevant hits for "Sydney Holliday" + journal. Francs2000   00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A3: no content. --M@thwiz2020 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Investment making decisions

edit

It's not a bad idea, but it belongs on the Wikibooks Wiki, not Wikipedia. And they already have material on the subject over there at Wikibooks:Investing --Mysidia (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New Talents

edit

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Stanton. Doesn't seem notable. I couldn't verify it -- few google hits for "brand new talents", the ones I looked at not relevant. No hits for "brand new talents" bulgarian nor "Michael Stanton" "brand new talents". Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 00:32Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; anyone else can deal with the rename if necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction Western

edit

WP:NOR. Scifi/Western crossovers are exceedingly rare and it isn't really a western per se. This page is original research about science fiction films with "western/cowboy" influences, such as apparently Star Trek, or Steampunk stories that happen to play in the wild west (such as Wild Wild West). Radiant_>|< 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep the Science fiction Western page because I'm not an idiot. --Peace Inside 00:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through the thoughts below, I am changing my vote. I added it to the bottom. *Peace Inside 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:—Sorry about the confusion on that. I was only talking about myself and didn't mean to imply anything about Radiant. I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that I read WP:AGF. I always assume good faith, but that has nothing to do with competence. OR is a reason to improve an article, not to delete a term that exists. *Peace Inside 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Rivers Cuomo. -- Jonel | Speak 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Garde (band)

edit

Band with no assertion of notability and appears non-notable. Discography consists of demo tapes. AMG has many bands called "avant garde" but none seem to be this one. Article used to redlink to Michael Stanton (AfD discussion) but the creator of that article delinked it, as it is a different person. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 00:42Z


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

The result of the debate was delete - DS 14:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fucko

edit

Two trivial dictionary definitions. silsor 01:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonial midgard

edit

Resubmission of an article that was already successfully voted for deletion. It was noted at the time of the last deletion that it only got 5 hits at Google; this time around all it has is this Wiki article. Probably should have speedied this, but couldn't find the justification. Mitsukai 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was retcon out of existence. DS 14:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shocktopus

edit

Delete: This article is not legitimate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wright (Broadcaster)

edit

An apparent autobiography (only contributor thus far is User:Johnwright2000). No claim of notability that meets anything in WP:BIO. Top Google results for "John Wright" do not include this person or his blog, [4] and the only references/sources do not seem notable (his own, and two other blogs).-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. If someone wants to make a redirect, go for it, but there's nothing linking to this page. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Optimization Tips

edit

Not exactly a CSD so: merge with Search engine optimization or delete I'd say are the only things that make sense for this. gren グレン ? 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A7). gren グレン ? 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vergie Barber DeAntonio

edit

Delete - Non-notable person, possibly vanity page. A person doesn't deserve an encyclopedia entry solely for being a local realtor or for being six feet tall. Fabricationary 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. nn radio program Madchester 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's Indie

edit

nn college radio program 123 google hits not all of which appear to be related. Pboyd04 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --M@thwiz2020 17:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1337.com

edit

Non-notable web forum/discussion group (less than 500 members, according to the link at the top of the page).--Hansnesse 01:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Hansnesse --Deville 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article is highly unorganized, questionable, and non-notable. SycthosTalk 02:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BlueGoose 02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vary (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to List of pejorative political puns. howcheng {chat} 19:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libtard

edit

This is not an encyclopedic article. It's more suited for a dictionary. BlueGoose 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efem Cafe

edit

Might be a nice place to hang out but that doesn't make it notable. Daniel Case 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to Catholic Apostolic National Church in Great Britain. howcheng {chat} 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic apostolic national church

edit

Delete: Vanity, non-notable, advertising Tokakeke 02:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to suitable article (I couldn't find one though), I fixed the external link in the article, but only gets a few googles anyway.--MONGO 09:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears to be a schismatic Catholic group originating in Brazil. Would be inclined to give a group like this the benefit of a doubt, at least with regards to notability; the group may not have a big web presence. Probably ought to move to Catholic Apostolic National Church. A general account of their beliefs, with particular attention to the grounds for their separation from Rome, would be more helpful here. Smerdis of Tlön 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be a genuine religious community. Google for "Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez", their "Patriarch", and see especially here [5]. The article now references a source, a website, and the website claims over a million adherents worldwide and has some photographs of church activities, including services with bishops and what might be construed as a church building. But that website is a sorry business, hosted on a commercial web provider with lots of ads, evidently pieced together quickly with lots of empty stubs (including a stub contact page). And the guy they have a photograph of in a priest's costume looks as if he might just as well be some student posing for a hoax. If that's the official site of the British branch of this church, then that branch at least hasn't been doing much publicity work so far. I would give them a few days time to collect more serious references. Also, the authors of the article need to make up their minds whether they want the article to deal with only the British branch, or the worldwide church it represents. As it stands, the article text doesn't match the title. Lukas 22:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Catholic Apostolic National Church in Great Britain. Apparently there are other churches that call themselves Catholic Apostolic National Church which are not associated with these folks or Igrejas Católicas Apostólicas Nacionais (the originating organization in Brazil). But agree with Smerdis of Tlön, these guys should stay in. Crypticfirefly 04:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe move and extensively refactor. This is a national chapter of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, a spinoff founded by Carlos Duarte Costa after excommunication, which itself scores a princely 173 Google hits in English and about twice that in its native language; this does not appear to be an organisation of any real significance, as evidence the redlink for the church in the founder's own article. Absent any indication of numbers, I'd say that anythign beyond a stub is likely to be functionally unverifiable from neutral sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukas. Stifle 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukas.—nihon 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob advanced

edit

nn software. Google search for "BOB Advanced" or "BOB Advanced" +softare do not show this software Pboyd04 02:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 16:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Ma

edit

Fictional college basketball player in a video game? Unless he's the game's main character, he's not notable. Daniel Case 02:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put on the market

edit

Wikipedia is not a real-estate manual


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystera Legends

edit

Another MMPORPG. I have a feeling that if this one was really notable it wouldn't be written the way it is. Daniel Case 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shouldn't this whole discussion be moved over to The Book of Light? Daniel Case 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 at request of sole editor, User:Ginar, may his tribes increase. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sharp

edit

Non-notable author. Article created by same author as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Light

oh come on. Is there a law against doing that? Author is notable judging by booksale ranking on amazon.com. It took me only a few minutes browing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_by_title:_A to find books that don't sell as well.

author writes for several internet and print based magazines and is a regular media personality. Not famous like Oprah for sure but I see other author pages here with authors even less notable than this one. Certainly this author meets notability guideslines as defined under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29
  • Delete author of four books by a very minor publisher, with no indication of their criteria for seleciton (other than that submitted works conform to editorial POV, aka "the truth"), only one of which is even in the Library of Congress catalog, all of which are available free to download (which is vanishingly rare for any mainstream author). Zero evidence of an audience > 5000 per WP:BIO and much of what is written is unverifiable from neutral sources. So unless someone can cite me a profile from the New York Times literary section I say this is not so much an author as an evangelist who writes books. On the plus side, according to the author the books are "clear, concise, well written, and precise." It would be too tragic if he thought they were crap... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is established precedent for ignoring self-published or vanity press publishers. There is also established precedent that verifiability requires discussion by neutral third parties. Information from a subject's own site can be used, but WP:NPOV requires that other reliable sources are available. Hence my request for one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
got ya, doh! although I don't agree with much of what you said up there (i.e., there is evidence of notability), the issue of reliable and neutral sources is an important one. I think I agree with the consensus here. Its too early for this entry to appear in the encyclopedia. oh well, live and learn
'comment source of article irrelevant as is behaviour on other delete votes. Ginar
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jason Rawlings

edit

No Google hits. Thus not notable. Daniel Case 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD G1. --M@thwiz2020 16:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Jet Turbine

edit

Delete. An admittedly non-existent novel with 0 Google hits. Maxamegalon2000 02:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put on the market

edit

Wikipedia is not a real-estate manual


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March Party

edit

Non-notable party cruft. "March Party" is a general term, but this particular party seems to be one thrown by and for a largish group of friends (maybe 30 people at each party). Article written by people who throw it, presumably.-- Babajobu 02:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote lots of this article, I can see your point about deleting it, just thought it would be nice to have a reference article defining exactly what it is for people. Have downloaded page so contents can be hosted on the MP website instead if it goes. What criteria would it have to meet to be a valid entry? Jonnisr 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Awesome Community

edit

Appears to be a small message board posted for improper promotion on WP; Google returns over 400 results but most appear to be to pages where the phrase appears, and not to this message board; the site itself does not have a listing of number of registered members, neverthless, unless some verification of importance can be found, this should be deleted as apparently non-notable Fuhghettaboutit 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid article clearly describing the history of the website and was not intended to be for promotional purposes. We don't see how it can not qualify as important enough, but would like some clarification on why it isn't important enough to keep.

The assertion that it is a valid article is begging the question. We are here to determine that very issue and we go by some standards that have evolved to try to separate what is wheat from what is chaff with regard to an encyclopedia. The main criterion is notability. For instance, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, under the category Internet, it is stated that "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Some other criteria include whether a website at issue has over 5,000 members, and whether it has achieved a degree of fame through other outlets such as being featured in the media. Your community exists, the article may be brilliantly written, it may be factually correct, but what makes your community notable such that it deserves entry in an encyclopedia? That's what's at issue. Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antigonism

edit

Personal essay, not encyclopedic under WP:Not --Hansnesse 02:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30footfall

edit

Band. 689 Google hits. Asserts notability, so not a speedy, but seems pretty shaky. ~~ N (t/c) 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Johntex\talk 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator levitation

edit
See also the related discussion archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006#Template:Magic-please-dont-expose.

Anonymous editor alleges this information is a trade secret and has been trying to delete this, but without understanding our processes. The anonymous editor has violated 3RR in their attempts to delete. I am simply helping them bring the issue to the proper place - no vote from nominator Johntex\talk 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: The article is not a copyright violation nor a patent violation. Trade secret laws would only apply if the person who wrote the article was under some sort of non-disclosure agreement. In summary, as near as any of us can tell the article violates no laws, and therefore this AfD should only discuss the merits of the article itself, not its legal status. I am also not voting, but I wanted to clarify this point. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 02:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, possibly speedy, keep. The arguments given for deletion are nonsense, and I think it's encyclopedic enough. ~~ N (t/c) 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is no logical reason to delete this article. However, cleanup is also needed. SycthosTalk 03:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per clarification. No copyright, patent & trade secret not relevent or proved. Kuru 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The same specious arguments have been made, and the same vandalisms done, on a variety of magic-trick articles. A general RFC (conducted at Talk:Out of This World (card trick)) came to the same conclusions Lanoitarus states above. This particular IP is clearly a reincarnation of one of the team of magic vandals, given his immediate knowledge of our copyvio procedures. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMHO, whether the content is part of trade secret should not a factor in deciding whether the artice is suitable AS LONG AS it is verifiable. A simple Google search shows about 190 unique entries - including some with detail description on how the trick is performed, which suggest that this magic trick is well known and could be verified. As User:Finlay McWalter kindly pointed out, Talk:Out of This World (card trick) already established precedents on magic tricks. --Hurricane111 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to be justified in context of magical illusions.  (aeropagitica)  21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Claiming that alleged "copyright" on a trick means others cannot discuss it is a common trick by magicians hopin to keep their routines secret. It, however, has absolutely no basis in law and depends upon them tricking people who don't know better into erasing perfectly legitimate discussions and information. Copyright covers text, images, music, computer code, etc. but not magic tricks or other procedures. Procedures need a patent. Claiming "trade secret" is just using words that relate to patents without evidence of patents. Patents (assuming one would even be granted for something like this, which is highly doubtful) only prevent one from using the procedure oneself in business. By all intellectual property laws anyone and everyone can discuss how any magic tricks are done. Same thing happened on other websites (like the Straight Dope messageboard) with false threats but are ignored once any legal checking is done. Plumbers, for example, might wish to keep everyone in the dark about how to repair plumbing to protect their financial success, but they have no legal right to demand secrecy, same thing with stage magicians. DreamGuy 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - oppose magical censorship whenever and wherever it crops up. Cyde Weys votetalk 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no valid reason for deletion. Stifle 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideepthroat (2nd nomination)

edit

This seems more like porncruft and a notable pornsite. This has been nominated before, resulting in no consenus. Vote delete. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't provide hard copy references. What I spoke of was years of using the internet and first hand experience of the matter. Heather was everywhere a few years ago. Even today you can open Kazaa or any file sharing software and search "deep throat" and ideepthroat and Heather will show up in a majority of the results. tv316 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable if someone added it to Wikipedia and it actually stay there. :-) Besides, what harm is it causing? — Moe ε 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further investigation Alexa traffic rank 31,000 policy suggests the cutoff as being the top 25,000 for inclusion, only 24 sites link to this site according to alexa 19 according to google. Definately non-notable. Just because it is a porn site doesn't loosen the WP:WEB requirements.
Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • This criterion excludes:
  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
  • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. [7]
The article itself must provide proofs that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

