Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< March 9 March 11 >

Purge server cache

March 10

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.B.

edit


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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper (web site)

edit

Non notable web site (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cuppett

edit

Delete - No reason given for notability, rank not given, details of service limited to vague job description and list of medals earned. Internet search turns up individual who is a New World Order conspiracy theorist Nobunaga24 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Defense Meritorious Service Medal is the third highest award..."
"The Purple Heart...to those who have been wounded or killed..."
"Bronze Star Medal... is the fourth highest award..."
"'The Commendation Medal is a mid-level..."
"The Vietnam Service Medal...is issued to recognize military service..."
"Joint Meritorious Unit Award... It is awarded to joint units or activities..."---Marcus- 09:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs to be redone, quite simply. The military awards are pretty superfluous to the article, and the guy is famous (to a degree) for his conspiracy theories etc.. I think with a good re-edit this article should eb a worthwile contribution to Wikipedia. --Wisden17 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-notable. Military service is not noteworthy, and Google results don't establish any real notability. —LrdChaos 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - Needs more information, not particularly notable. - Original editor, give us more... Oarias 03:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there's presently nothing worthwhile in the article, and is possibly vanity, listing all of his minor medals, but possibly borderline notable as a conspiracy theorist (though this is not mentioned). ProhibitOnions 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnly

edit

Blog with "over 3,000" visitors. Apparently known for posting stick figure pictures. Does not come close to WP:WEB, but {{prod}} was removed. Delete. bikeable (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedilly deleted per a7 nn group. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedCell

edit

Delete--Here's another vanity page for a MMO game clan, not the sort of thing we need on Wikipedia. ikiroid | (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brushogun

edit

Fictional character from a movie yet to be released (that still has some time before it comes out). Delete as original research (read: speculation). --InShaneee 21:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moink 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Instance

edit

It seems to be some kind of instruction page of somesort, not very clear, definitely not encyclopedic. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all three - Liberatore(T) 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also Lucky design, which appears to be a copy of Lucky Design. - Liberatore(T) 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Design

edit

Delete Vanity page. I am also nominating the following related page because it was created by the same user with essentially the same content.

RossPatterson 01:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles Real Person Fic

edit

This article does not do a good job of establishing notability of the topic, and the sources do not seem verifiable. It has no incoming links other than its classification in WP:Beatles (where User:Kingboyk and I decided that it may be a candidate for removal during the course of classifying articles... shameless plug, if you're a Beatles fan, we'd love to have you! Ahem, commercial announcement over). The article has a lot of jargon (which is not defined) which suggests a very specialised or limited interest audience. (it is true that Google does turn up some references to the term, but enough to be notable? Are they from notable sites? I don't think so but could be convinced otherwise) ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Brewers: All-Time Team

edit

Appears to be original research. Googling "Milwaukee Brewers" "all-time team" returns nothing that would indicate either the Brewers or a media outlet named such a team. Also, the members of the All-Time Team appear to change depending on who's editing the article. A Brewers Walk of Fame exists [3], but the membership isn't consistent. If I come across any similar pages for other teams, I'll be listing those as well. djrobgordon 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. android79 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomax7

edit

nn company, reads like an advert RJFJR 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. It is about a person. The first two sentences make vague mention of a company. The remaining paragraphs are about nothing but Tom McLaughlin. Kafziel 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, and agree that it focuses on the person. I do not think that that is sufficient grounds to speedy it, since it claims to be about a company and then gets off track. NickelShoe 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I can write an article about myself, as long as I title it "Kafziel 1.0" and nobody can speedy it? That's ridiculous. It doesn't "get off track", it's never about any company. Look at the talk page. The guy admits to having created this as a vanity page. Kafziel 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Cyde Weys 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production work

edit

I can't believe this article has been around for a year, written by a frequent nonsense contributor (see User talk:Pagingmrherman) Eivind 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meeli Mulari

edit

After Googling this "model" it is clear that she doesn't have a modeling career so much as she "wants" to have a modeling career. Rklawton 01:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would guess models can be notable, but not one who garners 6 Ghits [7].
Her name is Mullari [8]. The article has a typo.--Grocer 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She may be signed with this agency but they don't seem to be promoting her. Fan1967 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 bootlegging. — brighterorange (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boot-legged

edit

It's a dictionary definition copied from the American Heritage Dictionary, so it's not the proper kind of thing to have here AND it's a possible copyvio. dcandeto 01:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artbox

edit

Closer's notes
As there was no clear consensus about Deric Williams, which was added into the nomination later on a different basis than the primary nomination, I have listed that page for deletion separately, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deric Williams.
As to the primary nomination, although a numerical majority of editors were in favour of deletion, the argument put foward was that the article did not satisfy the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Other editors rebutted that argument, by citing sources showing the article did indeed satisfy the criteria. As such, there is no basis for deletion. This is a deletion debate, not a vote.

Delete Non-notable band Fnarf999 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Deric Williams, member of this band, as being also non-notable by the standards of WP:BIOFnarf999 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as returning hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Carlow Crab episodes

edit

The author put up a list of episodes of an apparently fake TV show. Carlow Crab and The Carlow Crab have already been deleted. Delete DMG413 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicode

edit

Delete: Appears to be spam for a small, one product, software company Kickstart70 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclamer: I am the creator of OmniCode, though not the creator of the Wikipedia page for it (though since it exists I'll improve the OmniCode page. My suggestion that Omnicode (small c) be deleted has nothing to do with OmniCode (large C) --Kickstart70 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Gotta delete em' all! =D - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 105 (Pokémon)

edit

Non-encylopedia-notable videogame info ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated into this as a bundle:
Route 101 (Pokémon)
Route 102 (Pokémon)
Route 103 (Pokémon)
Route 104 (Pokémon)
Route 106 (Pokémon)
Route 107 (Pokémon)
Route 108 (Pokémon)
Route 109 (Pokémon)
Route 110 (Pokémon)

Ten articles on recurring locations within the same videogame. What's next, a separate article for each streetcorner in Grand Theft Auto? ("On 5th and Main you can mug a pimp and steal his bling." "On Broad and 9th you can either buy drugs or shoot the drug dealer.") Thatcher131 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Taking notes> --Calton | Talk 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual routes are not notable (enough to warrant seperate articles), and as for the rest, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual per WP:NOT. --CrypticBacon 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one, all encompassing article on Pokemon universe highways. Bayberrylane 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pokemon. Good grief. The only thing about merging these is, each article has a section called "Obtainable Pokémon" with a bunch of entries of what I suppose must be pokemon characters and their "obtainability", whatever that is. If this information is significant and if it pertains somehow to the different 'routes' (whatever those are), no way you can merge it unless you made a huge table or something. Herostratus 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah but what purpose does that serve an encyclopedia (and I say this as a believer in video games as the future of entertainment, and a member of the the video game industry....it's just not something that belongs in an encyclopedia). ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 04:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That I cannot say. To be honest, the articles made about as much sense to me as an article on neuroscience. But I wouldn't say to scrunch and merge a bunch of neuroscience articles because I don't know what they mean. For all I know these 'routes' are a great literary achievement, keys to unlock the secrets of the human heart, a stage for exposing the human condition in all its triumph and sorrow, a new Shakespeare Folio for our times, the glory of the age, which future generations will pore over in wonderment and awe, seeking ever-more detail in their quest to understand the minds of those who created such transcendant art, a quest which, alas, will be ever in vain, for the legendary Wikipedia articles that are said to form the keystone, then nexus, they key, the map, that brings together the raveled threads and claims Truth from the shadows... these are forever lost. Herostratus 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That brought a tear to my eye! ;-) --Oarias 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I hadn't seen that. Thatcher131 22:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerk

edit

Fuhghettaboutit originally tagged it for PROD, but I think it should be kept. A Google Test result of 104,000 Googles seems notable to me. King of Hearts | (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And thank you Adrian~enwiki (talk) for teaching me about unique google hits a few weeks ago. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sherries

edit

Seems like a Hoax. And yes, I am BBIH BBIH the Almighty 02:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoslab

edit

Seems to be non-notable software. Website has no alexa ranking. However, there are hundreds of google hits on the term chaoslab. I'm unsure what percentage of them are referring to this product Xyzzyplugh 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splash conception

edit

This page was nominated for deletion on July 2005. Most of the keep votes were based on the fact that this page had potential to be larger article. It is now March 06 and it is still nothing more then a dictionaty definition which should be moved to Wiktionary. Gerard Foley 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search doesn't show this term appearing on too many "authoritative" (i.e. medical/health) sites, from what I can tell. Non-notable neologism. --CrypticBacon 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Goolging it brings up a ton of information relateing to this, seems plausable. Mike (T C)   03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what it's worth, I strongly dispute that a Google search turns up a "ton" of information. Many of the articles listed are talking about a band somewhere named "Splash conception", the Wikipedia article is 1st or 2nd (depending on if you search w/ or w/o quotation marks), and there are several Wikipedia mirrors. I fail to see any reputable web sites in the mix showing that this is something more than simply a non-notable neologism. However, if you (or anyone else) disagree please respond. --CrypticBacon 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the first page, the top 7 hits for this on goolge are related to this. 1 is wikipedia, and 2-3 are for a band. Mike (T C)   05:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Orgasm denial. Done. Ifnord 18:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female orgasm denial

edit
This is probably obvious, but I'm going to state it anyways. This vote was most likely meant to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splash conception. kotepho 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts talk 05:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Hawken

edit

nn school founder. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete at request of author. I will however be polite and userfy it. kingboyk 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth J. Dillon

