Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

Purge server cache




















































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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Beau Beasley

[edit]
Beau Beasley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did not win, has not done anything outside of the Big Brother house, and as an extremely unpopular houseguest is likely to be vandalized.

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

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 06:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinwiki

[edit]

Fails WP:WEB - Google shows only 97 pages linking to tinwiki. Lacks independent or reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fexnet

[edit]

Was. Was. But likely would not have made WP:WEB even when it was up. Daniel Case 03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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




















































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

The result was Speedy delete, makes absolutely no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nukefactory

[edit]

This article is quite blatantly an advert for Nukefactory, a non-notable website which scores under 1000, mostly irrelevent, google hits. Rje 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ColourBurst 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sims Award

[edit]

nn award, gets 40 unique google hits and the subject that the award is named after doesn't even have an article. Renosecond 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was quashed. DS 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foods that begin with Q

[edit]

Do we really need this type of list in here, next thing you know we would have List of people that begin with A, unnessarry listcruft, and sets a bad example. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep the rewrite. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter holiday season

[edit]
  • His alterations are misleading and have nothing to do with "winter holiday season" as is used by secularists for a euphemism. Also, this is a neologism and Wikipedia has policies against them.— OLP 1999 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy against neologisms, WP:NEO is just a guideline. The main reason why we typically don't keep neologisms is because they fail the content policies that you cited in the nomination. However, the article appears to meet our content policies now, so there's no reason why we can't keep an article on them. JYolkowski // talk 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heman pathak

[edit]

nn musician, gets less than 100 unique hits on google Renosecond 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Notability by association is interesting, but only suggests to me that Pathak should be merged with Nurse with Wound, since Pathak himself fails WP:MUSIC. (Note: I am not standing on judgement about Nurse with Wound.) Pathak lacks multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, shows no charted hits, no national tours. I verify 75 distinct Ghits out of 203 general hits, which speaks to his notability at this level. Also note most of Pathak's Ghits are related to Nurse with Wound, not his own stuff, which further suggests lack of notability. Tychocat 09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral - as someone who has been involved in the Nurse with Wound article and several related entries, this bio comes as something of a surprise. Stapleton was of the impression that Pathak had retired from music and, the last time they met, Pathak was running a hi-fi shop in London (this is all in David Keenan's book on NWW, Coil and Current 93 btw). I'm a little sceptical on the veracity of this article as it fails to note Pathak's immediate post-NWW activity (I'm not giving the name away here, makes it too easy....) but if sources can be provided, I'll say keep. Can't find anything myself. Possible hoax? Ac@osr 14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was see below. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric programming languages

[edit]

This debate has been detranscluded due to its length. To view or participate in this debate, follow this link.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Joe Brandon

[edit]

Prod tag was contested based on the the subjects authorship of this book, which ranked #891,170 in sales (albeit, it is a specialized subject) Most of the relevant ~500 Google hits appear to be related to his websites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it just having a publishedbook does not meet the author part of WP:BIO. If it did then we'd keep an article for every author who'd managed to convince someone to publish. I can't find multiple reviews for the work, information that he's seen as a leader in his field or anything else that satisfies a criteria for keeping - Peripitus (Talk) 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. In cases such as non-vanity published authors, I go by the part of WP:BIO that says This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I see no reason to delete published authors, provided they've been published by a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived next to and met a few authors and learned that, in general, getting one book published in not too hard. If you get a second out then you're usually notable as the first one at least broke even. My primary school vice principle and a low level govt clerk I know have published books ...... If you had an article about THEM that's about all you could say as nothing else has reliable sources. I think you may have drawn the notability line for authors a bit too far on the generous side - Peripitus (Talk) 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I know a number of writers who can't even get a publisher to give their work the time of day. Anecdotes aren't all that useful here. There are some people who would include any book with an ISBN, which would include any of those authors, too. I think published by non-vanity is an excellent compromise, and I can justify it with that clause in WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was de-leeb. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeb

[edit]

This article was originally PROD'd as a neologism, and the deletion was contested and the notice removed. As I understand it, the article should now have a proper AFD. Personally, I believe it's a neologism/non-notable term, there is no evidence of why this is important, or any references. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The below comments were moved from Talk:Leeb -- VoiceOfReason 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If I could see any notable plaec that actually used 1338 as a legitimate term, I might be inclined to merge. As it is, I've never heard of this so I'd say get rid of it. —Ragdoll 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I might have heard of it, so I support a merge. It might just be in a single game though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.244.83 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 August 2006

Delete — No such term that I've ever been aware of. Khaighle 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Never heard of this term, ans i suspect that it's only used by a small group of people who all play the same online game -- 12.4.81.145 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkboy and Lavagirl: Disaster on Drool

[edit]

A hoax film sequel which has no confirmation, and no hits on Google or IMdB beyond the one result for this Wikipedia page. Nate 00:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Element

[edit]

Delete. Unpublished book by non-notable author. Prod tag was removed by article creator. ... discospinster talk 00:57, 31 August 2006

Delete per nom. Fails guidelines for articles on books. Resolute 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by User:NawlinWiki. ColourBurst 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heaving Seas

[edit]

Probable artist vanity, band clearly fails WP:MUSIC, prod deleted by only other editor Jdcooper 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryli Morgan

[edit]