Anyone voting keep without providing a justification for keeping it under one of the above reasons should be disreguarded for the purposes of this AfD. "Keep it because I like it" isn't a valid justification under current Wikipedia policy. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 00:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Definitely more of a cult than about advertising and one-woman exhibitionism. If advertising is the issue here then simply remove the link. Is this a vote or a debate? How about a little thing called compromise instead of this all out deletion attitude? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Steve789 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 January 2006.
Comment There is no compromise possible on an article about a web site which does not meet the requirements for listing. It's not the link and it's not the content of the site. It is simply that the site does not meet the requirements to have an article on the Wikipedia. It's nothing personal, just policy. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the article needs to be cleaned up and moved to Ideepthroat.com, this site is definitely notable for having been a pioneer of amateur porn on the web. Heather Harmon was interviewed by the UK magazine SOHO and by eyada.com.[8] She and her husband have also produced two movies published by Idt Productions and listed in the Internet Adult Film Database.[9]--ThreeAnswers 10:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for providing refernces supporting your opinion. I personally don't feel that helps her or the website meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:WEB (respectively). My biggest problem with using the films to provide an "air of notability" is that the production company seems to not pass WP:CORP. If you can show that the production company meets the WP:CORP requirement then I would gladly support a move to Heather Harmon leaving this article and Ideepthroat.com as redirects. I would investiate the matter myself, but I am currently using a company computer and this subject area is forbidden by our internet policy. Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP are not policy, they are guidelines. The Wikipedia community is not required to adhere to them as strictly as you seem to want. And while those guidelines aren't written in a way easily applicable to porn stars, Heather Harmon meets the tests of having a large fan base, selling over 5,000 copies of her movies, and everything in the article being verifiable.--ThreeAnswers 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To begin, I never claimed they were policy. As you correctly stated they are guidelines and should be given serious weight. I don't see how selling 5,000 copies of a porn video makes someone notable. That wouldn't get any other indepant film in unless it won an award. Did she win an award? The guidelines are derived from policy and community concensus. I agree that they may not always address the subject of internet porn very well and, as I suggested in my first comment, it may be worthwhile to find a community concensus for thier inclusion (i.e. WP:PORN). My biggest problem is that people have not even tried to establish why she merits inclusion beyond arguements claiming personal knowlege of the website, which is not consistant with WP:CITE (you are, of course the exception to that statement). Whilst I agree that guidelines need not be followed as strictly as rules, they cannot be completely ignored either. Movementarian (Talk) 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 5,000 test is analogous to "Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings" in WP:BIO. I don't know about the prices of CDs and porn movies or the relative sizes of the two industries but that doesn't sound like a bad test to me. She was also a finalist for a KSEX radio Listener's Choice award in 2004 but didn't win.[10]--ThreeAnswers 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know why this would be considered as "advertising". For Pete's sake, the last sentence of this article describes how the website has DECLINED in quality! How would that count as promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.19.36 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports betting forum

edit

Original research essay that doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion isn't about whether sports betting online is notable. It's about whether we should have a POV original research essay at the title "Sports betting forum." FCYTravis 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind because I checked Category:Wikipedia cleanup and could only see about 400 articles. Can somebody tell me how to see all required articles?

And if I see articles that need cleanup, can I just go ahead and do that? Ginar 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ginar, take a look at all the subcats, or see Wikipedia:Cleanup. As of Dec. 3, 2005, there were 11,328 articles tagged for some sort of cleanup. And by all means, please clean up anything you see! Tagging is just a way of figuring out how massive the challenge is :) FCYTravis 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gasp! suddenly I can't breath....walls are closing in....darkness.....feel cold......feel silence........feel..............

...

but seriously, YIKES. Ginar 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. And make me a sandwich. And someone do my tax return. I have tagged my stomach and threatening letter from the IR appropriately. --Malthusian (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, abstain. It doesn't have the ring of self-promotion and speculation that most OR articles do, but I'm not sure whether this is the right place to cover Internet sports betting, and with so many 'keep because it's worth cleaning up' arguments you'd think at least one editor would actually offer to clean it up. If someone did clean the article up it might clarify the issue. --Malthusian (talk)
  • Abstain I think this could be a good article, but it needs a cleanup and I won't be doing it. --kingboyk 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well-written, not a WP:VSCA, but needs cleanup. Weak keep for the moment. Stifle 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PinkPT

edit

Deleted a year ago, but the new version is much larger, so it's not a CSD, I think. Still seems non-notable. ~~ N (t/c) 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merge/redirect to Breakout. Interiot 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Breaker

edit

no notability established SYSS Mouse 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WLIRc

edit

nn software Pboyd04 03:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partyline/Temp

edit

I google and it's their webpage, Alexa has no information on them, vanity Dakota ~ ε 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port Washington Marina

edit

this is a press release Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relational aggression

edit

Original Research Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, keep this. I see no difference between this article and, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation. Reaction-formation simply defines the term but is categorized as a stub for expansion. This article should be treated as a stub and not deleted out of hand. Consequently, I have stubbed this article

  • keep, I did a quick rewrite. its still a stub I think but the content presentation is logical (IMHO) and should now be salvageable and extendable with less difficulty Ginar 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously important. -- JJay 15:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is also known as 'female bullying', or family bullying or workplace bullying, it is a new area of research so be patient until someone cleans up article.

If kept then needs to justify characterising this as female aggression. At present seems based on sexist stereotyping. States boys carry out a physical form of this and yet then includes physical aggression under definition for girls.


comment I believe the term was coined specifically to refer to the type of bullying that occurs in female relationships. Being a parent and having children, I know that girls bully differently than boys and I think that's what the article should try to capture. Its not necessarily sexist to point out existing differences in gender behaviour.Ginar 14:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (explanation on article talk page). -- Jonel | Speak 04:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since Jonel is not an administrator, the closure was subject to review. User:Ambi has reviewed this debate and closed it as a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

edit

nn-bio and POV Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutaka

edit

more Bionicle-cruft Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particle9 Productions, Ecru: the Butcher of Balis, Cimage book

edit

Delete all three as self-promotion of non-notable comic book maker, title, and genre. Contribution history of author, User:Particle9, clearly indicates that this is all self-advertising, not independent reporting.[11] 35 google hits for "particle9 productions", which all appear to be self-promotion as well. No Alexa traffic info for their professional site.

The only title published by Particle 9 is Ecru: the Butcher of Balis, which a little googling revealed is limited to a non-notable print run of 2,000. ecru + "the butcher of balis" gets 11 google hits.

Cimage book is also advertising, as this is a term that Particle9 invented for its work to make it sound unique, when the given definition describes most modern comic books ("an illustrated film in comic book format that is neither comical or satirical"). 0 google hits for "cimage book." Postdlf 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

edit

Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (cartoonist kept). -- Jonel | Speak 04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymondo Person

edit

Non-notable comic by Patrick Alexander, a non-notable author SycthosTalk 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPR and Commercialization

edit

Delete as this article is propaganda for a particular POV rhaas 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 merge/redirect. Rob 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

98 Custom

edit

No reason to have separate page for this product. Merge with main article. Atrian 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was

Negascottycoot bandiwolf

edit

Fancruft. Unverifiable. google search for Negascottycoot bandiwolf turns up only one hit - a DeviantArt page. Delete --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 userfied. FCYTravis 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Welsh

edit

Apparent vanity page. Created by User:Honeywelsh. Referenced website does not exist. I'd tag as speedy, but claims notability. (sigh) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 05:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.C.T.1

edit

Organization has <350 Google hits. Alexa rank of website is non-existent, with 7 incoming links. Delete SarekOfVulcan 05:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:I created this article because 1) It is a valid organisation, and 2) it portrays the effects an abortion can have on other people accurately, balancing the views of wikipedia and making things more NPOV. Also I did my best to write it in a neutral tone of voice, and everything to make this a decent article. Chooserr 05:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right on both of your points, but this does not really address the Google test or the page ranks. Perhaps there have been some newspaper or magazine articles written or other independent recognitions that would make the organization appear more article-worthy? --Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is very non-point-of-view, but not every organisation can make the cut, and your organization seems rather new and tiny. Madman 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sharif Ghani

edit

Seems to be a vanity page. Subject is a human resources manager, but he was listed on Lahore as one of the 20 or so most renowned citizens of that city of 8.5 million alongside prime ministers and national cricket captains. Delete CalJW 05:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iflu

edit

Neologism bordering on protologism. Delete. N Shar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (programming language)

edit

This programming language hasn't been made available yet and gives no indication on its' website if or when it ever will be. The article also reads like an advert. -- Longhair 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Allen

edit

Nice thorough bio but questionable if it meets the criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedic article --Wotwu 06:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda and roy

edit

Completely unverifiable. I wish this could be a speedy, but there is a ridiculous claim of notability. Delete. N Shar 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/debated

edit

Almost entirely original research, which is really all it ever can be. It seems that the main purpose of the article is to speculate on celebrities' and politicians' sexuality. This kind of article is not contemplated under Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, and should be deleted.