edit

This was speedied with the notation "nn bio by user KennethJDillon". If any of this this true no way is it a speedy -- the article at least claims that he's written five books - seems true enough, he's on Amazon, although "Scientia Press" might be in his mom's basement. The other claims seem a bit over the top... but he is (apparently) president of Spectrum Bioscience Inc. (whatever that is), he was a intellgence analyst did write some paper about that al Queda guy. I dunno, is he notable? I can't really tell, and I'm not gonna vote, I'm just switching this from speedy to AfD. 453 Goggle hits on "Kenneth J. Dillon" Herostratus 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per above, but needs better citations. Also, exactly why is a history Ph.D duing all this science related stuff? That and the summary makes me have a slight feeling of this being cranky self-promotion. JoshuaZ 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Is a self promoting crank. Delete per Fan1967, and we may want to look into taking that section out of the 2001 anthrax article. JoshuaZ 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just looking through the history on that article to see if I could find any source other than anonymous IP. Haven't found the original source yet. It also shows very recent edits. Fan1967 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit of his section there came from IP 151.200.12.109. The contrib history from that IP (Contribs) sure looks like him, as it includes: an update on the Al Qaeda guy, Abderraouf Jdey to add Dillon's name; an update to Photoluminescence to add Biophotonics, with an extrenal link that resolves to Spectrum Bioscience; and, finally, an update to Radioactive waste to include his disposal plans, complete with external links to, you guessed it, Scientia Press. Fan1967 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, they should probaly get edited out also then. JoshuaZ 04:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything looks wrong on this guy. It appears he is Scientia Press, or is at least its only author. All the external links in the article point to Scientia Press' web site. He identified an Al Qaeda operative as responsible for the anthrax mailings, but I can't find any claim of this that doesn't trace back to Dillon or Scientia Press. The FBI posting for the guy makes no mention of the anthrax episode at all, nor can I find any mainstream news organizations reporting the claim. Dillon has a PhD in history, but claims to have made major medical breakthroughs in areas of, uh, alternative treatments like "Biophotonic Therapy". His book, "Close to Nature Medecine," has an Amazon rank of #2,146,676. He's developed a cognitive cure for depression. Oh, and apparently he can solve our nuclear waste disposal problems. How do we know these things are true? Why, because he told us so himself. Either this guy deserves the Nobel prize in everything, or he's a total crackpot. Fan1967 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 Eivind 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Man of considerable creative talents but limited notability. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether he's a crank or not, whether he publishes a pile of vanity books, there's still sufficient evidence of notability. [12] Monicasdude 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. One the one hand, the AIDS book review journal (which you cited), which is compiled by a general librarian and is not peer-reviewed, recommends Dillon's self-published book as "A recommended book for medical libraries for its historical content and possible basis for future research." On the other hand, the library at the major research institution/teaching hospital I work at doesn't have either of his books on healing, Dillon is not published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, and his only exposure in the mainstream press is three letters to the editor. Does notability outweigh verifiability? Thatcher131 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't look like it. The website lists three books, all by him. It also lists Scientia Press' contact address as "c/o Kenneth J. Dillon" at an address that appears to be his apartment. Fan1967 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, crackpots are allowed. See David Icke who says Queen Elizabeth and Kris Kristofferson are alien shapeshifting reptiles. The problem is this guy's a not very notable crackpot. There's precious little indication that anyone pays any attention to him. Fan1967 06:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somone writes WP:CRACKPOT I'm sure we can take notable crackpots into account. Thatcher131 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, excellent argument by Fan1967. To summarize as above: (1) He is Scientia, (2) All his notability is based on Scientia as the source (3) He is president of C4AT where a whack of the Ghits come from and (4) Please do not irradiate your blood as I'm on call tonight -- Samir ∙   T C 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm Kenneth J. Dillon. Six comments.
    1. Slow down.
    2. Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before. Historian turns scientist? Doing scientific detective work is right up my alley. Get used to it.
    3. Many of the responses are relying on indicators that may not be as useful in this case as in others--e.g., self-publishing, which I assure you works a lot better than trying to get really novel ideas past editorial gatekeepers. Eventually, I hope to turn Scientia Press into a normal science publishing house, with books by many authors, and spin it off. If prestige conveys credibility, then the fact that one of my books was published by Smithsonian Institution Press is relevant.
    4. The Wikipedia article does not make a claim of "major medical breakthroughs", nor does it claim that my cognitive therapy of depression is a cure.
    5. It would not be reasonable to expect you to read much of what I have written, but you might find at least the article identifying the likely Anthrax Mailer[13] worth reading. The evidence cited there suggests that FBI takes it dead seriously. It very much looks that, more likely than not, Abderraouf Jdey was indeed the Mailer. And my credentials for being the kind of person who could identify the Mailer in this manner are impeccable.
    6. Read several of my items. You will see that I'm not a "total crackpot", and that what I have been working on is not unimportant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethJDillon (talk • contribs)

I formated your comment a little, I hope you don't mind. No one is citing your theories' validity as a reason for deletion. If you can cite mentions of your work or yourself in primary or secondary sources your biography would be worth including. Until it does meet WP:BIO however, it does not belong. Even if you had cured cancer we would not include your biography until it was verifiable and published in reliable sources. This deletion is not an attack on your character or your importance, just that a biography on you should not be included in an encyclopedia. kotepho 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Kotepho. Wikipedia's goal is verifiability. One of the consequences of this is that autobiography is discouraged, per WP:AUTO, as inherently unverifiable. As noted above, you do not seem to have been covered in any of the traditional media sources that would tend to show you had achieved notariety. Regarding your sepecific claims, they can be included in the appropriate articles, provided they are verifiable. Thatcher131 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To bring up a specific issue on the verifiability, the article suggests that the FBI takes these theories on the anthrax mailings seriously. Can you offer any external source (like the FBI themselves) to confirm this? Everything I can see seems to indicate that you have self-published many interesting things, which very few people seem to pay any attention to. Fan1967 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable eccentric, for reasons stated above, unless it can be shown that the FBI takes seriously his identification of the anthrax operative. I know a bit about linguistics, not a great deal, but enough to say that I've gone to the trouble of reading his article on the Latin language and it's pure garbage. Mustafa Bevi 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before Actually we have, generally several times a week, which is why we have WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, and WP:Verifiability as policies and guidelines. Self-published self-promoters -- with earnest arguments as to why they're somehow different from all the others -- are a dime a dozen around here. Sorry, you're not special: delete per Fan1967. --Calton | Talk 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967.--Isotope23 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent arguments above by Fan1967, Kotepho, and Thatcher. Slowmover 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Comment FBI has been badly burned by the Hatfill case, so it is understandably reluctant to identify a suspect in the anthrax mailings unless it has actually apprehended him and obtained a confession or rock-solid confirmation. Not likely with Jdey. However, there is quite a bit of evidence, cited in my Mailer article, that FBI takes him very seriously. As I note, evidence and logic suggest that, more likely than not, he was indeed the Mailer. As for my article on "The Trojan Origin of Roman Civilization", you would do well to read it yourselves rather than to accept someone's dismissive opinion. But I certainly understand what you are talking about in terms of verifiability. It is undoubtedly true that my work has not been covered in the traditional media. According to that criterion, my bio article does not belong in Wikipedia. So I will delete the article myself. Best wishes. Kenneth J. Dillon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethJDillon (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. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye vodka

edit

Unremarkable and unverified. Googled this and found about 200 references, most of which were reminiscing about drinking this while at college in Iowa. I reviewed the history and found that the entire article has been back and forth with a bunch of opinions and unverified silliness about whether this vodka is an inexpensive locally produced masterpiece or lighter fluid. Montco 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as member of non-notable band with no other assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Evans

edit

The article seems more like a vanity page than anything and not really encyclopedic. Except for the very general 'indie', there isn't a single valid link to anything that the page refers to. I've Googled this person and come up with zero relevant hits. Bayberrylane 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Capitalistroadster 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep/merge adding merge tags. W.marsh 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Powell

edit

Somebody tried to nom this here, but appearantly didn't know how. The wife of that tall Irish fella on the tv, nn except for marriage. "This article is like a harlequin novel" according to a post on the talk page. Eivind 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being bold, but read the AfD notices first. "You must not rename the article unless you make sure the page still links to the discussion page. This is most easily done by creating a redirect from "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New page name" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old page name". It's usually best to do so immediately before moving the article page, since this ensures no links are broken, even if somebody visits a page in the middle of the changes.

You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.". In the spirit of the AfD process, I have asked a admin to fix the redirect, sorry! cc to talk page. Mike (T C)   05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it doesn't need an admin for it to be undone (just click here). Secondly, a redirect is not the same as a merge and there's no problem with being bold and doing a redirect if consensus is leaning that way. Ordinarily removing the AFD tag is vandalism and it should at least be moved to the talk page. In this case, the nominator did the redirect, is he withdrawing the nomination? --kingboyk 06:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the problems, but it was ment as a withdrawal of the nomination, since Liza Powell isn't the page we should be considering since the article's subject's name is Liza Powel, and there is a Liza Powel article The content of the articles are almost identical, i didn't think it would be a problem. I was unaware of the fork when I did the nomination. Again I apologise, but I'm now uncertain which article we're discusing. Eivind 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uptech Computer

edit

Was originally Prod'ed by EricR as "does not meet notability criteria in WP:CORP". Oarias moved to AfD.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Causes Of The Boom In The USA

edit

Nice essay, but clearly OR. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogballs

edit

It's a dictdef of a slang term. Not encyclopedic. Since it's slang wiktionary won't want it, just delete. RJFJR 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. It's a term I've used many times. I'm a golfer.

Here's another surprise...those that are commenting are self-rightous in their comments and aren't avid golfers. Sorry to take down the last message...it was an error. :(

Valid slang - I'm an avid golfer. Golf is riddled with cliches and euphemisms, don't deprive the world of this legitimate entry.

A golfer uses the word in a story at this site: http://www.hamegg.org/main/article.php?sid=280


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Peters

edit

Subject is Non notable. Being the granddaughter or daughter of someone doesn't assert notability. Ragib 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Users first edit. --Ragib 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Redirected to Educational technology Werdna648T/C\@ 09:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Technologist

edit

I know, I know - it sounds like it could be a real article. But it's three sentences of... unsalvagability. Herostratus 05:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 WP:SNOW since it's hard to find a policy it doesn't contravene in some way. Just zis Guy you know? 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nourhaghighi

edit

Speedy contested, PROD contested without reason; brought here as a formality, I would hope. Vanity and possibly copyright violating text dump from his autobiography. Subject may be notable (despite his Tripod-hosted website, gets a modest number of Google hits), but this article is useless in this form, and I doubt the user will allow its cleanup into a useful one without creating vanity edits (a la James W. Walter?). Reads more like a soapbox than a biography anyway; already exists on this user's page (and his talk page?!) as well, so no point in a userfy. On that basis, delete. Kinu t/c 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy. -- Andy Saunders 05:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Vanity, OR and NPOV are obvious. Two chapters of an autobiography? If there's not a speedy rule to cover this, there certainly should be. Fan1967 05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think you can Speedy as R2. The fact that his user and talk page are filled with different rants doesn't change the fact that this stuff belongs there. Fan1967 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonnotable club per A7. Angr/talk 09:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga Football League

edit

Non-notable municipal football league. PROD tag removal by article's creator forces me to bring it to AFD. My vote: Delete. Andy Saunders 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Joe 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as someone with more mad skilz than I figured out that they do have some coverage. Nomination withdrawn. FCYTravis 20:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva (band)

edit

Non-notable made-for-TV band with one album and nothing beyond that. Google returns nothing relevant. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Movers

edit

"Margarita Movers LLC is the preeminent frozen drink machine rental and sales business in the greater Washington, DC metro area." Great. Still fails WP:CORP. 33 Google hits for "Margarita Movers"+drink. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable company. If it can be shown that Margarita Movers passes WP:CORP I would be happy to change my vote. Isopropyl 06:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CORP failure, but not before I've gotten some free samples... --Kinu t/c 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Sounds like a porn star (no thats not a good enuf reason to keep) Defunkier 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Military Tradition

edit

Unsourced original research which purports that if it wasn't for the South the US would be a bunch of weak-kneed Godless Commie Yankees. Perhaps we should have an article here, but nothing at all is preferable to this pile of POV piffle. PROD contested. FCYTravis 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nn-bio. Angr/talk 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Kenneth Jones

edit

nn Elvis impersonator, possible vanity. His official site is on freewebs and it consists of four pictures, two very unremarkable looking "upcoming events" - and a statement that he is an "award-winning" impersontaor without specifying what they are. Also, he says "call this number" (his mobile) - doesn't he have an agent if he's so notable?? Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pschemp | talk 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahrirolvasyleh

edit

This article is about a book with a tentative existence. The fourth volume (specifically) of the Tahrirolvasyleh (or Tahrir al-vasilah) shows little proof of existence. What we have is:

  • the link to the book on a Greek Nationalist site.
  • A few mentions on anti-Islamic websites and the most notable source I saw was Islam Exposed which apparently quotes it per an Amazon review. I could not find it for sale.
  • There doesn't appear to be an English translation.
  • I can't find commentaries on the book in English from any reliable source.

Pretty much it seems like trying to demonize Khomeini. So, do I know if it really exists or not? Well, I'm not fully convinced either way... but right now it's an attack page and we have no evidence to believe it definitively exists. So, it really needs to be deleted unless we can get definitive and neutral references to it. I've searched my library's databases, the internet, etc. and I get very little. This delete/remake/delete has gone on for a while and this will hoepfully clear things up maybe the wider community knows more about this. gren グレン 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep (still need something more credible) if we can't get any real neutral sources. gren グレン 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, but clean up and mention that it is probably not really written by him. --Khoikhoi 07:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is going to be very difficult. Is the book a terrible Anti-Khomeni slur and falsehood, or is the AFD an attempt to supress the truth by pro-Khomeni editors? I have absolutely no idea. (That was a rhetorical question by the way, please don't reply on my talk page as it's unlikely I will vote either way on this one, and I'm not challenging anyone's good faith - I'm sure those of you in the know will appreciate and understand that the dilemna is exactly as I have posted it). How to verify the article if many relevant sources are not in English? Again, no idea. No vote from me because it's a subject I know nothing about. --kingboyk 07:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a similar dilemma at the beginning. My answer was: if it's a page and information is being contested then we need strong sources. If there are none it should be gone. If some surface it should be recreated. gren グレン 07:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd mostly agree, provided this AFD were not used as grounds for deleting future recreations if the evidence has changed. Very fair comment you make though. --kingboyk 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep; scurrilous attack page. I don't like Khomeini, but fair is fair. Zora 07:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lukas changed my mind! Now that the page is cleaned up (though it could use some more work), its existence is a useful refutation to the rumors re the content of the book. Would be nice if some editor who can read Persian would add more content. Also, publisher should probably be Dar ul Ulum, or something like that. Zora 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that Khomeini wrote a book; I'd wager that the picture and the download ARE that book. I also believe that the Iranian revolutionaries lowered the age of marriage to nine, based on hadith purporting to come from Aisha claiming that she was only nine when she married Muhammad. Apparently it was believed that having a minimum age of marriage for girls that was greater than nine was a slur upon the prophet. Given that the hadith are sourced to Aisha, whom the Shi'a detest, giving them credence seems pointless to me. But ... whoever wrote the text claiming that Khomeini endorsed pedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and gosh-knows-what-else was extrapolating from that one fact and saying, "Well, if he endorses sex with nine year old girls, he must endorse sex with anything and everything!" Which there is no reason to believe. Clear fabrication. Otherwise the revolutionaries would not have been killing homosexuals and stoning adulterers. Zora 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep, not a significant book, but we can keep it if we have neutral sources.--Mitso Bel10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the NPOV-tidied-up version made since this poll started. I don't understand the doubts about the "existence" of this book (the nominator speaks of a disputed "fourth volume" but the article doesn't even mention it has more than one in the first place. Another person on the talk page who advocates deletion says that it's a "very ordinary book" - so if he's actually read it, it must exist?!) And as for notability, Khomeini is himself so notable that I'd assume just about anything he wrote would qualify. The very fact that people here on Wikipedia get hot-headed about it shows me that there's something to it. A very cursory Google search yields these among dozens of pages apparently quoting the book (I assume that the title transliterated as "Tahrir al-wasilah" is the same work; correct me if I'm wrong): [24] [25] [26] [27] Lukas (T.|@) 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lukas, There is a tradition in Shia clerical system: Any cleric who reaches to the highest level will write a book in which he will narrate the basic rules of Islam that are used for every day life of Muslims. Any cleric like Khomeini, would sit down and rewrite what his teachers wrote previously. If you look at these books throughout the history you will see that even the style of these books and wording are conserved. These are not philosophical books and there is no novelty in it. They have to write such book when they recieve the title of Marja. In summary this is a very routine work by any marja, very basic islamic rules, copied from previous sources and contains no novelty. If the issues are controversial, it has nothing to do with Khomeini. All other Marja have the same issues in their book. If you want to see what I am trying to say, take a look at the sources that you yourself provided. You see that Ayatollah Lankarani is rewriting this book. This is a knwon tradition. However Khomeini has some books that are very novel and very controverisial. These books are his personal ideas. He did not copy these books from previous works. For example, Khomeini is known for his novel and controversial works on velayate faqih. His main books are listed at the end of his page. User:CltFn who is insisting to have this article, would like to take one paragraph of this book (out of several volumes) and say that Khomeini was advertising sex with animals !!! If there exist such a thing in this book or similar books, it is not the author's problem. These are islamic rules. And khomeini is just narrating them. They can not change it or add or delete it. --Mitso Bel11:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments - that actually sounds like a great piece of information to be added to the article. It doesn't change the fact that (a) some followers of Shi'a Islam apparently quote this book routinely as an authority on Islamic life, and (b) some detractors of Khomeini have made the book a target of criticism. Both combined make it notable for me. Lukas (T.|@) 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lukas, here is very good link that talks about Khomeini's books including this one.[28] My problem is that the guy who started the page, want to introduce the book as a book on sexulaity! I doubt there exist more than two pages or even two paragraphs in the book about this issue. One can not say the subject of the book or even a very surprising issue in the book is sex with animals ! First of all the subject of the book is fiqh. Second, Khomeini's point on sex is not specific to him. People are surprised because they have never seen Islamic books or they have some political interets. Anyway, why people are surprized about writing two sentence about animal sex. Just search in google. You will find milions of pages about animal sex all by non muslims. I have no problem with having a page on this book. There are lots of pages in wikipedia that are not very significant. But I am worried about political attacks. Why don't they attack other ayatollahs who wrote such things ? Khomeini is neither the first one nor the last one who writes a fiqh book. If we can find an original research work on this book that criticises the issues and khomeini's ideas, we can have a useful page. However all pages provided by User:CltFn are anti-khomeini propaganda. Take care.--Mitso Bel12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a quick stab at actually incorporating some of your comments in the article. Needs to be checked. Lukas (T.|@) 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lukas, my reasoning was... we have anti-Islamic sites quoting volume four of this book as saying things about sex with animals, etc. No scholarly source that I could find mentioned it. There was scant information about the book besides on a Shia forum I found "the fourth volume doesn't exist". Here's where I completely disagree with you: "The very fact that people here on Wikipedia get hot-headed about it shows me that there's something to it. A very cursory Google search yields these among dozens of pages apparently quoting the book". It's really not to hard to get fabricated quotes to be thrown around the internet... I mean, we have past examples such as the protocols... so, if we are really going to claim that all of those quotes are from Khomeini we need to see that some qualified source has translated them from this book. This just wreaks of verifiability problems. The fact that there is corroborating evidence from Shia and anti-Shia sites talking about the book's existence gives me more faith the book exists... but what's in it and can anyone who reads Arabic verify the integrity of the text that is linked to? It'd be good to have someone like User:Mustafaa take a look into the text I think. gren グレン 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Just one more comment:) The pages I found on the net were of people quoting it in an approving fashion, just as a standard reference for Islam morality. Nothing of the polemic sex-with-animals kind. Why doubt that those are correct? Lukas (T.|@) 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links I found were mostly of the sensationalist kind; however, if the book exists yet the web coverage is unbalanced, Wikipedia has an opportunity here to rectify that. As always, we will try to present both sides of the debate - in a neutral, well rounded way - which would make the article a keeper indeed. The article is much better now, for sure. --kingboyk 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a real book which is highly reflective of Khomeini's character , views and philosophy and is thus very notable. The full version of the book is downloadable in the link at the bottom of the article for those who claim it does not exists--CltFn 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The book does NOT reflect Khomeini's character. It is just a collection of islamic traditional rules. It reflects Islam not Khomeini. The book is by no means an islamic philosophy book. I think you are not familiar with the difference between Islamic philosophy and fiqh. --Sina Kardar13:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Im not voting. The topic doesnt interest me. But the book exists. I positively assert this. I'll leave quoting it in or out of context to y'all erudites.

The LOC website provides the following info about the book:

LC Control Number: 81216590 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Brief Description: Khomeini, Ruhollah. 

Taḥrīr al-wasīlah / li-Rūḥ Allāh al-Mūsawī al-Khumaynī. 
al-Ṭabʻah 3. 
[Tehran?] : al-Thawrah al-Thaqāfīyah al-Islāmīyah ; Bayrūt, Lubnān : Tawzīʻ Dār al-Taʻāruf lil-Maṭbūʻāt, 1981. 
2 v. ; 25 cm.