  1. There are a significant number of people for whom an ongoing debate about their sexuality is a pretty central part of understanding their historical and cultural context. William Shakespeare, for example, wrote a large number of love sonnets addressed to other males; it's impossible to understand his context without at least acknowledging that an unresolved debate about the deeper meaning of that fact exists.
  2. There are even a significant number of people (e.g. Morrissey, Marilyn Manson, David Bowie) who've deliberately cultivated a sense of sexual ambiguity as part of their marketing strategy. In Morrissey's case, particularly, the debate isn't just a part of his cultural context as with Shakespeare — to a very large extent, that sexual ambiguity is the cultural context of his work, and divorcing him from that context would be entirely wrong. (And yes, Bowie later recanted and therefore shouldn't be listed as "debated", but that doesn't change the fact that an ambiguous sexual presentation was part of his public persona at one time.)
  3. It is not original research to report on the existence of a debate that's already been placed in the public sphere by other people outside of Wikipedia, so characterizing this as OR is a misrepresentation.
  4. Deleting this list actually increases the likelihood of people being inappropriately added to the "confirmed" lists. We already have an ongoing problem with people being listed as confirmed GLBT based on circumstantial evidence, even with this list available — without this list that problem will become even more uncontrollable.
My bottom line, basically, is that I don't see why this needs to be held to different standards than the confirmed list: names listed should provide some support, either in the article itself or through listed sources, that a debate about the person's sexual orientation legitimately exists in the public sphere, and otherwise a name shouldn't be listed at all. If that standard is properly met, however, I don't see why this can't be a keep. Bearcat 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I definitely see Bearcat's point. In the examples he names, there's something notable about their sexuality being "debated". There are a couple reasons this doesn't quite persuade me to change my vote though:
  1. Given that just what is notable in each debate varies widely, do we really lose anything in having these discussions only in the subject articles? I definitely think it's worth mentioning that David Bowie said he was bisexual in the 1970s, but said he was straight in the 1990s (and it's not hard to meet WP:V on this fact). If the list had meaningful annotations about exactly what the nature of the "debate" is in each case, I might be more sympathetic; but it doesn't, and I'm not up to the huge effort of making it so personally.
  2. The quality of the list as it stands is absolutely terrible. Names are added almost at random, or on "a friend-of-a-friend told me" basis. Not to say that some of the same problem hasn't applied to the "confirmed" lists; but we've made a good start at improving the quality of those others (and cites are more straightforward: e.g. the person really said something to so-and-so newspaper). But this "debated" one seems even more gossipy, and more or less certain to stay there if it is kept. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Cleared as filed. Punkmorten 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Yancey

edit

Fiction, a joke, not encyclopedic. feydey 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per creator's request. —Cleared as filed. 13:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Ury

edit

I started the page and want it to be deleted because of privacy concerns, I may add it back later Will gray 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

I recently started the page on William L. Ury and would like to request it be deleted. The reason is privacy concerns. I may add it back later with different content, but respectfully request that the article I started be deleted.

Thank you very much for your consideration.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Café, Bayan Café

edit

Single restaurant is not notable. Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide. feydey 06:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Added Bayan Café as same nn. feydey 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janam Indian Tea

edit

Was tagged for speedy deletion as ad for a nn-resterant, but it's sadly not a speedy. Delete is my vote --Jaranda wat's sup 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suberbatur

edit

No Google = hoax.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Heninger

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Govcorp

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artists who died at 27

edit

Someone started an article called The 27 Club. I saw the article, moved it to a seemingly more appropriate title, then attempted to expand and improve the content. However, the farther I got, the less noteworthy the article felt. Pick any age, and you'll find a number of folks who died at that age. It doesn't seem like a suitable topic for an article. ChrisB 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the whole point of the article was that it was the legacy of The 27 Club, Made of world famous artists who made The 27 club what it is, a phenominon, a phenominon that deserves a page on wikipedia. As Artists who died at 27, it needed deleting, but as The 27 Club, it did not. User:Oxen Rockler 19:04, 21st January 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 Speedy delete. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adea Solutions

edit

Delete. Advertising. enochlau (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete taken verbatum from http://www.adeasolutions.com/download/adea_solutions_fact_sheet.pdf [13] adding speedy tag to article. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 19:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-anarchy

edit

This article purports to take a rather obvious political joke/hoax at face value. Benami 09:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superinflation cycle

edit

Much as I'm loath to AFD anything economics-related, this theory is not encyclopedic. The only sources for it seem to be a couple of websites and it's basically Bigfoot economics. Please delete. The Land 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what do you count the Wally Bently article as if not "acceptance"? He's quoting "Cycles" magazine, which may be the original publication, or may be referring to something by Prechter. Sure, that doesn't make it widespread acceptance, but it is acceptance. TimNelson 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in an editorial on a site which is intended to promote investment in gold is hardly a reference of note. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to me (the Wikipedia article creator) I got all the information there from the two references at the bottom of the page. Admittedly, I summarised it and put it into tabular format, but I wouldn't normally consider that "research". If you're referring to the articles I got the information from, then I think they're getting it from Prechter (although I haven't seen anything of his online on the subject), for whom I would consider this 'original research'. TimNelson 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent keyboard

edit

Except for saying that it's a computer keyboard, this article just repeats the title.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Far Side of the Other Side

edit

Non-notable blog site dedicated to "...A commentary and gossip on all current affairs dedicated to misanthropy and misleading statements". Definitely not encyclopediac. Prashanthns 09:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harley's Camarillo Bowl

edit

Non notable. if we included every bowling alley... Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy. -- RHaworth 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to Wikipedia

edit

This does not belong as an encyclopedia article, because it's a personal essay; although it could be a user page... --Mysidia (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Merder

edit

No links and zero google hits. Even Pat Merder+Hitler brings no google. Appears to be a hoax, unless someone can add some references to prove otherwise.--MONGO 10:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Sceptre. Punkmorten 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigy (symposium)

edit

The article is about a symposium that is to be held in a college. Reads like an advertisement of the sympsium

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cameron Kenneth Butler

edit

No sources, no Google hits, no nothing. Text reads very much like a hoax. The user's only edit so far is adding this article. In the unlikely event that this was legitimate I left a note at the talk page and at the user's talk page asking for clarifications. I have received no response.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index of wholesale prices

edit

Empty as it stands; If expanded, would be an indiscriminate collection of information, see WP:NOT QEDquid 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, start an article about historical development of key item / service prices. WITH DATA.--QEDquid 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originator: This article can be changed to address the fact the info changes. The article can also be made to change with changing facts. Nonetheless, there is one fact: there is no easy way for average people to know the real price of things. Wikipedia, as well as being informative in an archane way, must be informative in a subversive way. Advocates for deletion should not be against the article for reason of quality: the initial submission is only an idea. To delete, you must accept that Wikipedia stands for the "Middle man": he does not want discussion of wholesale prices and real costs, except in expensive journals. Thanks. Anthony717 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originator: I can accept deletion by votes, but I don't accept deletion is a good idea. Wikipedia is not a static book of facts; it is a dynamic set of currently accepted truths. One truth, in my opinion, is that retail prices for many things are too high because wholesale prices are kept somewhat secret. Yet there are no well kept secrets. There are only secrets kept from most people, not including eager Wikipedians. We can, together track the prices, month by month, of thousands of goods and services. Thanks, Tony. Anthony717 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originator: I know it is a big ask, but just imagine what is possible. Now price lists for commodities (other than the few you read in the newspapers) are very expensive, even though the prices are not really secret and absolutely not proprietary (see "sweat of the brow" in leg. lit.). Anthony717 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's wikipedia's task to aid understanding, not provide data. This page can do both, but it should be written to assume that the information is not being continually updated. Kappa 12:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originator: If the article is destroyed, no harm is done. But think of the good that could be done. Prices are very important. Whistleblowers could be given an outlet. Reluctant informants could concede. What is the harm in such a forum? Can't such forum be enclyclopedic?Anthony717
  • Originator: If this article is deleted, it cannot be deleted by the idea that it is not important. It must be deleted by the idea that that general public has no right to know wholesale prices, in defense of the merchant class.Anthony717 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears largely arbitrary Orange Roughy and short black pepper - what are the criteria? Utterly unmaintainable. Dlyons493 Talk 15:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see how this article can be useful, because there are no standard wholesale prices for the items listed. Is the article supposed to list prices for every single vendor out there? JIP | Talk 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lorick

edit

310 Google, many of those results are shared with other people. With so no little info to verify an article, delete.

Lotsofissues 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another credit mentioned on the messageboard I posted before that I missed, Hark!, which is described as off-broadway. Someone also found a ticket stub for The Tap Dance Kid which says:
"ROBERT LORICK (lyricist) makes his Broadway debut with The Tap Dance Kid. Cited for Best Lyricist honors in the Variety Critic's Poll for the Off-Broadway musical Hark!, Mr. Lorick is known to radio listeners as Jack Flanders, adventurer. "
A couple of the songs from The Tap Dance Kid have featured on compilations and songbooks. These two shows on their own might not constitute notability for a lyricist, but the fact that he also plays the title character in a radio series that gets 24,900 hits makes me think the article is probably interesting for enough people to be worth keeping. I'm going to have to go with Keep, partly because of the apparent number of Jack Flanders/ZBS enthusiasts, but also because this is one of the only articles on the web that identifies Lorick as both the radio character and the lyricist. - N (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_people_with_attention_deficit_disorder

edit

Plain speculative list without any further information, references, or any other trace of evidence —> non-verifiable, original research —> delete. brsma 11:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-Babble (virtual community)

edit

WP:WEB, Notability, Promotion

Comments

  • Delete Limited number of sites linking to this site (121 sites link to this one), notability, WP:WEB as nom -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional. Article was created in response to promotion on the Web forum it describes [16], "as a matter of pride" per the writer who started the article [17]. The forum owner then advocated creation of this article [18], and suggested he could use it as a hand-out at one of his many professional presentations in which he promotes his model of on-line mental-health-care delivery [19]. Forum members allude to one recent reference to their forum in the New York Times, but otherwise, most published references and public presentations about this forum have been authored or led by the forum owner. The psychiatrist who owns the forum has reverted numerous edits [20], including edits that expose the declining usage of his forum [21]. While obfuscating actual usage data [22] the forum owner has entered erroneous information in the article [23], has responded on the talk page demanding a reference to a statement he forgot or refused to acknowledge from his own promotional writing about his site in a professional journal [24] and has complained about criticisms that characterize his editorial involvement as vanity editing [25]. A member of the forum also entered false information [26] and blanked most of the article when it didn't suit his preferences[27][28] [29][30][31][32][33]. Excluding Google hits that link to the researcher's vast archives of his forum members' posts, few other sites link to this forum. Some therapists discourage their clients from visiting Robert Hsiung's forums [34]; perhaps a therapist's couch -- not Wikipedia -- is the appropriate place to discuss the merits of this forum. This article demonstrates the difficulty of trying to maintain an open-source encylopedic article about Internet forums where members can persistently mobilize to effect content of the article about their forum. Though most of the content was contributed by forum members and by the psychiatrist who owns the forum, a member of the forum continues to argue here against independent edits, claiming contributions from independent editors dominate the article. Regular Wikipedia editors have better things to do than persistently reviewing, mediating and arbitrating controversies that inevitably arise from promotional efforts such as this article. I have better things to do than trying to balance promotional articles about a psychiatrist's experimental on-line therapeutic models. Please delete. ProveReader 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow... Delete per WP:WEB and ProveReader's research. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ProveReader's excellent reasoning, not worth keeping free of POV. --Malthusian (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article as it reeks of being a promotional for the site's content.--asydwaters 15:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)

  • Delete I know more about Psycho-Babble owned by Robert Hsiung AKA Dr.Bob,I see the article as an attempt by the doctor to promote his site, but the article leaves out much about the site that ProveReader has written here. Emmis 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)emmis[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable, if the following is correct:

Over a half-million posts by people using approximately 10,000 registered screen names have been archived at Psycho-Babble. Alexa Internet in December 2005 ranked Psycho-Babble as the second most-visited mental health Web site. Alexa Internet showed the dr-bob.org sites as among top 15,000 most-visited sites in January 2004 and in December 2005 as among the top 90,000.

Indeed, it appears that the site [35] remains the 2nd most visited mental health site. We unfortunately cannot delete articles when editors behave immaturely. The wikipedia process is such that we believe such problems can be solved by other means. Sdedeo (tips) 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content you cite was contributed by a member of the forum the article describes[36], but it is not correct. Compare the citation you linked ostensibly verifying the forum as the second most-popular mental health site with the actual Alexa pages for most popular mental health sites [37] and for the top 10 mental health self-help sites [38]. Psycho-Babble is not among the top 10 mental-health self-help support groups [39], nor among the top 10 support groups [40]. The category among which Psycho-Babble was ranked second includes only 20 other sites [41]. Ranked among the broader group of 53 mental-health support groups that include "stress" the forum falls to third[42]. Among 401 listed health support groups, Psycho-Babble ranks 8th, but with an overall traffic rank of 86,486th, it falls far behind the leader, which is the National Institute for Diabetes and Kidney Disease site, which is not the topic of a Wikipedia article. The site is not ranked along with self-help groups, or self-help support groups, perhaps because it is administered by a medical doctor. The top mental health self-help support group outranks dr-bob.org/babble 11,406:86,486, and outranks by 11,406:24,164 the top site in the category of 20 sites in which dr-bob.org/babble ranks second. I suspect none of the more notable mental health, self-help or support sites listed by Alexa is the topic of a Wikipedia article.
I'll again correct the article to reflect the fact that the site is second among a narrow group of 20 sites, but my continued concern for the article's accuracy does not temper my strong vote for its deletion. The most popular mental health sites are associated with well-known organizations, such as that of the American Psychological Association. The 10th most popular mental health site, with a rank of 27,689, far outranks Psycho-Babble, today at 86,486th. A member of Robert Hsiung's forum selected its standing in a subset that comprises less than 1 percent of the sites listed in Alexa's mental health category and represented it as among the most visited of all mental health sites. Unless Wikipedia plans to include non-vanity, NPOV articles about the 100,000 most visited Web sites that use the Alexa toolbar, Psycho-Babble fails to rise to a level of notability except among a minor category in which many similar sites do not seek to be listed. Second among 20 hardly comprises notability, though inclusion of the claim to suggest second-among-5710 offers notable evidence of promotional editing contrary to facts. ProveReader 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for clarifying that, ProveReader. I was working, from memory, from an older version of WP:WEB; the criteria have become stricter (a good thing, IMO.) Thanks also for pointing out the selective nature of that linked alexa ranking; going to the "top in all mental health" list [43], I can't even find it listed in the top fifty. Sdedeo (tips) 01:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could I present my point of view? I think Psycho-Babble is notable. Not the #1 site on the web, but notable. I'm not sure how to make a case for that without running the risk of sounding promotional, but here are a few thoughts.
    • There aren't many online communities that have been sustained for 7 years and grown to 17,000 members and 600,000 posts. I think that's noteworthy. Especially, perhaps, given its mission of peer support and education in mental health.
    • I think rankings also make it clear that it's not a typical message board. As mentioned before, it's ranked #8 of 401 (in the top 2%) in the Health > Support Groups category by Alexa [44]. It's also ranked #4 of about 2,500,000 when you Google effexor xr (an antidepressant medication) [45] and #1 of about 116,000 when you Google therapist self-disclosure (an issue in psychotherapy) [46]. It's not Wikipedia  :-) but I think that breadth of information is notable, too.
    • I'm biased in favor of the site, but others are biased against it. For example, see that blog that ProveReader repeatedly links to [47]. And judge for yourself, from the history, whether the edits I've made have had more positive spin or hers have had more negative. If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to respond to her comments one by one. But I'm not here to make accusations, just to ask you try to be neutral and to consider both sides. Dr. Bob 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More statistics: Google Groups search for - support groups: 4,380,000 results [48] - health support groups: 597,000 results [49] - mental health support groups: 124,000 results [50]; Alexa search for health support groups in Health directory: 222,515 results [51], Alexa Health Directory search for AOL support groups: 2,514 results [52], Alexa Health Directory search for AOL mental health support groups: 1,850 results [53] Alexa health directory search for Yahoo support groups: 1,589 results [54], Health Support Groups listed at Yahoo Groups: 30,107 [55], Groups discussing specific mental health disorders listed at Yahoo Groups: 2,508 [56]. Only those sites whose administrators register for traffic monitoring as health support groups are included among the 401 Alexa-ranked health-support-groups category, which does not include many similar support groups specifically listed for Alexa ranking [57][58]. Total registered screen names is neither a measure of active membership, nor a reliable basis for comparison with similar sites. His forum members often acknowledge registering new screen names. At least 2,430 of the registered screen names may have never posted, and another 2,953 have not posted since he implemented an informed consent procedure in 2001. [59]. The availability of archives effects search engine results. AOL and Yahoo have long hosted many non-archived support groups. Usenet, established 26 years ago, is home to numerous long-standing on-line support communities. Dr. Hsiung is not recognized as a published expert in on-line support group history. A recognized author for the University College London Center for Health Informatics says on-line support groups have at least a 24-year history, lists some non-qualititive support group directories and says directory placement is an incomplete, user-defined means of ranking groups [60]. We have no data to show that few on-line communities are as old as dr-bob.org/babble, but plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise. ProveReader 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism and schizoid disorders

edit

I originally suggested that, after substantiation of the contents (which was unclear at that time) portions of this article be merged into two seperate articles Narcissism, Schizoid personality disorder and perhaps a third Schizophrenia. Partly because to create articles linking topics covered seperately by existing articles seems excessive.

However, I cannot seem to verify any of the information in this article as it relates to the topic, beyond the original hypothosis (nothing wrong with that, but not in wikipedia) of Sam Vaknin who originally posted it, and, even as such, the entire hypothesis of a link between Narcissism and schizoid disorders remains to be established.

So, I suggest that this article be deleted --Zeraeph 12:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd better say that I have tried to verify statements specifically relevant to Narcissism and schizoid disorders attributed to Klein, Freud et al and cannot find a trace of them anywhere. I can't verify the reference to Narcissism and Schizophrenia, but even if I could it doesn't belong here (The relationship between schizoid and schizophrenia is purely semantic). There are verifiable statements concerning Narcissism, verifiable statements concerning schizoid, but not a single verifiable statement connecting the two. It is that connection (the title of the article) that would appear to be original research --Zeraeph 10:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Establishment (College Republicans)

edit

Unsubstantiated and POV entry regarding a supposed clique of College Republicans. Lincolnite 12:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a band with no claim to notability. The Land 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Symphoney

edit

This was originally marked as a speedy candidate, but I thought it borderline and decided to list it here instead to expose the matter to a wider audience. Looks like a vanity stub, especially as it was created by Black Symphony (talk · contribs), and lack of maintream success generally mitigates against inclusion here for the time being. Mackensen (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tele deutsch

edit

Non-notable class project and linkspam. —Cleared as filed. 13:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First connection

edit

Badly written vanity, personal page gunk. Jogloran 13:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Enlisted Forums

edit

Originally tagged as a speedy delete; I don't think it meets the criteria, so I'm moving it here to AFD. Web site with no claim to particular notability, though. —Cleared as filed. 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst

edit

Well designed article, but with one demo and four gigs this band does not meet WP:MUSIC. This nomination also includes band member Eray Mueller. Punkmorten 13:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added afd to Eray Mueller, with discussion redirected to here. --Austrian 14:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limk

edit

Little context and no information, except for the link. Austrian 14:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G1: patent nonsense. --M@thwiz2020 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkside city

edit

Delete The entry is nonsense. Speedy delete? Uucp 14:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"linux on toshiba m70 148

edit

It is a howto, and does not belong on wikipedia. Perphaps wikibooks.--vidarlo 14:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 15:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacredcity3

edit

Vanity article or userpage outside of user namespace Charid 14:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc ask? 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Productivism

edit

This is a concept so fringe it's non-encyclopedic. Googling for it gets a whole load of Wikipedia mirrors, a few comment pieces which have it in 'inverted commas', and some legit mentions of it in an agricltural context. We might, just, be able to have it in an agricultural sense, but I would prefer a delete. The Land 14:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in....Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia.

Also, a search on google that combines "productivism" with its major critic Amartya San gives several page hits on the concept

http://www.google.com/search?q=Productivism+Amartya+Sen+&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US

    • Well, it seems to mainly come up with documents where Amartya Sen is present, but 'productivisim' is hard to find: except of course for the Wikipedia mirrors, of which there are many. I'd suggest that most of the article we have is a synthesis of occasional uses, for which there is no clear definition. The article constitutes original research and the best way to deal with the concept is in a a note or two in some other articles. The Land 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another criteria is WP:NOR. This particular article has no sources. It sounds truthful and logical, but so do many original items. This article has been here a while, and many have added to it, but there are no sources yet. If there are some sources listed that support the article before the end of the AFD time, I would be pleased to swap to a Keep.Obina 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps a tag asking for sourcess should be added.

If you go beyond the first couple of pages in google, you can actually find the term used copiously. I have traced it to Christopher Lasch and Anthony Giddens

and this essay

http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/blacj494.htm

cites this book

Giddens, A. (1995) Beyond Left and Right: The future of radical politics. Polity Press.

as a source of the concept.

in fact, a google search pairing Giddens with Productivism http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=com.netscape%3Aen-US&q=anthony+giddens+productivism&btnG=Search leads to a lot of google references. *bingo*

For me this really raises the issue of the limitation of using google as a test. All the WIKI entries percolate up to the top leaving the legitimate sources buried. I think we have to be careful.

That is, this concept seems to be obscure only to googleGinar 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sharing a title with a known concept is not sufficient for a completely unsourced and palpably OR essay that purports to explain the meaning of life. Durova 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what's happening here. This isn't trying to explain the meaning of life, its pointing to a common sociological term used to describe a very specific economic perspective (i.e., productivism) This entry explains the concept relatively well I think and all we need to do is find an appropriate source. I think it will be easy to find some material by giddens to save this one so KEEP I can't do it now but I will clean this article up and find an appropriate source for it in the next day or two. Ginar 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, its me. Ginar 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC). No, this article is NOT unverifiable. In fact, I traced it back to the originating theorist already (i.e., Anthony Giddens). Obviously, its now verified. and what is OR?? See look [61] here's another verification and here's a course syllabus where the term appears multile times [62]. In the syllabus its even assocaited with green politics as it is in the wiki article. Now please, doesn't this mean the article requires cleanup and citation and not deletion?[reply]
  • Strong keep I've added a reference, and there are lots of citations from a wide range of fields from education to agriculture, and they all seem to refere to the same principle. I'm getting 23,100 google hits which isn't bad for an academic theory. Giddens himself is not just notable but hughly influential (New Labour) --Salix alba 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Neutrality. Punkmorten 22:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ръсел кроу

edit

This non-English article doesn't contain anything that isn't already in Russell Crowe. KolyaFrankovich 15:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. -- Jonel | Speak 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garneau User Group