CALL NUMBER: LAW ISLAM 7 Khom 1981 

Copy 1

-- Request in: Law Library Reading Room (Madison, LM201)

-- Status: Not Charged

Note:

  1. The book has no ISBN number (as far as I know).
  2. No translations either (again as far as I know).
  3. And as a sidenote, last I recall, the Majles raised the female age back up to 13 during Khatami's administration.--Zereshk 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment, I agree with Zereshk. I also want to raise another related issue: The point is that, the book has become a target for attacks not only in wikipedia but also throughout the web. The book is not a significant book. And I also doubt that Khomeini wrote the book personally. The tradition is like this: A Marja has a group of students. They will go and collect and write the book and even they will publish it and then they will bring one copy to the Marja for his signature. He will go through the book and will sign it and then the book will be distributed. The reason is that the content of the book is not new. Any Marja has to have such a book and that is more of a formality. In these books there are many thing that are not practiced like eating insects. Neither khomeini nor any other Iranian eat insects. But these issues are usually in such books because 1400 years ago prophet talked about these things. The same is true for sex. But some anti-khomeini guys want to abuse it and say that khomeini was himself such a guy. If you do not believe in me see this wikipedia page which is initiated by User:CtlFn who also initiated Tahrirolvasyleh. The person in the picture is NOT khomeini ! But he is insisting that he is khomeini ! For any Iranian this is clear that the guy in the picture is not khomeini. It is so obvious. This is the story. But CltFn neither proves his claim that the guy in the picture is Khomeini , nor accepts what Iranian wikipedians are saying. If one brings this picture to iran and shows it to a random Iranian and insists that this is a picture of khomeini, people may think the guy is an idiot. --Mitso Bel10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...which is really quite a strong argument for keeping this article, and keeping this stuff out of the Khomeini article (with just a brief mention and a link) whilst it's still in dispute. I've had a word with that user today as he approached 3RR, and the existence of this article was one reason I gave to him for laying off Khomeini. --kingboyk 10:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whenever goes CltFn goes the controversy. I've never been against the articles in which she/he introduces her/his very extremist views which most of the time produce a good deal of resistance from most wikipedians. However, the article as it is now is encyclopaedic and POV free. Keep up the good work guys. -- Szvest 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
Me have extremist views? Not really , try informed views. --CltFn 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As even the nominator says keep, and most people who know about the subject are saying the book does exist, I'm saying keep too. Clearly it's going to need some colloborative work to get it to NPOV (should such colloboration between polar opposites of opinion be possible). The article's changing in tone every time I see it, it started out as sensationalist, now if anything it seems neutered :) I'm impressed by the way that this debate has so far not devolved into a slanging match, which to be honest I thought it would, so let's keep it that way. --kingboyk 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:JesseW — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge Crew

edit

Non-notable school club. Was speedied, members of the group contested it, so I'm sending it to AfD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Speedied, and protected from re-creation. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


left on talk page of AfD:"Actually we aren't a bunch of kids messing around, we go to a small college preperatory school of about 500 students, and literally are known as the Wedge. We are a serious group at our school and we would like to have this article on here, we are not making this as a joke or to fool around." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatcircles (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. W.marsh 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Letter Christian Movement

edit

202 google hits, some of which are not unique. It appears to be a new neologism describing some new breed of christian thought. It may be notable but not particularly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better redirect would be to Evangelical left, which seems to be similar. Or Consistent Life Ethic. KHM03 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthiness

edit

Sorry but this, to me, is utter crap. found on User:Ashibaka/Hoaxes Werdna648T/C\@ 08:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Can you be more specific than 'utter crap'? Did you even look at the sources in the article? Or the many comments on the talk page? This is definitely not a hoax. Remy B 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a repost though. There's a reason why this is a second nomination. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The content is certainly not the same as the last time it was deleted. Doesnt this line assert the notability of the topic: ""Truthiness" was selected by the American Dialect Society as the 2005 Word of the Year, and by the The New York Times as one of nine words that captured the spirit of 2005. "Truthiness" has also been discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, MSNBC, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post, and Chicago Reader, on ABC's Nightline, and on The Oprah Winfrey Show (see below). In January 2006, "truthiness" was featured as a Word of the Week by the website of the Macmillan English Dictionary."?
  • Keep. WHY? Why does this need to be deleted? Stephen Colbert often refers to this word in his show and MANY OTHER NEWSCASTORS have used this word as well. This article is more about the current event revolving the word than the actual definition. --DragonWR12LB 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm.. the last 5 minutes of activity has convinced me that this is NOT a hoax, and certainly notable - much more so than it was after the last AfD. I'm delisting the nomination and removing it from the hoax list. My apologies for wasting your time. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and Cleanup pschemp | talk 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Family Guy

edit

Uncited, unverified POV fork. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Clemens

edit

Delete. Seems like a vanity page ... notability is not clearly established. Same user added a reference to Clemens' book in the article Sonnet and some misspelt nonsense on the page of the genuinely notable John Forbes, which amounted to vandalism (which is how I ended up here) and is clearly not a good sign in terms of the article under discussion here. Stumps 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MechZ

edit

nn game - created by a main developer Werdna648T/C\@ 09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubbage

edit

Probable hoax about fictional piece of furniture. Borders on nonsense. 'Cubbage' gets many Google hits, but only as a surname. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Slaunwhite

edit

Non-notable, vanity page, linkspam. Jokestress 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Campaign For Real Music"

edit

WP:NOT a soapbox. The image says it all, really. Sandstein 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are all overreacting and need to take a reality check.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Langers1970 (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 It's listed on WP:CP now, nothing left to discuss here. - Bobet 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese property bubble

edit

Blatant plagiarism


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pschemp | talk 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidadian slang

edit

Violates WP:WINAD. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmix

edit

Advert tag removed without cleanup or rewrite. Gets a few Google hits, but they look like spam. Created by a user whose only other edits seem to be adding links to this; {{advert}} tag removed by user in same netrange as creator. ergot 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Berwick Buddhist Society

edit

Non-notable student club, as with a few in Category:Australian student societies, and a good deal in Category:Student societies. Dangherous 11:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

edit

Non Notable Film. Has not progressed beyond a stub. Film has not been distributed and has only ever had one showing. No reason to keep. Irishpunktom\talk 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that this article has been through AfD before, found here. Pepsidrinka 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Would you mind explaining what that (i.e., the 3 editors voting within 30 minutes) has to do with anything? I for one did not get any message telling me to vote. I don't need to justify myself, but here goes. The article is on my watchlist. I looked at the difference link. I saw this. Wow, there must be some sort of conspiracy going on. You better watch out for the cabal. Pepsidrinka 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said it , I didn't, why would you suggest such an outrageous possibility?.--CltFn 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying, kindly be explicit with your accusations. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're tracking meaningless information, note that the three editors who voted to keep also did so within about 30 minutes. Spooky. ;) . --Lee Hunter 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if ";) .", "15:04", "10", "2006", and "(UTC)" are each counted as words, then there were exactly 30 words in your post! {shiver} Шизомби 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I need to be more explicit to CltFn and any other editor who didn't catch my sarcasm. The link I provided to cabal goes to WP:TINC, where if you go to TINC, you will see what that means. There is no cabal. Pepsidrinka 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand this vote. How can you keep (or delete something) per someone, and that someone be yourself? Second of all, your timestamp is complete off. [35] That is the diff link, and it clearly shows he voted on March 13, 2006 at 17:34 (UTC). Pepsidrinka 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly there is no point in deleting films that have been shown at film festivals, particularly if they get talked about on the net. -- JJay 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once is good enough for me. Think of how many films get made every year and how few get shown at film festivals. I'm in awe that these auteurs could take on a difficult subject like Islam and get it shown in a festival. When it happens again, wikipeida will be there as a source of encyclopedic coverage of this documentary. -- JJay 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit POV to throw around adjectives like non-notable in a discussion like this? Is it non notable because you say so? Maybe it's notable because I say so. Maybe what matters and what underpinned my vote is that it was verifiably shown at a film festival. Now I'll hand the soapbox back to you -- JJay 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with POV on AfD, thank you. It is non-notable because there are no reliable sources that discuss the film, and therefore any commentary on it is unverifiable. The only borderline source is the worldnetdaily.com website, which mentions the film only in passing and provides no analysis. Finally, the phrase "film festival" means nothing to me. For all I know, in Hollywood all you need to do is play a few tapes in your parents' basement, and it's a film festival. The only way we can decide whether these things are worth covering is if other sources have already covered them, and they haven't. Now, let me ask: if we assume that the film is never screened again, and never mentioned again even on the Internet, would you still want to keep the article? Melchoir 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering they were just showing a few tapes in my parents' basement (not that my parents live in Hollywood but why quibble) they sure put a lot of money into the festival website. [36] And they do of course prominently list the film in the screening schedule [37]. Since you have already pointed to other sources I'll not search further. I will say I didn't know our role was to analyze films, in that case there are 195 flicks at Category:Television films that could use some attention, perhaps we should start with Scooby-Doo_in_Arabian_Nights. However, to answer your question that I previously answered (i.e. Once is good enough for me): Yes, if the film is never shown again, if all prints are burned in a giant auto-da-fe on Hollywood Boulevard, I would still want to keep the article. -- JJay 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is where we differ. I believe it is not our job to reward with a permastub nonarticle every brave group that promotes themselves on their own website and gets written about on one blog, and I hope the community agrees with that. Melchoir 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Lion

edit

Delete no assertion of notability. the Talmud is 1000's of pages long. this is one incredibly tiny piece. It's not clear why the author has chosen it for inclusion into wikipedia. I attempted to contact the author for an explanation of significance, but got no answer. Disclosure: I am very familiar with the Talmud and therefore my opinion is well-informed. Crzrussian 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I agree. Delete and merge with Divei Ilai. JRP 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sokker