edit

High school club. Non-notable, delete. Neutralitytalk 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JzG for the clarification. However, I believe this article has already been throught the verifiable] test and reliable source test. This discusion should be happening on the talk page. Any further reference to verifiable should be put there. Apparently the GUG still exists and has joined the internationally renowned APCUG. This nomination is pure deletionism and abuse of the wikipedia deletion system. I sugest that voting be clearly explained. why is this subject "obscure"?
Pure deletionism? The club has demonstrated no notability outside its own sphere, meaning the high school. The fact that it is a "chapter" of some umbrella user group organization does not make it more inherently notable. It should be merged to the high school, where it has context and impact. I note that on the talk page, the nominator is being threatened with an RfC over this issue. Pure frivolity. "Garneau User Group" gets 73 Google hits and should be merged. FCYTravis 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Neutrality's conduct is being discussed on the talk page and doesn't really have much to do now with this process. If he fails to answer and deletes one more users request for comment on his user page, I will be obliged to follow through with that RFC. Now it is perhaps understable that notability may be at issue. I did a search on google and only came up with about 20 some hits in french. I think it doesn't realy mater but if you want to waste your time on that (googling) did you try the french version too? Groupe d'utilisateurs Garneau. So back to the question, what makes this subject "obscure?" (aside from the lack of Google ability) I mean this is a mostly a french language run club. Did you also check the links at the bottom of our article (sources). The information is verifiable. --CyclePat 21:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Can you imagine! There is a deletion nomination that is currently happening for this page Garneau user group. It was nominated by user:Neutrality and for reason of being no-notable. "The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." And though I may currently be torn between some issues found at WP:N (reasons for not deleting this article), I must, on my first impression, agree that it makes sense to merge with the High school. I however am flabbergasted and disagreeing on the fundamental principal behind the nomination. The nominee has failed to follow procedure. What I mean by that is, I believe that there are other processes he could have used. For example: Instead of going directly to a deletion he could have put a merger request or even an information validity... I would have probably happilly gone along and merged the articles. Secondly why is this article, "obscure?" (The thing is we really don't know). I've attempted to contact user:Neutrality on 2 occasions and he has totally ignored my requests. Is this normal? On both times he has even reverted his talk page. (For supporting evidence see section 1 of User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC). This issue is being discussed a little more in detail at talk:Garneau user group however your feedback, and knowledge of wiki, would be appreciated. All this to say, deletion reform is necessary, and lets not allow such actions to go on without repercusions. Please, I ask, can anyone ask user:Neutrality the questions I have asked. --CyclePat 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the infobox at User talk:Neutrality you will immediately see why your comments have been removed. And I'm sorry to have to break this to you, Pat, but sometimes when everybody else disagrees with you, it's because you are wrong :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note I have already voted. This is just a coment: I have added a [wikiquette alert] in regards to this subject. I have advised user:Neutrality (see his page history) I consider this to be bad wikiquette. Until this issue is resolved I request that this and it's associated pages not be delete. I believe these pages may need to be used as evidence. --CyclePat 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates do not get deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But, I'm not sure if I'll need this page, from the article, to demonstrate part of my argument. The reason being it demonstrates one of the possibilities he could have done instead? Again, I'm not sure. I guess I could always request undelete later on if really necessary (That's if we do delete this page. It appears like we might be merging. But don't we delete the page after merging anyway... or should we redirect?) --CyclePat 16:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, once a merge is done, we can't delete in order to keep the GFDL-required attribution history. A redirect is put in place, but the old contents are kept in history. Merge is quite different then delete, and this article is doing better then most such clubs, which would simply be deleted. --Rob 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy bit first: that information which is verifiable from reliable external sources should be summarised in École Secondaire Catholique Garneau (being, that it has a chapter of the national association of user groups, that it has taken part in conventions etc., that it publishes an occasional magazine). Don't forget about WP:V and WP:RS, and if you're at all uncertain read WP:RS twice very carefully to see the precise circumstances in which certain types of information can be used as a source; for preference then cite the sources although if it's trivially easy to verify the information a comment on the talk page is probably sufficient.
Technically the GFDL forbids deleting of merged content; that depends I guess on whether it is merged or summarised from a review of those reliable sources which can be found (if it's summarised from sources, arguably the GFDL restriction does not apply; also if the original editors enter the new, slimmed-down, verified content the rstriction may not apply - it's a grey area in my view, but Uncle G will know the formally correct answer).
Now to the issue you have with Neutrality. Frankly you are wasting your time. Anybody can nominate any article for deletion at any time. Articles nominated in error should not get deleted (and when this is really obvious the nomination is sometimes withdrawn, at others there is an early closure with consensus speedy keep or some such). But that does not change the fundamental fact that bringing an article to AfD is not, in itself, a big deal; it's the AfD debate that matters. Excessive, frivolous or contentious nominations might be construed as vandalism, but there is no evidence of that here, Neutrality is a prolific and widely-respected editor, a long-time admin, a member of ArbCom. This AfD was not contentious in any way, there is established precedent for merging school clubs to the school article or deleting them altogether (and very little precedent for anything else). This is addressed in a light-hearted way in WP:NFT and WP:BAI. Neutrality states on his Talk page that he does not get involved in minor disputes - and he's not getting involved in this one either. You now know what the score is with respect to this particular AfD, so you have the information you wanted, and I would suggest that should be enough. His lack of response could be construed as "why the hell shouldn't I nominate it?" - and given precedent, there is no reason why not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 17:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice: however, An RFC on Neutrality's conduct has been raised. It can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality1 02:34, 18 January 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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubey Terra

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Zoe as CSD:G1 patent nonsense. Stifle 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Blackley

edit

Not sure if this meets the cirteria for inclusion or not. Mostly because I'm not sure what amount of motability is conveyed with being a "liard". If anything it's a stub.

Laird is a Scots title meaning "lord" in the sense of "landowner" - it's not a title of nobility, nor does it essentially assert any importance beyond that they had fifty quid to spare. You can easily find somewhere on the web which will sell you a square foot of land in the Highlands, allowing you to call yourself Laird of Somewhere... and, indeed, the Laird of Glencairn is currently a prolifically-retailed "title". (I know someone who got one for Christmas...). Bio, no real assertion of notability - he's someone wealthy, probably under 30, who hasn't done much if anything - so probably speedy-deletable. Otherwise, delete Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (Laird of A Small Patch Of Land Near The A720)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, apparently. Johnleemk | Talk 04:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Steven Krilis

edit

Academic bio. Up for debate.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Michelson

edit

Academic bio. Thought I would throw it up for debate.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levy (actor)

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Vanity page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep based on imdb credits. Anons and bots should not be making nominations. --Rob 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a case for a speedy keep, both anons and bots should be making nominations, and people who can't be bothered to read the Guide to deletion should not be commenting on afds. —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps people shouldn't unilaterally change the procedure for making a nomination, without first gaining consensus, and updating the written procedures. Also, don't ever tell registered user's they're not welcome here. Bots have no role in the decision to make a nomination. That should be obvious. Anons are prohibited from making pages, and bots should not bypass that restriction on their behalf. This nomination is invalid. A non-bot registered user wishing to make one is welcome to. --Rob 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Crypticbot has been cleaning up malformed AfD nominations for a while now, and I don't really see the problem with that. This is certainly not the place for an in-depth discussion of the matter. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guide to deletion says that anonymous users are permitted to nominate pages, although they cannot finish the process. I don't think this is a good idea, and I don't understand how it is intended to work, but it is OK according to the guide. In this case, though, the article should stay as per Rob. N Shar 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Although sections of the Guide are written by Cryptic and are somewhat controversial, the idea that anonymous users can nominate pages seems reasonable and would not have remained in the GtD if it was not accepted by the community. N Shar 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't really care for the current standard of "any IMDB entry will suffice" but that appears to be the current consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I say we give it 30 days to add some actual content, or delete. Agree with ESkog, IMDB != automatic notability. -Will 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer bogganing

edit

I see no factual reason for keeping this, but I am unsure if it would pass under CSD G1. Ian13ID:540053 15:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What exactly is CSD G1 and why do you people keep trying to delete my article, which, believe it or not, is completely factual. Some little kid in Bulgaria doing a school report on Beer bogganing is cursing your names because you have denied him the knowledge he needs because of your overzealousness.
  • First, it might behoove that little kid in Bulgaria to learn Canadian English first. Secondly, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --King of All the Franks 15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello? Are you not hearing me? Beer bogganing is not "made up". It is an actual tradition. Know anyone between the ages of 13 and 22 who lives in southern Canada? Call them, and ask them. Maybe you'll take their word over mine. I find it offensive and rude that you would question something that I've posted in this manner.
  • Another thing, look at these links: http://high-fructose-corn-syrup.blogspot.com/2005/12/beer-bogganing.html

    Just sledding and drinking at the same time? Isn't that a bit like saying that a lasagna is the same as eggs noodles and tomato sauce? By saying that, you're insulting a Canadian tradition. That's called racism. Had I posted anything so foul as what you have been saying about my beliefs and traditions in one of my articles, I'd have been banned.

    • But it's nothing more than a hobby. It has no notability outside of some small parts of rural Canada. --King of All the Franks 16:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair I've heard of it and I'm in England. Maybe not exactly matching the description in the article but something quite similar. However, I have no idea how notable it is so I won't be voting until I see more factual evidence about it's notablity but I think it is notable in some places. Englishrose 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. CSD G1 refers to a criteria for speedily deleting this article as being patently nonsense. (This is not a vote, just an explanation of the shorthand, which by the way, I think we should make an effort to avoid) Crunch 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until some citation is provided demonstrating the reality of this phenomenon, and the claims made about it. See Wikipedia:No original research for the grounds for this. "Ring up a Canadian teenager" doesn't count as a citation, incidentally. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is utter nonsense from start to finish, and keeping the article could open the floodgates for all sorts of teenage boys trying to get "hilarious" stories of drinking excess on Wiki. Drinking heavily on a bobsled is barely worth an aside. doktorb | words 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- but include with the bad jokes. --Christofurio 16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OFFENSIVE! Wikipedia is not here to promote or define destructive actions or decisions, no matter how traditional. krispymann25 12:06, 15 Jan. 2006 (EST).
  • Delete - 60+ Google hits suggest that the term "beer bogganing" does exist. But the test for inclusion always comes down to Wikipedia:Verifiability: has it been documented in any reputable publication? No. Tearlach 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Not G1 candidate, but still WP:NFT. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can this be referenced in a sociological study of Canadian teenage practises? If so, can this be cited to demonstrate verifiability? If not, the article looks like original research.  (aeropagitica)  22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-verifiable orignal research. Possibly move to BJAODN. --Hurricane111 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will admit that I am the one who posted the article, and I had to create this second account because admin "Borg Queen" banned me because of what I guess she thought was my "overzealous" defence of the article. "Can this be referenced in a sociological study of Canadian teenage practises?" see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beer+bogganing I don't think you need much more proof. (And I did not create this second account out of any malicious intent, I merely want my point to be heard. The practice is verifiable, and I did not create the term. Nor is it "unimportant", any more so than enything else on Wikipedia, that is.)

    And- in response to Tearlach's earlier comment- "has it been documented in any reputable publication? No." I think you are forgetting that anti-elitism is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. If the only things in Wikipedia were things that had been documented in a "reputable publication", it would just be a lacklustre copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is about evolving and constantly changing. Everything has to start being "documented" somewhere, you know what I mean? In this way, your comment is fundamentally flawed in terms of Wikipedia's mission and goals.

    And krispymann? I'm sorry but your statement was very foolish. "OFFENSIVE! Wikipedia is not here to promote or define destructive actions or decisions, no matter how traditional. " Does this mean the extensive Wikipedia article on hanging promotes capital punishment?

    • Comment. The reference you've provided is to the Urban Dictionary, which describes itself as: "a slang dictionary with your definitions. Define your world." Frankly, you could have added this definition (are you in fact Greg Wester?); this isn't a good enough citation, especially as it seems to be the only one available.
      As for your new account, I've blocked it indefinitely; you may not create new accounts in order to evade editing blocks. If you think that the block is inappropriate or unfair, contact the person who blocked you or another admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your only answer to the question "Can this be referenced in a sociological study of Canadian teenage practises?" is to point to UrbanDictionary, whose mission is to take stuff that people simply make up, then your answer to the question is effectively "No.". As for your erroneous belief that Wikipedia should document things even if they are not documented elsewhere, I suggest looking at Wikipedia's actual mission and goals, starting with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research official policies. Uncle G 10:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fine. Delete it. Believe it or not, I'm not just some teenage vandal, I am not "Greg Wester", and I'm not trying to play some joke. No matter how many times I say it, it seems that people are intent on labeling me as some sort of no good vandal with no place in the high and lofty halls of Wikipedia. Screw you.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Beer boganning, pending outcome of that article's AfD debate. The Land 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogover

edit

Once more seems nonsense, but may struggle under CSD G1 Ian13ID:540053 16:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in that sentence being "seems". Remember that when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. The information contained within the articles is wholly accurate, but I haven't had time to elaborate on the bare facts inside it because of the constant uncalled for deletion of the articles itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benji65 (talk • contribs) .

Delete Unverifiable, Non-notable, Non-encyclopedic. --pgk(talk) 16:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teejater

edit

Advertisement on a dance club in Holland. No notability asserted. Hurricane111 16:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 kept, per recent update of the article. →AzaToth 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi Stock Exchange

edit

Does not contain any information, seems more like an advertisement. →AzaToth 16:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a non-notable club. The Land 17:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The order of the paperclip

edit

Subject lacks notability, perhaps seriousness also... --Mysidia (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snubbing David Cross

edit

Non-notable documentary. No IMDB entry. No Alexa data for official site. Only 96 hits on Google for "Snubbing David Cross." Article seems to have been written by one of the filmmakers. See WP:VAIN. -- MisterHand 16:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orp art

edit

Delete, because absolutely no google hits for that term. Przepla 16:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. nn neologism Madchester 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moophasa

edit

Delete. This seems to be a neologism that isn't notable and isn't verifiable. From the article: "It is not yet a 'household' word, however there are several small groups of people circulating it, so it could soon become extremely popular." The article gives no cites for usage and I searched using Google and could not find any significant usage of the term. Although it has a "What does it mean" section, the article doesn't even actually ever say what the term means, only what it doesn't. The article has a significant edit history, but much of it is from anons, and the one non anon user, Otware (User talk:Otware) doesn't seem to have a lot of presence.

Please be gentle with me if I did not do this quite right, this is my first AfD nomination! Some inclusionist *I* am! ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-CAS

edit

I found this article whilst tidying up disambiguation for the acronym CAS. I wasn't sure whether to tag it for cleanup or nominate it here, but I have gone for the latter as the article is frankly useless as it stands. The article simply reads 'B-CAS is a vendor and operator of CAS system in Japan.' With no indication of which of the 28 versions of CAS it refers to, no assertion of notability, and no useful content I think it has to go. I vote Delete. kingboyk 16:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Hill

edit

Totally non-notable; one of many boarding houses of Shrewsbury School. Seems mainly to be an excuse for being offensive to housemasters and acts of vanity. Repeatedly vandalised. Lincolnite 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Sir, this is an informative, concise insight into bording school life. Let is stay!!!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Please use the {{db|reason}} tag for anythi ng which meets the criteria at WP:CSD, saves time for everyone. The Land 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leila hasham

edit

non-notable vanity bio --M@thwiz2020 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory (Statistical studies supporting the DPT)

edit

This topic is inherently PoV; furthermore, this text does not discuss the studies but is a defense of one particular DPT. By the time the PoV is eliminated and the statistically doubtful claims removed, there will be very little article left, and that little redundant with the main article on Democratic peace theory. In short,a PoV fork containing academic spam. Septentrionalis 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the a better alternative would be to mark this as possibly not neutral and then attempt to insert are more NPOV view. I was the person who called for this article's creation as I felt the main DPT article was being swamped by the statistical studies section. I am far from an expert on the subject, so I don't feel that I am able to comment on its neutrality, but bias is not a basis for deletion.
If you really think that it is impossible to make this arictle neutral, please, make your case, and I will consider changing my vote -for now I will remain neutral. Robdurbar 17:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics should probably be at Talk:Democratic peace theory (Statistical studies supporting the DPT), where I will put them. I may convince myself that it is salvagable, and change my own vote. Septentrionalis 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC) \[reply]
Finished analysis on talk page. I contend that this article is very largely redundant with Democratic peace theory, which contains all the references involved. Septentrionalis 15:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/group. --M@thwiz2020 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Union

edit

This page does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:music. If they get signed to a major label or something, great, but as it is, it's not notable. (It's also pretty blatantly self-promotion from the way the article is written.) JDoorjam 15:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storms

edit

This is a non-notable, self-promotional bio (surely we're not giving every Guinness record-holder his own page). The trivia that he enjoys Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is especially compelling, but ultimately not enough to show notability, methinks. JDoorjam 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 40,000 records in the Guinness Book of World Records. Which ones are "notable" and which ones aren't? Surely we're not going to list them all. With that said, should the records that Guinness thinks are worth mentioning be used as a resource? GuinnessWorldRecords.com does not even mention the category. JDoorjam 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I vote 'keep' because singing the lowest ever recorded note for a human is similar to records for being tallest or most massive, but different from records such as making the largest pancake or longest continuous juggling, because it is directly related to a single physical characteristic shared by all normally functioning humans. If Wikipedia wants to make a distinction as to which record holders are worth including, this seems like a good option. (I wrote a large part of the text for the Acappella (group) article, but I had no idea who Tim Storms was before I clicked the link to his name because I am not a fan of his era of the group, and thus do not feel that I am biased because of it). Folding Chair 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question As Tim Storms' record is mentioned at vocal range, and there is a page for List of world records, is this separate article warranted? I agree that there's merit to recording the record and the record-holder, but when everything there is to say can be presented as:
Lowest voice: Tim Storms (formerly of singing ensemble Acappella)
is a separate page appropriate? Incidentally, I'd say your having written part of the Acappella article doesn't affect at all the merit of your argument -- Your argument doesn't even mention the group, so I don't see how it could at all be biased by it -- though hey, cheers to full disclosure. . JDoorjam 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't keep This is an excellent point. I withdraw my vote for keep. If Tim Storms' name can be linked to the page for Guinness world records on the Acappella page and anywhere else he is listed, then I do not think he warrants his own article.Folding Chair 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's probably no such thing as a probationary keep, but I think it should be kept for the time being. It seems like if months later there is no major changes to the article, then it should be deleted. I think one of the criteria for an article is that it has to have the potential to become more than a stub, and that's something that probably can't be determined right now. Beisnj 06:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is eight months old; the only changes since first being written (besides stubbing and categorization) is the addition, and removal, of information regarding Mr. Storms' affinity for donuts. JDoorjam 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ҡ

edit

This is - or can be - covered in detail on the Bashkir language page. There may also be issues relating to the name of the article doktorb | words 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm putting this in the wrong place, but we are trying to have all of the non-Slavic Cyrillic letters covered in the same detail as the Slavic ones. The Bashkir language page only states that it uses a modified version of the Russian alphabet, and that it contains several letters like this one. I don't have very much to contribute at the moment, since I don't speak Bashkir (and it doesn't seem like many Wikipedians do, judging from the 24-article Bashkir Wikipedia). As for the name of the article, usually I try to assign it its name, like the other Cyrillic letters (A, Be, Ve, Ge, etc), but I don't know what Bashkirs, or anyone, calls this letter, and it's not in my Character Map. Waynem|talk 17:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Circus Card Trick

edit

Delete. Not-notable card trick with arbitrary title. We don't need an article for every slight/illusion in which a magician locates a spectator's card. The "key" or "locator" method (by which the trick is accomplished) is used in countless tricks. -- Krash 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's Adventure

edit

Non-notable non-commerical game Drdisque 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentalo

edit

Delete. Not-notable card trick with arbitrary title. We don't need an article for every slight/illusion in which a magician can locate a spectator's card. The forcing method (by which the trick is accomplished) is used in countless tricks. -- Krash 17:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete. Sure we don't need this article about a very interesting and amazing hobby but we do need articles like auto fellatio and necrophilia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.166.143 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album (website)

edit

Nn website. No Alexa data. No "link" results. No incoming wikilinks. No media coverage. No assertion of notability. Neglected article added by anon ip on August 2005. Fails WP:WEB on everything. --Perfecto 18:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FotoSwap

edit

Nn website. No alexa data. 161 Google hits. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. The cited site p2pphotosharing.com is not notable either. Fails WP:WEB-- Perfecto 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Read codes

edit

This article contains a subset of the British medical coding system. It is a subset, but it still includes over 3,000 entries and is 152,155 bytes long. Per WP:ISNOT this seems to me to be a directory. It also appears to be little more than a reformetted mirror of http://www.wolfbane.com/icd/read3h.htm, a cited source. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pheonix Engine

edit

New 2D engine. NonNotable. WP is not a crystal ball J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Detour Records

edit

Blantant Advertising for Non Notable Company J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  18:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selena steele

edit

Geogre's Law failure, unsourced, speculative, POV (what consititues "moderate" breast enhancement?) - i.e. porncruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Foss

edit

nn anchor? Sceptre (Talk) 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Karen Foss, another article on same subject? 131.111.8.97 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(AfD was originally for "Karen Foss". Now moved to Karen Foss. I abstain from voting.) -- RHaworth 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killzone 2

edit

Non confirmed game, any official words. This article is based on Killzone E3 2005 video that many spreading rumours calling "Killzone 3" (another non-verifyed claim). Note: Both Guerrila and Sony never put the number "2" or "3" in the next Killzone games, it's all based in rumours. Rick Browser 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to John Bull. -- Jonel | Speak 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Baboon

edit

This may be notable for the purposes of the Nuttall Encyclopedia, but on Wikipedia this doesn't exactly pass muster, since the book History of John Bull doesn't have an article. N Shar 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedish

edit

BJADON fodder, perhaps, but unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a joke. bogdan 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft captured by Vichy France authorities

edit

It's difficult to see how the list could be verified (no citations are given), nor what the point of it is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan for the full Monty on this. As for WWII buffs and their interests - the case doesn't really have to be made since we have huge amounts of reference material on weaponry. More than most people want to know about the Estonian Air Force (two homemade planes, same author). But within the 'verifiability' criteria, there is no real basis for criticism (trainspotting no sin here). Charles Matthews
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F&M Comunity Bank

edit

Poorly written article about tiny for-profit bank ($55 million assets) by someone who can't even spell "Community" Madman 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. gren グレン ? 09:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth about the turkish republic of northern cyprus

edit

Delete. Copy-and-paste move from Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, obviously intended as a POV fork (although no POV insertion has yet taken place, as far as I can see at a glance.) The page also has a {{protectmove}} tag, but no accompanying record of how it got protected. Is that tag genuine, or was it put up by the page creator in violation of process? - Obviously, this is about a topic likely to fuel heated POV conflicts. Lukas 19:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burch