edit

Delete. An advertisement. Darcyj 12:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yes, it now says it sets out to be different from other browser games by using Flash. I'm sure Macromedia will be delighted at this new departure in the online games market, I hope you have let them know :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was Dirty leo's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 21:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... We should all start from somewhere, right Craig? ;). Dirty leo 23:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely! Being new doesn't mean you can't participate here. Well-reasoned discussion is always welcome. But it's important to understand that this is not a vote and the closing admin is likely to ignore new users who don't say anything other than keep. Note also that Wikipedia has many articles which are arguably non-notable (and probably should be deleted) so if you want to argue for the notability of this article you should argue for the notability of the subject rather than saying that other articles are scarcely any better. --Craig Stuntz 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been since updated a lot since the delete request was made, would appreciate any reconsidered verdicts on what is here so far Mr gibbage 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just before you do any more here or there could I just point out that multiple new users all saying the same thing in the same language and all linking with weblinks instead of wikilinks is begging for a block on all of them for sockpuppetry. You have said your piece, the closing admin will read the comments and weight of evidence, this is not a vote and if anything multiple responses apparently form the same source will result in less weight being given to your opinion, not more. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sockpuppetery going on here. The link to this is posted on the sokker website to encourage some of the other users to update, and many of whom have not used wikipedia in the past. Mr gibbage 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That type of activity is also outlined at the bottom of WP:SOCK... perhaps that's worth a look. --Kinu t/c 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you can't add two keeps from one account. For those not following the history closely, ArnauDuran (talk · contribs) added a keep higher up, then today it (along with my reply noting that the keep was ArnauDuran's first contribution to Wikipedia) was removed by 213.98.129.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), then ArnauDuran added another keep down here, which I have struck as a duplicate. Regarding the substance of your comments, see my reply to Dirty leo. --Craig Stuntz 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new in the Wikipedia world and don't know all the terms: what means [[WP:WEB], what nom? About sockpuppets I read and I think this concerns only the discussion here - so some of the entries (deletes and keeps) could be deleted. So there is this ad left - I think it means advertisment? For me advertisment has to do something with selling, but sokker is a onlinegame and there are no costs. There are more and more onlinegames and I think it's a good idea to give people some information about these games. For me this information is not advertisment.--Tyriats 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[[WP:WEB] is a typo from someone who intended to write WP:WEB. It contains guidelines for which web sites are and are not "notable" — where notability is the guideline for what should and should not have an article in Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 of [[WP:WEB] says: 'The content itself has been the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' Mr gibbage, who wrote the article, is one of the sokker moderators and players, but not one of the programmers or creators of this site, so I think he is independent of the site itself. And there are other players, who help him and there is a discussion in the sokker forum, but there is no help from any sokker site official.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. The Wikipedia article itself which is up for deletion cannot be considered as a published work establishing notability. That's circular. --Craig Stuntz 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the first line be editted? Doesn't seem to be an edit box for that section Mr gibbage

If you're referring to the article, you can edit the first line by clicking on the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. --Craig Stuntz 18:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this must be sockpuppetry, isn't it? This is still no vote - it should be a discussion.--Tyriats 06:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easily verifiable. Let's compare. Your edit count: 5, account created three days ago. Brookie's edit count: 10309, account created over a year ago, and is a SysOp. I wouldn't be the one throwing around accusations of sock puppetry. --Kinu t/c 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is this a discusion or a vote???? Or have SysOps other rights here then normal users and just can vote?--Tyriats 08:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been referenced where I think it is needed, wiki linked at relevant points. Is there anything that stands out now as not being up to the standards of wikipedia? Mr gibbage 09:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that's missing is any evidence that it is anything other than "just another game". WP:NOT a directory of online games. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr gibbage, can you please write something about the tactic-editor? I think this is very special to sokker and makes it anything other than "just another game". --Tyriats 10:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment That part has been referenced with the [1] part, where it shows how many users there are. It doesn't count "bots", and the number regularly changes as inactives are booted and new users sign up. 23000 is a relatively small number when you consider how many hattrick has (700k+ IIRC) Mr gibbage 10:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could someone knowledgable please assess whether the state the article is currently in meets the requirements of wikipedia. Please actually read it and compare it to similar entries rather than just stating delete because everyone else has, and consider the improvements made since the entry was first written. Mr gibbage 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, but could you give an independent reference that can verify Sokker's notability, i.e. from a notable website or news source? .--Ezeu 20:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be legitimate and reasonably well-known.—This unsigned comment is by Cfortunato (talk • contribs) .

Rewrite 15 March

edit

I have personally rewritten the article, removing repetition and promotion. Darcyj 22:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say you've completely ruined a legitimate article. Not impressed. Mr gibbage 13:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nollij.com

edit

Delete. Not notable. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 12:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladeeni

edit

Non-notable website for Arabic freethinkers. 240 google hits for "Ladeeni" and an Alexa rank of 40.099.


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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Crowns

edit

Delete - The article appears to be blatant advertising. Jonathan Evans 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headless monsters

edit

Neologism; no citations, possibly original research. Search results lead to particular headless monsters, not to the term used as the page describes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linga sarira

edit

Unsourced and smells like original research (what does Kirlian photography have to do with a Sanskrit word for some theosophical concept? Besides, it states the extremely doubtful existence of astral projections as fact). Any salvageable content can be merged elsewhere. - Sikon 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a yogic concept that has some references out there. It appears this article is more based on new age fluff (i.e. theosophy) than any historical content about yoga {Pranayama, etc). I've no strong feelings either way on this, but if it gets kept I would urge verify, and sourcing tags be added and it be listed for cleanup somewhere that an editor with a greater knowledge of yoga than I could give it the attention it needs.--Isotope23 18:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Important concept in several religious and neo-religious traditions (Hinduism, Esotericism ....). Needs some rewriting/expanding. I might try to expand it more in a few days. --Mallarme 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but include more references to Samkhya, Vedanta, Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, etc. I agree that at present it reads like original research (but it is not, as a simple google search will reveal), and that the article should definitely be cleaned up with more references, including references to the original Indian meaning (i'll try to add some material on the Samkhyan use of the term when i have time), and less unsourced statements.
    • Comment: Not meaning to criticise anyone's views, but surely whether you believe or don't believe in astral projection, or consider Theosophy to be new age fluff or an authentic tradition of contemporary esotericism, is irrelevant to whether this article (and other such articles) should be kept. e.g. I believe Creationism is a load of crud, but I still strongly support having articles on Creationism in Wikipedia. I have noticed lately several articles of non-materialistic subjects have been marked POV and/or nominated for deletion. As someone who values a diverse Wikipedia, this is of some concern. Wikipedia is not a hobby horse for particular opinions, it is an encyclopaedia. The Linga Sarira is a concept that was originally developed in Samkhya and Yoga and was adapted from there by Vedanta, and finally (in the late 19th century) by the Blavatskyian Theosophy, from which it was adopted by the Post-Theosophical (e.g. Alice Bailey) tradition. Therefore it is a notable subject, and the page should be kept. M Alan Kazlev 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what I believe in is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that there are a lot of people who don't believe in it, and this article states it as fact. I just thought that this article is redundant. (However, the rewritten article is much more acceptable than the original one.) - Sikon 06:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And likewise what I believe is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or not  :-) Anyway I added some new material, and improved the material that is already there, so hopefully it's of a higher standard now! M Alan Kazlev 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important concept. I find User:Sikon's dismissive attitude in his nomination towards historical concepts troubling. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable group. --InShaneee 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FDT Industries

edit

Not convinced this company is notable. Seeming hint of vanity. Bjones 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Bance (second nomination)

edit

This page really does need to be deleted. Certain wannabe young people from Oxford who want to be politicians have created pages for themselves despite the fact they are not notable - i.e. they are only known to a limited number of people in Oxford (and sometimes one other part of the country) due to their grass roots political activity. These people may well become notable, at which point maybe someone else will create a page for them and they won't have to do it themselves. Other pages, such as that for Neil Mahapatra and Alex Deane, other young people from Oxbridge who consider themselves people who will one day be famous, have done the same thing (created vanity articles) and have had them deleted. Lets do the same here. The discussion above ludicrous - only two people came forward to vote to "keep" and both were personal friends of the Antonia Bance. --213.121.207.34 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this a vote for deletion - I picked it up from the main discussion page on the article...

It's not self-promotion / vanity as Antonia didn't even know about it (cf comments on her website). However, Antonia is not, by the criteria of WP, notable so it should be deleted. Hopefully she will be one day though! Paulleake 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Antonia Bance is prominent in the NUS and comments like 'wannabe young people from Oxford' strike me as sour grapes and a small degree of jealousy. I am also suspicious of the motives of anyone wanting to see the deletion of an article of a member of a mainstream political party. On that basis I think the article should stay for the time being!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 seems to be what consensus calls for. W.marsh 02:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEX-rays

edit

"HEX-rays" is not a term used in the X-ray on synchrotron radiation science. The contents of this article should be merged to the article synchrotron light.

Merge this and High energy X-rays to X-ray.--Ezeu 15:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to synchrotron light, as HEX-rays is about an application of this particular type of photon; further mergers should be considered per Ezeu, but probably should be proposed on their own pages.Alba 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trenway Textiles Inc

edit

Non-notable company Ezeu 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pschemp | talk 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy & Edie

edit

n Off-Broadway play that ran for less than two weeks nearly two years ago. No awards, nobody famous involved. Was Prod'ed, but the tag removed with the summary object to deletion; professional production with notable cast members: since the "notable cast members" are Misha Sedgwick and Thomas Blake (not the tennis player), this means either someone is unclear on the meaning of the word "notable" -- and probably "professional", too -- or someone is violating WP:POINT. Calton | Talk 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep. Well, today's peak display of aggressive ignorance has apparently arrived early. "Off-Broadway" typically indicates notability itself; you're generally talking major-market, highly visible, professional productions. Misha Sedgwick, aside from clearly meeting notability requirements on her IMDB entry alone, is also notable (and widely reported in the NY press) as a scam artiste who managed to pass herself off as Edie Sedgwick's niece, even fooling the New York Times, as I recall. The play itself was widely publicized before its opening, even touted in Vanity Fair at one point as a major event. The director stages professional work regularly in NYC. And so on. Not to mention the playwright's independent notoriety. That the play was neither a commercial nor artistic success hardly contradicts notability; any number of cinematic debacles have (quite properly) their own entries. Given that the nominator spends much more time displaying pique that his judgment should be questioned than in explaining his reasons for supporting deletion, this probably should be a Speedy Keep as not nominated in good faith. Monicasdude 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Off-broadway is notable. Although I think I shall be revising Misha's article once I can pull some verifiable newspaper stories out of the archives :) Thatcher131 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as referenced and notable. Nothing's obvious. That's why we have AfD. -- Krash (Talk) 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons cited above. I've seen less notable stay and don't see a reason to remove it. Plus, it would be a shame to undo the work put into expanding the stub. Santress 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwebz

edit

This website/internet forum has no alexa ranking, and as the article states, it's "a self-supporting community of over fifty people". Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a rule that only sites with Alexa rankings are allowed? Alexa takes its logs from the results of a toolbar installed on select users PC's is that correct? Much the same way that TV statistics are logged. It says on the Alexa Internet page that "It should be noted that Alexa does not collect information on users of Mozilla Firefox, Opera, or other minority web browsers." As 80% of the users use Opera and FF I do not belive that to be a valid base as representation of the site. Mercifull 15:12, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Will it get deleted again if I repost with the real-world business section? Another week and I'll have this business deal wrapped up and be able to edit in relevant information. The only reason there is nothing much else is because I can't disclose anything to do with the corporate side of DarkWebz untill it is legally confirmed. If anyone has a problem with that, mail me: rickATdarkwebzDOTcom rick` 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A deleted article can be recreated. If darkwebz reaches the point where it meets the criteria of WP:WEB, make it again and it will stick. --Xyzzyplugh 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woop