edit

Delete. Does not conform to Wikipedia's inclusion of biographies. [67] DantheMan 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep because I think his contributions to Adult Video News would, in fact, qualify him for WP:BIO. His notability in terms of name recognition appears to be pretty low, but unless there's something to tell me that AVN doesn't reach a 5000+ circulation, keep seems to be the fairest vote. EDIT: After reading the talk page for the article, being mentioned in Salon as well as a source for published books seems to reach levels of notability that I can't disagree with. This assumes that Burch (who doesn't consider himself notable) is being accurate, and I see no reason not to believe him. --badlydrawnjeff 21:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. 543 search results. Of the 20 I looked at only 7 referred to this person. 2 from his own page, 3 from his form posts and 2 from radio station interviews. Re-list maybe in a few years if he becomes noteworthy. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't particularly like Ben myself, but this article doesn't seem to pass the tests in the link Dan posted. I must wonder, though, how many times this article will be listed for deletion?--WinOne4TheGipper 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AVN circulation is at 40k. [68] With Burch as a contributor, doesn't he actually meet said guideline tests? --badlydrawnjeff 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I once wrote a "letter to the editor" to a paper that had a circulation of well over 50k. Does that make me note able? If he's a regular contributor then maybe, but I don't see any evidence of that. (Signed: J.Smith) 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How often does contribute? Anyone want to check?:)--WinOne4TheGipper 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer that. Monthly. I consult on news stories and legal matters with Editor Mark Kernes via email on an almost daily basis. Rarely mentioned by name, though I am always in the colophon. Not sure about this month, though, as Mark as been ill. BenBurch 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ben. It looks like you qualify, then. I'm changing my vote to keep. Hopefully, this is the last time I hear about AVN.:)--WinOne4TheGipper 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. -- Nightowl1335
err... unsigned vote. :( (Signed: J.Smith) 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I will not comment on this as I personally don't think I am all that notable. I fall into the category of non notable people mentioned on national radio on a daily basis. People like show producers, editors, etc. You hear their names, but you don't remember them. All I really care about is that people hear the name of my website, and go there to download shows. And since 2002, over five million hours of audio has been downloaded from the site. And the site only bears my name if you look in the right place. BenBurch 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't take this NfD as an attack against you. I happen to support your work. (Signed: J.Smith) 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I was amazed that this entry survived the first RfD, and don't think my notability has increased by much since... BenBurch 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen on that. Who knew the Freeptards had so many IP addresses? BenBurch 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think Mr. Burch is notable. In addition, Burch doesn't appear to have qualms about editing his own Wikipedia bio. This could taint the article content. Rhobite 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge -- There is nothing wrong with this article, honestly. However, perhaps by merging other articles connected to this one (such as the White Rose Society (website)) would increase the worth overall to all of them by having them in the same article. InvictusNox 18:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong? Ben Burch, by his own statements attests that he is not notable. He just doesn’t fit the bill for those important enough to be listed in a encyclopedia. Given his accomplishments to-date will he be remembered in 100 years? What about another benchmark... if I asked 10,000 people on the street who "Ben Burch" was, would any of them know anything? Maybe Mr. Burch will become one of the most influential people of the 21st century. But we can't judge the articles worthiness on "maybes." "I personally don't think I am all that notable" (Signed: J.Smith) 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Burch is pretty much an unknown outside a small group of people. I would guess that most on DU and the opposing website CU know about him and his website. There is a minority that have heard of him on FR. However, one of the criteria to determine whether to keep an article or not is whether they contribute regularly in a publication that reaches 5000+ individuals. I would argue that that number is too low, but AVN's circulation number of 40,000 and that he contributes monthly qualifies him.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burch doesn’t get bi-lines on any of those "contributions" and thus they are unverifiable. (Signed: J.Smith) 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of Hearts


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

The result of the debate was Delete. per WP:WEB Madchester 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminem.com

edit

Non-notable forum site. Fails WP:WEB with only one Google match and an Alexa ranking in the 1.7 million range. -- Shinmawa 19:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ivo Bligh

edit

Looks like it was speedily deleted at some point then resurrected by the same admin. I can't see why. Perhaps suggest move to User page? Crunch 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Bancerz

edit

It's probably autobiography. If not, he is not a notable person. Visor 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A claim for notability is required. Perhaps he wrote some influential articles or sponsored well-known journalists? If so, these should be cited as evidence.  (aeropagitica)  21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it has been written in article, Karol "is the editor-in-chief of Slowa w sieci". This vortal [69] is ranked as 5,189,306 in Alexa [70]. Almost all references to his name in Google [71] are mentions that he is editor-in-chief of "Slowa w sieci" vortal (some websites includes his articles) [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], or forum posts with his name in signature [77], or accounts at other websites [78]. He is responsible for promoting "Złote Myśli" [79] commercial ebooks [80], for graphic design of Klukowo.pl [81]. He also wrote some articles for web services, such as "Jak to jest z Ludzką Pamięcią?" [82] (article about his experiences in memory techniques). Rest of Google web search results come from Wikipedia mirrors. So, in my opinion, he is definitively not a notable person. Visor 16:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McLeod

edit

About a High School teacher. Either vanity or just non-notable. Staecker 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Willbertore

edit

empty, nonsensical Krispymann25 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and redirected as utter junk, per WP:IAR and WP:NOT. FCYTravis 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy

edit

notability not established; perhaps reinstatement of the previous redirect is appropriate? Slo-mo 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the second nomination for the Timmy article, the first occurring here and resulting in a redirect (I believe to Recurring South Park characters). The second nomination was accidentaly added into the first. All material concerning the second nomination has been pasted here, and the previous discussion has been restored to its end-of-discussion status. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to SOS (disambiguation). – Robert 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.S

edit

No context, does not assert notability or why it belongs in an encylopedic, no reason why this title was used is explained in the article. Vegaswikian 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Loss

edit

Delete, as article is unverifiable with only three google hits on - "The Book of Loss" +Shar - It is a fan-made text (orignal research) and therefore should be deleted as per WP:NOR.


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Studies Program

edit

non-notable High school program that nothing links to MPS 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitre cask of montillado

edit

Article appears to be nothing more than a word for word copy of the Edgar Allan Poe story. Delete TheRingess 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis

edit
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis (old).
Yellowikis was nominated for deletion again on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis 2.

It's a wiki for business information, that apparently intends tries to fill itself by grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia. Except that it doesn't really. It has been around for nearly half a year, still has an Alexa rating of 137,331, and has as little as 1024 legitimate content pages. (renom). Wikipedia is not the place to advertise a start-up business. Linkspam, delete. Radiant_>|< 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yellowikis doesn't "grab" articles, Uncle G's bot transwikis them. Yellowikis has been around for just over one year. Most of the articles are considered incomplete in some way so they are marked as stubs - and for that reason they are not included in the count of legitimate pages. Yellowikis isn't a business. The use of the "rel=nofollow" tag prevents the external link from acting as linkspam.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per below --Jaranda wat's sup 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's had some verifiable media coverage, it's now notable in the field of business directory wikis even if it fails. Kappa 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. This Alexa ranking is below the WP:WEB threshold, but that's a proposed guideline, not a rule, and there seem to be other notability things in its favour (per Kappa, and the links given in the article). DELETE the spamming links to it seen in other articles and see if it can't be rewritten to be more POV. It seems to have grown somewhat since the first nom. On the other hand, if it keeps growing, maybe even if it gets deleted this time, it can always come back later. Perhaps the article content could be transwikied to itself? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Larry, but Yellowikis already includes a page on Yellowikis :) . I'd post a link to it here but I am afraid that you'd castigate me for linkspamming.--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WEB is a guideline, not a proposal for one. Radiant_>|< 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks R!... The recent changes were what was proposed, not the guideline itself, so strike that. Do we know who's actually doing transwiki-ing? It seems to read like someone on their side is doing the work of moving (about to be?) deleted articles over? ALSO, they can't be THAT tiny, they have [83] the WoW! vandal... PS, has anyone tried asking them to stop spamlinking? (need to go review the prev 2 AfDs) ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Until Radiant! edited it out, the article actually told you outright who was doing the work, and whose resources were involved. ☺ Read the article's history. And I pointed out to them that they should not add links to Wikipedia articles, back in the first AFD discussion. Read it. They stopped. Uncle G 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP has lots of links to other WikiMedia Projects that are in construction - We thought that it would be OK to link to a FDL, non-profit, (but non-foundation project). Uncle G advised against it so we stopped. But I still think we should be able to encourage people to add information to Yellowikis. Just as some articles point people at WikiBooks or WikiSpecies. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now read the first and second discussions, as well as reviewing the article history. I'm confused as to why some of the cite material was redacted, and now aware it's you that causes semiautomatic transikification to happen (and if you have any ins with the team there, you may want to recommend they take some antivandalism steps!). But I have not seen anything to change my vote from keep as noted above. Thanks for the pointers! ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to see how grabbing deleted articles from Wikipedia is a bad thing. In my opinion Yellowikis is different enough in concept from any other business directory to be worth its own article. Nikai 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I think we should stop transwiki-ing things to them as well, it's a diversion of our resources. I love Lar's suggestion that they be made to eat their own tail, though! - brenneman(t)(c) 00:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How, exactly, is it "a diversion of our resources"? Please specify precisely what resources involved in the process are "our resources". Uncle G 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm basing that on looking at WP:TL. I'm often wrong, but unless there is no human intervention required here, isn't this a long list of things that someone has to tend to as opposed to doing something else? Even if it's just bot-work, that's still disk space and server time being used. And "our resources" are those that go towards the aims of the project. If the editors doing the work are members/contributors to YW as well, I suppose it's not an issue. Not my reason for supporting deletion, though.
        brenneman(t)(c) 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm basing that on looking at WP:TL. — As per the name of that page, that's the log of things that have been transwikied, not a queue of things to be transwikied. And "our resources" are those that go towards the aims of the project. — That is still not specifying what resources "our resources" actually are. Hint: There are no such resources. Uncle G 03:36, 16 January 2006
  • Keep (regrettably), does appear to be notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 00:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, low alexa ranking, only 205 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notable to some extent, I guess. But POV and unencyclopedic content needs to be trimmed. -- Krash 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:36, Jan. 16, 2006
  • Delete Move to Wikipedia namespace Keep per attempted cut-the-knot deletion and place on spam blacklist per this statement on their site
    Any organisation big enough to have an article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) should also be in Yellowikis. If you get the chance please remember to add a link to Yellowikis saying something like "Listed in Yellowikis" from the appropriate Wikipedia page AND add a link back from the Yellowikis page to the appropriate Wikipedia page. [84] —Ruud 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yellowikis collects quite different information about companies than Wikipedia does. There are hundreds of links from WP to Yahoo! Business information - are you going to add Yahoo! to the spam blacklist too?--Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not mind adding a link to Yellowikis if the company does not have a website on which they state their business information, but the if you get the chance ... add a link sounds like an invitation to spam Wikipedia. -Ruud 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement pre-dates the first AFD nomination (read the discussion that is linked to above), and that practice has long since ceased. Uncle G 03:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, low-traffic wiki, where shit like this goes rather unnoticed. -- Willy on wheels 04:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.85.83 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa. Stifle 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and having received transwikis, etc. Ral315 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thoroughly non notable. And as for notable 'having received transwikis' are we to 'gift' notability to every site we send deleted content to?! That just wouldn't be fair on the webmasters of the thousands of other non notable sites we routinely delete. --kingboyk 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. The amount of energy that has gone into this (and previous) discussions could have been better spent improving Yellowikis to the point where it became notable. --Yellowikis Admin 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable/advert. Incognito 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets notability threshold. -- Curps 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first AFD discussion, I asked Payo (talk · contribs) for citations of independent reports of and conference presentations about Yellowikis. Based upon clues in the discussion there, I actually located several articles myself at the time. More have been added since. Whether content is copied from here to Yellowikis is irrelevant to whether this web site is notable. But so, too, is discussion of Alexa ranking, Google hits, and article counts. Such considerations no longer form part of WP:WEB, and rightly so because they are bad metrics. WP:WEB asks for non-trivial published coverage of the site by multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article links to several such published works. True, this web site is at the bottom of the notability scale. But it does satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. Keep. Uncle G 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a long time wikipedia user, been using wikipedia for the longest time, even though most of my edits are done without logging in. I don't understand the fuss about yellowikis, since wikipedia is full of other junk stubs of companies that probably needs clean up. Most are even under the wrong name. Furthermore, currently Yellowikis is not for profit, thus a place to advertise start up businesses should not really classify into this argument. Also, why aren't other articles like wikicompany etc. not being considered for deletion, seems like utmost bias to me on part of the users of wikipedia towards other wikis. --Stabani 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford, Virginia