edit

One of the stupidest entries I've ever seen. It's tagged as "send to Wiktionary", but Wiktionary can't make anything useful of this entry. A possible nonce word this Dangherous 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tala (Beyblade characters)

edit

prodded after deprodding so moved here. Original prodder states non-notable character on a non-notable show, plus article totally in violation of WP:ENC; Does a character on a cartoon series made for the purpose of selling toys deserve a longer article than the series itself? Looks very crufty. Thatcher131 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Galante

edit

Seems to be duplicate of Vincent Gigante, possible hoax (discovered from comments on Category talk:Italian-American mobsters). Arniep 15:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Gigante

edit

Seems to be duplicate of Carmine Galante, possible hoax (discovered from comments on Category talk:Italian-American mobsters). Arniep 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Helms

edit

Delete - soldier who received minor awards, no rank given, no reason for notability given. Thousands won purple hearts and bronze stars Nobunaga24 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Pacific Transporation

edit

Delete. Original creator of page made a misspelling. I have moved the page to the correct spelling, however this creates a double redirect as the page itself orignally served only as a redirect. Super Ted 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicider

edit

Dictionary entry Stlemur 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm! Scumble? disambig what, why? I sure is lost. Could ya'll explain.--Ezeu 02:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RTFA ;) "Suicider" is, in that sense, a minor Discworld concept subordinate to another minor one -- in this case a pun on "cider". --Stlemur 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twat_Waffles

edit

Delete Google search shows them to be virtually non-existent, so they fail WP:MUSIC. The term exists, but google references aren't to them. Xyzzyplugh 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge adding merge discussion tags. W.marsh 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Sith trivia

edit

deprodded by anon IP. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Thatcher131 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was forked off from the main article on March 9. Fair Use would not apply to wholesale copying of all or most of the IMDB trivia to WP even in the context of a larger article. Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted. from WP:CV. Fair use does not allow wikipedia to act as a substitute for the original copyright holder. Thatcher131 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the biggest problem most have found is not that it can't be sourced, but that it's so sourced that it verges on copyright violation. Kafziel 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, no article is ever too long, lad. All of this is noteworthy, and I hate to see this hard work deleted. - XX55XX 23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source, cull, and merge back to ROTS. -- Saberwyn 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This needs a serious trim down. There's the mention that a sound effect may be shared between this movie and the Holiday Special. There are coincidences (two different SW actors winning the same Razzie in two seperate years for portraying two totally different characters), allusions to other fictiona universes (I saw a similar scene in Harry Potter, so it has to be mentioned here). There's trival. There's subtrivial. Then there's some of the entries in this list. -- Saberwyn 01:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed out the copyvios from IMDB and the more cruftier elements. (Although apparently the Harry Potter allusion was noticed by John Williams who wrote it into the score--that's one of the imdb items that I removed.) It's maybe still a little long, but I'm not in the mood to trim any more. Ready to merge back if that is the consensus. Thatcher131 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cranford Teague

edit

Delete Vanity page per WP:VAIN. See [40] for Jcranfordteague's suggestion about why to create articles like this. RossPatterson 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Go

edit

Contested PROD. As I mentioned before, nn band, unverified claim of notability, possible hoax. Name is Googleproof in search: "The Go" 70s band, "The Go", "The Go" CBGBs and Arlene's Grocery come up with nothing; most references brought up are The Go-Gos, The Go!Team and The Go Station, none of which are related to this band. Furthermore, only Icedogs49 (talk · contribs), 64.241.49.193 (talk · contribs), 24.39.136.154 (talk · contribs) and 24.14.81.204 (talk · contribs) have worked on the article; in all cases, their only contributions to WP are edits to this article. み使い Mitsukai 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was send to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Tax on Advertising

edit

This is a direct copy from a blog post http://adssalestax.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_adssalestax_archive.html doesn't link to anything - recommend deletion Bill Kempthorne 16:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio Where (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatecrash ragga terror-i-s-t-s

edit

Formerly nominated at WP:PROD (RobertG's reason was "Unverifiable, doesn't Google"). Creator removed the tag with no explanation. No evidence of notability or of meeting WP:MUSIC - delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Elvis taxon

edit

There seems to be doubt as to whether this is a neologism, but a google search brings up only 400 hits, almost all of which (all but 4, according to one editor on the talk page) are Wikipedia pages, mirrors of this page, or articles using this page as a reference. Despite the number of editors who have touched it, it remains an uncited stub, and it doesn't seem notable or even credible. Delete. Kafziel 17:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It seems to be real. I've found some references to the term on University sites [41] [42]

[43]. I'll leave it up to editors who know something about science to determine whether this term is notable enough for Wikipedia, but apparently it's being discussed in college courses. --djrobgordon 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks like google and other search engines bring up enough instances of "Elvis taxon" and "Elvis species" to make a point that this is a credible though arcane term for instances of convergent evolution. Maybe add "Elvis species" as a second direct to this page, as it seems at least as used if not maybe more used than "Elvis taxon". Ramdrake 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. "Elvis species" only has 75 hits. Granted, those 75 hits include a lot fewer Wikipedia mirrors, but is 75 hits on Google really enough to call a term "notable"? Aside from student tem papers and state college lecturers, are there references to the term being used by a notable number of people? Otherwise, it fails the very definition of Wikipedia:Notability: A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. This is obviously a very narrowly used phrase, and I don't see its "importance or impact" outside that community. Kafziel 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content but merge nto Lazarus taxon as suggested by other editors. As for failing WP:Notability, one might argue that there are vastly more fancruft articles than sciencecruft articles. Cheers! -- Miwa 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't oppose merging this into Lazarus taxon.
    I also agree with you about the scifi fancruft, and if you want to nominate something, I'll be the first to vote "delete". :) Kafziel 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think this needs citations / references / expansion before this is resolved. "Consensus" points to a keep, but this article still needs some help from an expert. Flag as such? -- Miwa 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is used in a variety of articles in Wikipedia and a Yahoo search shows that many university professors use the term in their class notes online so if they're teaching it I think it's valid. Also, merging with Lazarus taxon would be an incorrect course of action since the two concepts are not related. One involves a species being rediscovered the other involves a species that acts the same as an extinct one. - DNewhall
  • Comment. It seems people aren't really getting the whole "notability" thing. The notability guidelines specifically say, in the very first sentence, that a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency. So even though professors in the very scientific states of Missouri and Kentucky use it, it still isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Kafziel 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know, seeing as there are a lot of articles that are left to stay in WP that are likely to be far more obscure than this term. Seeing as it seems used as a legitimate term in at least two universities, is taught as part of a curriculum (as both teacher and student notes attest to), I'd leave it in. And if I happened to come across the term and not know what it is, I'd be more inclined to look it up than, say " Naughty Karate" (people, this is just an example, I DO NOT want to start a flam war; if anybody feels an apology is needed, here it is in advance) Ramdrake 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term does get used and is referenced from other articles.

Watson Ladd 20:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [20:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lgbt living & weddings

edit

Delete since is one of multiple pages used to promote new magazine. Other example is Lgbt living Wuzzy 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of a linkfarm of three articles that were created or damaged [44] to promote the website. I do not object to, and did not redirect, the LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine article as that article is arguably keepable. However, the website merits one article at most, and only if it is notable. Wuzzy 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine since that would likely be the intent of a searcher who types "lgbt living & weddings" and does not know that "lgbt living & weddings" will not find "LGBT Living & Weddings" since wiki is case-sensitive. Wuzzy 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and redirect pschemp | talk 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lgbt living

edit

Delete since is one of multiple articles to promote new magazine. Other example is Lgbt living & weddings Wuzzy 17:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LGBT Living & Weddings Magazine since that would likely be the intent of a searcher who types "lgbt living" and does not know that "lgbt living" will not find "LGBT Living & Weddings" since wiki is case-sensitive. Wuzzy 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice (model)

edit

Was tagged as speedy but I don't think that's appropriate. Bringing it here, no vote. Cyde Weys 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Malice has her own website, but has no notable credits outside of that. Article was written by a person close to her. Ckessler

  • Delete nn, vanity, self-promotion. Fan1967 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:BIO. PJM 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to her broad presence on MySpace, LiveJournal, and her own website Malice has been involved in a controversy about her existence as "Faarwolf" in the video game development world & numerous game fan sites have posted long articles pro & con about her relating to this issue. She's also been cited on a few national sites, including Susie Bright's, for her recent material on hepres. The article needs to be expanded to reflect attention given to her outside the material posted by those who created the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)
I was refering to the broad number of links to her blogs from other sites across multiple platforms of interest, not simply her having them. It's been enough to earn her mentions in other wikis.
It does need some cleanup & removal of POV by someone less involved than the creator of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.20.103 (talk • contribs)
The Faarwolf business is noteable, it set off broad controversy across the online gaming world. If you Google Malice Faarwolf you get several hundred hits to pages in at least 3 countries with her identity being "unmasked" and its ramifications to the gaming world. Faarwold as a single search term returns well over 1000 hits.
Hate to break it to, but the online gaming world is itself pretty non-notable. Just because it's numerous doesn't make it notable. If she had set off a broad controversy in (say) the high-energy-particle-physics world, or the Shakespearean-scholar world, or the nanotech-engineering world, or whatever, then I'd feel differently about her. Herostratus 15:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

throttleable

edit

Wiktionary don't want it. Pedia doesn't either. Meh, I dunno, maybe you do. Discuss Dangherous 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popomundo

edit

Delete NN site, WP:WEB, and hints of vanity Crzrussian 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space cadet (slang)

edit

Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Joly, SIMchronise Ltd.

edit

Was originally tagged with prod, but that was removed by the author, so I'm bringing it to AFD for potential evisceration. Cyde Weys 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SIMchronise Ltd. too.[45] -- Krash (Talk) 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Jim (cocktail)

edit

it's a recipe for a 2 component cocktail. WP:NOT a bartender's guide. (was de-prodded with comment not a recipe, it looks like one to me) RJFJR 18:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, discounting Bichufo's comment. Flowerparty■ 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of sexual behavior

edit

Consensus on the article's talk page is that this article is very, very bad. Currently, it almost entirely a pro-homosexuality soapbox article - it doesn't even describe the criticisms of homosexual and bisexual behavior before it starts "debunking" them, but it doesn't "debunk" any of the criticisms of heterosexual behavior listed. Many comments have been made about this on the talk page and the article has not improved. I have considered improving it myself, but when I tried to fashion a plan for improvement, I came up with the following (posted on the article talk page):

"Also, the gender of one's sexual partner(s) is far from the only basis on which one's sexual behavior can be criticized. To have a complete article on this topic requires that we include documentable criticisms of behaviors such as premarital sex, non-reproductive sex, casual sex, adultery, masturbation, prostitution, oral sex, anal sex, BDSM, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, other age-disparate relationships, exhibitionism, voyeurism, rape, polygamy, polyamory, swinging, sex toy use, sexual fetishism... and the list goes on, I'm sure. Now that I've put together this list, I am becoming increasingly doubtful that this is a useful article title for Wikipedia. Maybe it could work if we divided it up into sections according to the grounds of the criticism (religious doctrine, physicial harm... I don't know what the categories would be exactly) rather than the behavior being criticized. As it stands, I'd rather that the sections currently in the article be subsumed back into homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, or human sexual behavior as appropriate. I'm almost thinking this should be nominated for deletion, as I'm not sure whether the article could ever be more than an incoherent assemblage of POVs. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so maybe someone will come along and edit it and prove me wrong."