edit

This article is a severe stub, and, in its current state, would need alot of improvement, which is why I'm placing it up for deletion. Joeblow13- Delete--Joeblow13 21:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added it to Stratford. Crunch 01:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On closer examination, it appears that Stratford exists solely of Stratford Hall Plantation, which already has a fairly complete article. I'm not sure if it's in Montross (pop. 315), but that's the nearest town. And I'm also not sure there is anything else to say about Stratford. Maybe a clarification on the Stratford Hall Plantation article that Stratford consists solely of the plantation and a redirect from Stratford to Stratford Hall Plantation. Has anyone been there who can verify this? Crunch 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stratford Hall Plantation per my explanation above. Stratford has its own zip code, but other than Stratford Plantation, there is nothing else. It's not a real town. Crunch 13:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Past precedent on real towns, even if they are substubs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly recommend a Redirect to Stratford Hall Plantation. Like Crunch, I haven't been able to find any evidence at all that it is a real town (with inhabitants or government or recognition from the state). It is in Westmoreland County, Virginia, which is itself very small, with only 16k residents. I looked-up Stratford's zip code at the Post Office web site; It does have its own code, 22558, but it consists of only a single PO Box (likely the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, who run the plantation as a museum, since they list that zip code on their web site). If, in fact, Stratford refers solely to the plantation, it should not have a separate article. ×Meegs 10:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place with lots of expansion. It does not mean if it is a stub then it should be deleted. --Terence Ong 13:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Comments. Well, in an effort to try to clarify things I actually phoned Stratford Hall Plantation today (804-493-8371) to see if someone there could help me figure out the relationship between Stratford and Stratford Hall Plantation. I spoke to a person in their Visitors Center who told me, "Stratford is the Stratford Hall Plantation. We have our own zipcode but that's it. It's just for the Plantation." I asked if there were any residents of Stratford and he said that there were a few employees of the Stratford Hall Plantation who live on site, but no one else. He also sounded like he gets asked this a lot. Based on this I think it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles. Crunch 17:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8fever.com

edit

Appears to be a non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly comment left at User Talk:Troskater


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Woods

edit

Non-notable High school football coach Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnism

edit

Fairly obvious hoax. Would've speedied, but wasn't sure if it fit the criteria. Brendan 21:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy BJAODN --D-Day 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. --Hurricane111 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. -- Krash 00:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no matter how....Moronic...It seems. Just....Trust me on this one. Lincolnism is an actual religion. As I said on the topic articles page, it's by no means a MAJOR religion...But some odd folks actually practice it by my high school, at a "church" called First Lincolnist church. That stuff about Francis Bacon and space whatever makes me doubt this particular author's credibility, but if you guys want, I could pick up a copy of G Dawg tommorow and update it. But, again, as I posted in my article, the prophet information (and every time they called it radical) was true, from what I've heard about Lincolnism. Some people believe wierd stuff, huh? -- The easiest reader 1:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User's third edit, 2 of which are on this page[85]Karmafist 06:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment was actually made from 70.186.163.158


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Revival in the decorative arts, now moved to Talk:Gothic Revival in the decorative arts

edit

Delete as original research. --InShaneee 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to List of Homestar Runner characters. -- Jonel | Speak 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh! Steve

edit

Unimportant fancruft--Mister D 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If we must do this yet again. Encyclopedic: Of, relating to, or characteristic of an encyclopedia. That's not that confusing. An encyclopedia's job is not to provide users with acess to "all the information they would hope for". Speculation about the next Pokemon, day-by-day acounts of the size of Katie's baby bump, who's gotten bone-thin this week: the ephemera we do not include is almost endless. Every time we do include a sterling example of fugacious nonsense like this, it crowds out real information (you know, like art and calculus and democracy) in several ways:
  1. It takes up a small but real portion of disk space. That actually costs money. We have fundraising to pay for things like new servers in part because articles take up space.
  2. It takes up a small but real portion of people's time. The "don't like it? don't look at it." argument is completely fallicious. Shall I somehow expunge this article from my recent changes list? How then will it be kept free of vandalism and innacuracy? Leading to...
  3. It erodes in some small way our reputation. Little crufty corners can get ignored, and that's actually a bad thing. Every time it hits the news that we've dropped the ball on WP:V it means that any real information we give to our users will have just a little bit less value.
Delete the crap, the unsourced, the trivial, the mundane. Let us cease the endless bickering and how we cling like drowning men to these tiny articles of little utility, and concentrate on doing something meaningful instead.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This project job's is to provide every human being with all the knowledge they would wish for. As the encylopedic branch of the project, wikipedia's job is to provide the portion of that information that fits inside an encyclopedia of some sort. The amount of money that the storage of homerunner pages costs is probably about a cent per decade and falling. The time it takes up on 'recent changes' is outweighed by the time Homestar Runner contributors would give back to wikipedia, if their work wasn't being destroyed. I find it hard to believe that USA Today or Nature magazine would run a headline story saying "Wikipedia gets Homestar Runner character wrong", I kinda think they are more likely to be interested in more significant topics. What you consider crap, trivial or mundane may be the most important thing to some users, for example my favorite band doesn't pass WP:MUSIC any more, and I would really, really like to be able to read about my local churches. If an article has utility, however little, why not leave it alone and concentrate on doing something meaningful instead? Kappa 23:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could also go even futher with this discussion on Talk:Homestar Runner. The volume of HR-related articles which can be classified as a waste of resources on WP is astounding. We could do away with most, if not all of the character pages which people would not read WP for, because they can be pointed to HRWiki. Not to mention that List of Homestar Runner characters is not only incomplete, but a factual and grammatical mess with a subpar reading level which no one wants to fix, because they can find it all on HRWiki anyway. —BazookaJoe 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The Wheelchair

edit

Unimportant fancruft--Mister D 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.A.'s Lounge

edit

Article was created by User:Paslounge, presumably a representative of this organization. It's a restaurant with no particular claim to notability. The article reads like an advertisement. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TVIUG

edit

nn chat channel Hirudo 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. nn character Madchester 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fippy Darkpaw

edit

nn character in online game. Alternatively merge to EverQuest Hirudo 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real character in notable online game. Do not merge with EverQuest, please, think of the users. Kappa 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused. If this is a 'minor' character, is the character notable enough to warrant their own article? I think merging this in seems a good idea, regardless of dialup users. If the EQ article gets too long then maybe split ALL the NPCs out as one article? I'm just not seeing why merge is a bad idea. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic, and original research. Last I ckecked, Wikipedia was not indiscriminate collection of information. Once everything lacking WP:CITE is removed, there'd be nothing left. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it not encyclopedic? An Everquest encylopedia wouldn't be complete without it. Also the source would appear to be the game Everquest, which is a lot more accessible than most books. Kappa 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An Everquest encyclopedia? That's not what I'm giving away my free time to create. And the source of this information isn't the game, it's the author's observations on the game. That's pure original research. I'd not mind recreation as a redirect to everquest per Obina following the deletion. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't have to give up your time to create it, but if would be nice if you would stop using your time to destroy it. Kappa 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Every nonsense page is another page that I'll have to watch in RC, another slight drain on the CPU that slows users' acces of real information, another bit of disc space that the foundation has to spend money on. With that, I'll leave this AfD discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If people aren't using it, it has nothing but a neglible cost of storage. If people are using it, they are getting more value from wikipedia and are more likely contribute their own time, money and real information. Destroying these things and driving people out of the project is no way to promote a healthy, growing community. Kappa 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it should go, but I disagree that it's anything remotely like original research. There's nothing in the article that isn't in the game itself, or any number of game guides, including the official published ones. WP:NOR is supposed to protect us from crackpot scientific musings and quack medical theory, not video game monsters! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon notable character. Of course it gets lots of hits. Everquest is a widely played game, and there are databases and websites galore tracking all the information. Everquest has many thousands of NPC (Non player character) with many indeed more notable than this guy err dog. Thinking of the users, it will be helpful if their searches do not bring them here but rather to a site with lots of information. This a slipperly slope of a very steep kind. The number of EQ articles (and DAoC, EQII, etc) will be large, 'Dwarf'ing Star Trek, and be a Ogre of a task. Makes me want to yell "Train" (inside joke).Obina 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per brenneman. This isn't an Everquest encyclopedia. -- Krash 00:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, but would support a merge and redirect to a combined list of NPCs if there was an overwhelming consensus. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per user:Aaron Brenneman, but support merge/redirect ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm very inclusionist when it comes to fictional/game characters, but this should go. Unless I'm remembering wrong, it isn't an NPC (non-player-character), but a named mob (basically a slightly more-powerful monster with a name). There isn't a way to interact with it, you just either kill it or avoid it. Trying to cover every single named creature in a huge and ever-expanding game like Everquest is beyond the reasonable scope of an encylcopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everquest has hundreds of named monsters who are not characters but simply one-off enemies players must defeat. (Open that up to include games like World of Warcraft and EQ2 and the other MMOs...ow, my head hurts). This character has no personality, and is of little interest to anyone who hasn't killed him already (and already knows all of the meager info in this article). Wikipedia will not be hurt by the deletion of this article, and, most tellingly, it's of no interest to anyone who doesn't already know everything here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Everquest --TimPope 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AMIB. Barno 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Incognito 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa. Character from popular online game played by tonnes of people. Would be difficult to merge to everquest as the article is already large. Englishrose 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prinsessakerho

edit

Totally unnotable, I am finnish and have never heard about it and neither has anyone else. Looks like a list of vips to a club or something. Lapinmies 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Rush goalie. - Mailer Diablo 02:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goalie when ned

edit

Non notable - gets precisely zero google hits. Francs2000   22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard's Convention

edit

Delete Spam; a summary of a fictional story presented as fact UrsaFoot 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Marco Polo. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pollo

edit

If there is any evidence that this "biography" is not a bad joke or a hoax, it doesn't show up in Google or any of the biography databases I've consulted. -- Rune Welsh -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. -- Krash 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xiamen International School

edit

I nominated this page for speedy because it is merely an advertisement, but an anon reverted it. Rather than get into a revert war with an anon who seems to be bent on contributing to this article, I'm going to post this here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geighties

edit

The author of this article and admitted coiner of the phrase is Jared Ragozine; he describes himself as a "pop-culture guru" but Google gives him no love. This is his only contribution, a month ago. Claims of coverage on VH1, Dateline, and NY Times are unsubstantiated and probably fictional. Vanity, WP:NFT, delete. Melchoir 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredos

edit

If I'm reading it correctly, "fredos" are characters in a personal website. I think these are just someone's personal creations, and they seem to have little/no impact in the wider world. Joyous | Talk 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, although it might be a "game cheat", with little importance or applicability. User: PietVA 15 January, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Smagghe

edit

Non-notable musician. Other musicians affiliated with his group have been deleted. Eeee 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Visitors Center

edit

Privately owned small business, not notable. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Self-declared spam advertising for an unpublished comic book. Burndurf (talk · contribs) has posted a whole series of articles on various characters in the story. u p p l a n d 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I'll add a clear delete vote to my nomination and extend it to all the pages added by Saberwyn. u p p l a n d 09:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning this into a mass nomination for all the articles related to this uncreated comic. This includes (but may not be limited to);
Several of these articles are marked as copyright to the owner, and so may violate the GFDL (I'm no lawyer). All of the articles listed here have been tagged for deletion, and their deletion debates redirect here. The creating user has been notified of the fact that all of his/her contributions have been listed for deletion. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_January_15&oldid=1234127617"