As it hasn't been improved, I am nominating it for deletion in the hopes that it will either get fixed up or die. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom WP:NOT, though I don't see it as pro-homosexual or pro-anything - it's too much of a mess. You perhaps could have tried an RFC, don't know if there's reason to make one while there's an AfD now. But it is very unsourced, and has not been attracting editors making the necessary changes. Nom doesn't mention criticisms of abstinence, monogamy, reproductive, marital, and "vanilla sex" and who knows what else besides (everybody's a critic). It would have to be all or nothing, and it's got to be cited responsibly, and that would be a practically Kinseyian undertaking. I don't see any content worth merging into other articles, though the topics could possibly be addressed in other articles—starting from scratch (though I suspect most of them already contain criticisms). Esquizombi 19:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how it's fixable. Inherently OR and POV, unless expanded to book length to cover all viewpoints. And quite frankly, it's so badly written that you'd have to blank the whole thing and start from scratch. Fan1967 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Riddled with POV. Unsourced. And is there any reason to have a separate article on criticisms? Better placed under discussions of each type of behaviour. Slowmover 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NPOV violation. Unencyclopædic in tone and content. If sexual practises require criticism it would be better to source such opinions, provide citations for follow-up research and place content on the respective articles' pages.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did consider nominating this for AfD myself, but was waiting to see if it could be improved- it hasn't been. I suspect it will always be hopelessly POV. Much more chance of NPOV by discussing any relevant criticisms on relevant article pages (per aeropagitica). Petros471 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it may look like this article is irreparable, but it has enough content and enough potential to not merit deletion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it is unsourced (one of the few articles here still unsourced, probably) and that it needs more work, but I fail to see why it is "inherently POV". Because it covers statements that themselves are obviously pov? I hope that is not what you mean. It may be that the title needs changing - the original idea was that it would cover criticisms of the three major orientations, and then it seemed appropriate to mentions criticisms that were more general. I could see including criticisms of autosexuality, etc. It is extremely valuable to see what kind of criticisms have been leveled at sexual behavior over the ages, because it contextualizes the ones in use now. Why would you want to get rid of this kind of coverage??? And the thing about being pro-gay. What?! What's pro or anti anything about it, unless some stuff has been put in since last I looked at it, and then it can be taken out. This whole effort to get rid of this material makes no sense to me. Haiduc 03:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm just not buying that this is the way to organize this type of information. We have articles on homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, etc. Collating into one article what should be the "criticisms" section of each of those seems somehow wanton. It seems like begging for a POV minefield, frankly. Calling this an encyclopedia article is like calling Crossfire a documentary. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 14:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't share analysis of nominator, but whatever this is, it's not an encyclopaedia article. David | Talk 14:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But only the general section, which should be divided according to the post sited at the top of this page. Usually a phenomenon and the its criticism are dealt with in the same article, but if that would be too long than you can break it up (like pornography and anti-pornography movement). This page would generally contain the criticism to most of the things discussed at human sexual behavior. —This unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Shafer (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. Definitely these criticisms exist. It makes sense to have a central article about them. horseboy 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ENC. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of it. If you delete this then also delete all pro-gay articles, of which there is an abundance here. 2006.03.14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bichufo (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP should not be used as a soapbox San Saba 18:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fc buglione

edit

nn fictional soccer club. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian GNU/Linux

edit

Doesn't seem very encyclopedic or useful. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a few Google searches, and visiting the actual page involved, I have seen the error of my ways. Delete. -Dawson 05:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 pschemp | talk 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascent Media

edit

Delete: I believe that this page should be deleted as it appears to be a vanity corporate advertising article with little distinct information that has not been taken from the companies website. Tyhopho 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious corporate ad. Slowmover 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think it's premature to delete as it may be notable. However, I looked on the Academy Awards Sci-Tech website for a mention of Ascent Media, here [46], but couldn't find one. It may be that the awards were won by employees of the company, which might not make the company itself notable. Unverifiable at this point, IMO, but I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. Thanks for the info, Adrian. Slowmover 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the awards were won primarily by the Todd-AO company which was one of the companies which combined to form Ascent Media in 1999. For instance, according to [[47]] "Todd-AO, and the Ascent Media Creative Sound Services family of companies, numerous nominations and most recently, Academy Awards for Best Sound on such films as Chicago, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, and Saving Private Ryan."Jvandyke 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Non-notable company. Danaman5 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Keep and Rewrite. The new information has convinced me of the company's notability, but it needs to be added into the article. I will do so if it is not done soon. --Danaman5 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable achievements within a non-trivial field: "The company, formerly Liberty Livewire, has brought home the gold about 15 times, winning Academy Awards for best sound and technical achievement."[48]. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see below:

Hello. I created the Ascent Media entry. I apologize for the "corporate ad" feel and apparent 'lack of distinct information', it wasn't my intent for the entry.

My decision to give Ascent Media an entry was driven by my interest in the parent company, Discovery Holding Company, and by Ascent Media's large size of roughtly $600M in yearly revenue (largest in post production work as far as I can tell). Further, I noticed that there were other post-production firms listed on Wikipedia: list of post-production companies.

My approach in creating the page, was to initially use the SEC filings as a starting point [49]. However, I am not an expert in the media space, so I didn't understand what, for instance, "Creative Services" meant.

Given my lack of knowledge, I did some google searches on the company and I found some of the news articles listed in "History" - including the Business Week article which discussed the deal with Sony for media conversion.

My next step - and perhaps where you feel it is a corporate ad - is that I created subsections for "Creative Services", "Media Management Services" and "Network Services" and I referenced the Ascent Media corporate page - which gave a long list of words I'd never heard of.. So, I took the keywords from the corporate webpage, and I searched wikipedia for them - and I added links where appropriate.

So - net of this was that I began to understand (roughly) what Ascent Media does: And I began (sorta) to understand. I now know that "Creative Services" is video and audio manipulation - everything from 'scoring' (adding a soundtrack) to editting (linear *and* non-linear - apparently some old analog difference). Similar level of understanding for Media Management Servcies (basically transfers between different media types) and Network Services (apparently you need to be able to distribute shows using satellites, etc.)

But - I feel far from enough of an expert to try and summarize this on the page by deleting stuff..

Net: I gave a very valid attempt (and many hours - check the history) to trying to make an appropriate Ascent Media page. My hope was that it was a good starting point for someone knowledgeable to improve... And, yes, I recognize that the entry isn't perfect, but I expected (hoped?) for some help.

I would obviously be disappointed to have the work deleted simply because I wasn't knowledgable enough to get to the encyclopediac 'essence' of Ascent Media.. Any suggestions (or edits) are welcomed.

Jvandyke 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep needs to be cleaned up, as it currently reads like an advert. but, as per above the article seems notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as an attack page. --InShaneee 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halliburton shill

edit

Nonsense. 111 Google hits Oldak Quill 19:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete mentioning him on Lindsay Lohan can, of course, be discussed on that talkpage. --W.marsh 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan II

edit

Notability: By all accounts, he is intentionally staying out of show business following his lone role in The Parent Trap RadioKirk talk to me 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why he is listed as that having his only film role! But he is an actor and was in a movie. People have been asking about him over at IMDb on Lindsay's discussion boards, so I think a small article about him that is linked to Lindsay's page is nice. It also has a link to his IMDb page. Stephe1987 19:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I agree with Average Earthman, who echoes my reasons for the AfD. I'm going to read over Lindsay Lohan and see if a short line can be worked into the text there, but he doesn't merit an article, IMHO. (I have not put up an AfD for Aliana Lohan—though someone else might—because she has received press of her intentions to follow her sister into the biz. Whether she deserves an article now is debatable, but she almost certainly will in the very near future.) RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Brief adds to sibling info now at Lindsay Lohan. RadioKirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done—sort of. The Parent Trap role is his only notability, and there should be nothing more than a very short "here's where you may have heard of him" in his sister's article. RadioKirk talk to me 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I added his article in the first place is because I get asked questions about him all the time at IMDb. And when I tried to add information about him to Lindsay's page, the editors deleted it because it "wasn't relevant". They told me I was free to make my own page about him. And then I made a page for him and people are allowed to petition for deletion? That makes no sense to me. Either let Mike's info be put into Lindsay's article or let Michael have his own article. But not having any information on him at all makes no sense because people ask about him all the time at IMDb Message Boards, and they come here looking for information and can't find anything. So what does everyone suggest should be done? Keep in mind that Michael Lohan has his own page at IMDb and is going to need a link to that page if people decide to merge with Lindsay Lohan. Stephe1987 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Lindsay Lohan article already says Like most celebrities, Lohan and her family have endured public scrutiny of their private lives. It was revealed in 2004 that Michael Lohan had spent much of Lindsay's preteen years in prison for securities fraud. In 2005, he was sent back to prison for "aggravated unlicensed driving" and attempted assault. It seems relatively simple to say that also had a minor role in Parent Trap, and then blank his article as a redirect page. I think the editors on the LL article on wrong on this point. However, maybe some people attract so much attention that their family need articles even if it bends WP:BIO. Tentative merge and redirect but I remain open to persuasion either way. Thatcher131 20:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh - I rather suspect the Michael Lohan in prison was Michael Lohan I, not Michael Lohan II, who appears to be her younger brother. Who has had one uncredited role in one film, and therefore doesn't need an article, or even an IMDB link (if someone wants to find him on IMDB - try searching IMDB) Average Earthman 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct re the two Michaels. RadioKirk talk to me 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that we should merge the articles, too. But Wikipedia didn't seem to like it when I added in the stuff about Michael Jr.-- they told me to make a page for him and deleted all the stuff I wrote without notice or asking me about it. It seems rude that they just delete your stuff without telling you first. Or they leave a note in your discussion telling you what they did without asking first why you did it. And you can only write like two sentences in your edit summary, so there is no way to explain what's going on *rolls eyes*! The two Michaels, like you said, were mixed up, but you are wrong about Michael not being credited for the Parent Trap. He is credited for the Parent Trap. The uncredited roles were from the late 1990's to early 2000's when he and his little brother and sister would go around with their mom and be uncredited extras in Lindsay's films, remember? Stephe1987 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added brief detail on all three siblings to Lindsay Lohan; anything more than that doesn't belong in that article and, unless the younger Michael gets back into show business (unlikely at this point), he does not merit his own page—IMHO. RadioKirk talk to me 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to Michael's IMDb page from his name and the birth years of the Lohan siblings (so people who come on here know how old they are because people are always asking how old they are), as well as the fact that they have uncredited roles as extras in the films sometimes-- two sentences! If the editors don't revert again, I (the person who wrote the article) also agree that this article should be deleted. I don't know why they didn't just let me add in a little bit of information on him in the first place-- it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Oh well. Stephe1987
I'm sorry but, as I explained on your talk page, that can't stay. An external link to someone other than the article's subject is a no-no. Also, you've added information that is absolutely unencyclopedic—her parents' birthdates could be considered irrelevant to Lindsay's article, never mind her siblings'. Their uncredited cameos in her films are not relevant, either. Any one of the changes you made would be sufficient for WP:FA status to be revoked due to irrelevance to the subject. With all possible respect to Michael, specifically, one film appearance eight years ago is insufficient notability for an encyclopedia, and barely enough for the briefest of all possible references in Lindsay's article. Among the things Wikipedia is not, it is not a complete list of everything. Meantime, if people ask about her brother, answer them within the group. RadioKirk talk to me 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no other solution than to put the information and link back in. There is less that one sentence about each of the siblings-- not nearly enough to say that there is too much information on someone other than Lindsay Lohan. In fact, all the information was in the same sentence! The fact that they travel with her and their mother, who is Lindsay's agent, is also VERY relevant because they have uncredited roles in almost all of her movies (also one sentence). Also, the reason why I put the link to Michael's IMDb page (if you read his talk/deletion article) is because people want to delete his page, so I think it's best to just link his page to the IMDb article about him if he doesn't get his own page. Please tell me what you think makes the most sense to do: either give the Lohan kids each their own page (which seems silly because there is only part of a sentence about each of them), or add in their birth years to say how old they are, (and a lot of articles have birth years for siblings, so it's not too much info or irrelevant) and say they're extras in her movies (which they are). Also, what about the link to Michael's IMDb page-- why not just link it to his name? Perhaps we should put a number by it and have the link as an external link? User_talk:Stephe1987
This is not nearly as simple as you are making it seem. First, a lot of articles may indeed have peripheral information about siblings and the like; you will find that is not the case in featured articles (seriously, and please, go read some). Indeed, articles that do have such listings should be cleaned up to remove most (if not all) of them; bad habits in articles are not excuses to spread them to other articles. The external link for Michael absolutely cannot go back; as for her siblings' uncredited exploits in her films, I would be more than happy to file a Request for comment; however, since we once again are talking about the possible delisting of a Featured article due to the relevance (or lack thereof) of the information, I wouldn't hold up hope that your suggestions will survive. Do you wish me to request comment from admins and other users? RadioKirk talk to me 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to his sis. I'm sorry, but "Lost Boy at Camp" isn't notable enough for a mention. And being dragged hither, thither, and yon for his sister's career, if anything, seems to be a rather painful implication of his non-notability. JDoorjam Talk 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak delete. if his position in the movie were more notable, this page wouldn't be an issue. as it is it seems non notable. it shouldnt be necessary to merge to Lindsay Lohan at all since none of the information on the page qualifies for notability standards.
  • Delete unless it's appropriate to have an article for every extra in every movie. oh wait, thats what IMDB is for. Moe Aboulkheir 04:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, why don't you all just delete it already?! "Discussing it" like this is ridiculous and a waste of time. Stephe1987 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the process inequitable? I always thought deletions without process was worse... RadioKirk talk to me 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on how it is being done. Admins deleting it without first talking to the person who wrote it is bad; having a group of people come on and discuss it is a waste of time. Stephe1987 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, you've lost me. What's the third option? RadioKirk talk to me 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe speed it up a bit. Having a whole page with a bunch of people posting pretty much the same thing over and over again gets a bit tiring. Why not just let the person who created the article delete it if there is a consensus to doso? How many weeks will this take? How many people will come on here and post the same thing over and over again? I think that the creator should be able to delete it if people can convince him/her that the article is not needed. If the creator cannot be convinced, then continue the discussions and let the admins deal with it. Stephe1987 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it, thanks. I have no argument with that. Edit: Actually, if memory serves, anyone can "blank" a page but only an admin can delete it. RadioKirk talk to me 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooo! Page-blanking is prohibited. Herostratus 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science

edit

Is this non-notable compared to Rolfes Robert Reginald Dhlomo, or compared to Sesame Street, Season 35? Maybe its nn compared to Sand River (Ontario)? Oh, now i got it, it must be nn compared to Gamaliel (Qliphoth)! Lets not forget Galactic Pinball. --Striver 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Striver, yes - and please remember even you didn't bother to write a proper article about it. Esquizombi 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was YA RLY delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of O'Reilly books

edit

Unencyclopedic list, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability of O'Reilly Media does not imply notability for a list of their product line; this list is best left to oreilly.com's catalog page. List of O'Reilly books currently contains 12 bluelinks and 769 redlinks, and all working links are easily available through Category:O'Reilly books.

I discovered this red-link farm while researching the similar AfD/List of ...For Dummies books. - Rynne 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Donkey

edit

Non-notable variant of Ghost. Google search finds no apparent references. phh 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clump

edit

Prev. prodded, but prod was removed. Simple Dict-def. Redundant to Wikiary. --- ---J.Smith 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's already in Wiktionary. ---J.Smith 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabulous Entourage

edit

While I find it impressive that this band has "played to sold-out crowds at Joe's Pub", I fear it does not meet WP:MUSIC, having not yet released an album. Delete. Ashenai 21:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Stephenson

edit

Delete Delightful as Ms. Stephenson no doubt is, her life so far does not meet the notability critertion for a Wikipedia entry Gwernol 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Tran Koirala Garo

edit

Delete. Fancruft --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN website. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3606 (number)

edit

Delete. Utter nonsense. A lengthy page notable primarily for containing virtually no information relevant to its title. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archmolds

edit

Reads like an advertisement, 8 Ghits, non notable product and company, fails WP:CORP. Prod'd but prod removed. Delete -- Samir ∙   T C 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's still spamming. Could an admin keep an eye on him and block him if necessary? Sandstein 22:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as {{copyvio}} by User:Flcelloguy — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios Orlando CityWalk

edit

Delete This article appears to be blatant advertising. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 22:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satan LaVey

edit

Non notable biography. Just being the sun of a notable person doesn't make you notable yourself. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's already there. There's a line that says LaVey's wife had a son with that name on that date. Fan1967 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, discounting votes by Ocin (user's first edit) and Fastnaturedude (who has no edits). Flowerparty■ 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (Revolution game)

edit

There is no verifiable info here at all, these are just rumors.. We have no way of knowing whether or not Sega is making an exclusive Revolution game. A Clown in the Dark 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also a deliberate misspell. Give the originator of the article time to cite his sources, which means someone contacting them and letting them know to do so. If they dont within a given period of time, then to delete the article. Fair is Fair, dont 'yew' think. Ley Shade 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand It may be a good idea to keep it up to inform people of the rumor, but it should be perfectly clear that it is un-confirmed and no information supports it as of yet. It could also help people if it is kept, as some unlucky person might stumble upon the rumor and think it is real. So then they could use this article to show it is merely a rumor, and by what we know, nothing more. Ocin
Comment Wikipedia is NOT a rumor mill. Let's stick to things that actually are, not things that might be. Fan1967 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as vandalism by Curps -SCEhardT 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlewood

edit

Hoax, with a reference to the deleted "Carlow Crab". I am BBIH, by the way. BBIH the All-powerful 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio -SCEhardT 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaarbuilder

edit

Currently an ad - propose deletion unless notable company -SCEhardT 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port_Lylindail

edit

Delete. This is clearly a vanity page. EvilOverlordX 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neta

edit

del a neologism attempt. From the article text it follows that the word means simply topic. mikka (t) 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki It's an interesting word, a reversal of the syllables of tane. The article will make a valuable addition to Wiktionary. Fg2 01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it current in English usage so that it can go to wiktionary? Wiktionary seems to collect lots of garbage lately. An occasional looker (mainly when creating disambig pages with wiktionary link) I am, yet have already fixed several errors and outright hoaxes there. mikka (t) 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has widespread usage and it certainly isn't an attempt to coin the term. I think it would be better served to be merged with some other Japanese terms such as DQN instead of seperate articles though. Maybe List of Internet slang? kotepho 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide reputable references for the origin and "widespreadness" of the term. Google gives tousands of hits, but for wrong "neta", at least in the first 300 hits (way beyond my usual diligence level). If it is spread wide, it must have been done quite thinly. Anyway, googlisms for "neta" are quite amusing. mikka (t) 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother googling for ネタ[54]? kotepho 03:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hard time[pdf] finding links. Not to mention all of the ones that talk about neta in relation to sushi. kotepho 03:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to notice that this is English wikipedia, and Japanese words, unless they are in normal English circulation, are not for this place? We don't have articles for hajime, watashi, konnichi wa, denki kikai, kiri, and the remaining hundreds of thousands of other Japanese words expressions, some of them are occasionally known even to americans and other gaijin. mikka (t) 04:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how I said it probably does not deserve its own article but we might find a place for it? kotepho 04:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardinig your owarai list: are these words in English language usage? mikka (t) 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are simply Japanese words that are very common when discussion certain Japanese things (in this case owarai) and it's much easier to refer to a glossary each time instead of explaining. neta's claim of English use is completely bogus.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as per Freshgavin and others. Neier 13:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanakorn Praiwan

edit

Unable to verify, does not google, appears to be student at d'Overbroeck's College, likely hoax. Prod removed by anonymous editor without editing or comment. Accurizer 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_10&oldid=1234127725"