Non-notable "actress-model-singer", I can find no evidence that she has ever acted, modeled or sung for anyone other than her husband or friends' very indie movies. Speedy was removed but this deserves one in my opinion. Dipics 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete makes some assertions of notability, but I'm not convinced she passes WP:BIO. Also, removing speedy delete tags is not allowed. If it happens in the future, restore the tag and put {{drmspeedy}} on the userpage of whoever did the removing. -Elmer Clark 03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wishy-Washy Keep although I feel that this performer may be using Wikipedia to enhance her visibility (it is clear that the article is writing by her and/or her husband/producer), I do find a reasonable number of fanzines and sites that have interviewed her in depth [2] [3]. Any one of these fanzines alone would certainly not account for notability. I am hard-pressed to acknowledge that the mass of fanzines that covers this artist amounts to notability. --dtony 05:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, almost nothing of any real substance.-Kmaguir1 06:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is obscure but still relevant to that genre although, the article needs clean-up. NeoFreak 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article written by a single use account. She does seem to be a model (of the skin variety). 167 unique Ghits out of 509, many for modelling agents she is listed with. "Heaven Help Me" ranks in the 43.6kth, "Sin" ranks in the 113kth per Amazon.com, no sign of independent reviews. Strangely enough, there's another short Baranowski film "Roxanna" which is not on her filmography reviewed on DVD Talk, a site ranked with a respectable 3827th per Alexa. I could find none of her other movies on the site. She doesn't cut it as an actress per WP:BIO, and not under WP:PORN BIO either.Ohconfucius 09:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact she may be "relevant" to the genre is not part of WP:BIO, or WP:NOT, and is unverified in any case. For that matter, fails WP:V for lacking any reliable documentation outside of her own website and IMDB. Only 167 distinct Ghits out of 508 general hits, and Alexa says her website isn't in the top 100,000. No multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, though there are a few movie fanzines. No evidence her movies have won awards, been a major work, nor has she won any awards or contributed substantially to her field. The article is a resume, and WP is not a free webhost. I'm willing to concede one review of one of her films by Joe Bob Briggs, though considering his interest in her body, I'm uncertain how this would relate to WP:BIOs requirement for '...widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field'... Tychocat 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There is no possible way that this person meets WP:BIO. Total vanity article. Non-notable "actress", non-notable "model", non-notable "assistant director", non-notable "singer". zero+zero+zero+zero still equals a goose egg. I'm sure if she works on the article a bit more she can add "script writer" and "key grip" etc. to her non-notable resume but my answer would still be the same. Beaner1 13:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Crabapplecove 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete she is the top one or two on the castlist of most of her movies, that seems pretty notable to me, but none of her movies are on box office mojo, and she barely returns any relevant google results. mathewguiver 13:48, 31 August 2006.
  • Delete vanity and nn. (and, as per Beaner1, watch out for future entries under "Best Boy" and "Gaffer"!) Marcus22 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My sister has done everything this actress has, and she most certantly does not qualify for an article. Piling up a ton of non-notable attributes does not make one notable. Resolute 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(ish) per WP:BIO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this "non-notable" has done just as much as others (Amy Lynn Best, Alaina Capri, for example) who are already listed at Wikipedia. Why single one out for deletion when others have been allowed? Besides, just because you want an article to be deleted doesn't mean you have to be insulting to the "topic" in question.
  • Comment While the fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be listed is never a valid argument to keep an article, I have to agree that Amy Lynn Best shouldn't be listed either. I have added a speedy tag to her article. Alaina Capri was at least in movies produced by Russ Meyer, a notable if not necessarily quality producer. Dipics 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Association of Student Councils

[edit]

Vanity, Non-notable, does not meet WP:V Nv8200p talk 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of heroes by country

[edit]

While this is not close enough to the deleted List of heroes to be deleted as Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria G4, I think that it suffers from the same problems listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes. The list already contains names that caused problems in the original and it will just continue to get worse. It's just an exercise in POV as my hero is your enemy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about those humans considered heroic by the entire species? There are less, but they exist. 207.216.10.77 09:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted, now at Animal Crossing: Wild World#Boondox. WP:IAR at its finest. GarrettTalk 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boondox town

[edit]

Fancruft and original research article for non-notable video game fictional location. Does not meet requirements of WP:NOR or WP:V. Prodded but template removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so comes here. --Satori Son 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miyama Chiharu

[edit]

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent, having won no notable award in Japan, and no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail WP:BIO if that was applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could find absolutely no English-language Ghits that weren't Wikipedia mirrors of this article (I know she's a Japanese actress, but there should be something). Even if it's not a WP:HOAX, it completely and utterly fails WP:V. --Satori Son 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I immediately thought hoax, but some sites do indeed turn up that seem to confirm she was in something called "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs." However, we are still left with the problem of notability, and the article makes no attempt at proving it or showing that she qualifies under WP:PORN BIO. -Elmer Clark 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PORN BIO. mathewguiver 13:52, 30 August 2005.
  • Delete I think the actress's unusual physical build (for the genre), and faux-martial-arts gimmick give her some notability, enough to tip the scales in her favor if she came close, but not quite up to passing a notability test. And I do believe it is wrong to use the proposed American notability test in judging Japanese subjects. However, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, this actress appears to be too obscure to come even close to any reasonable notability requirements. Also, the article does not contain much real information that could not be reflected in a resurrected and expanded List of Japanese female porn stars. Delete and move the information to that List in the future. (A title like "Lady Karate Fighter VS Rape Maniacs" a hoax? Am I to understand people with absolutely no knowledge or interest in the subject are nominating and voting for deleting these articles? Must assume good faith... Must assume good faith...) Dekkappai 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one here said they believed this absolutely was a hoax. Am I to understand that people who cannot read carefully are assessing and critiquing the written comments of others? Must be civil... Must be civil... --Satori Son 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Satori, show where I said someone said this "absolutely was a hoax." What I read was, "I immediately thought hoax." By that comment, I understood that the editor assumed on first glance that a title such as this must be a hoax. From that, I further concluded that he must not have encountered titles like this before. Since titles like this are rife in the Japanese adult entertainment field, I presume the editor has little knowledge and/or interest in said field. I would have spelled all this out in the first comment if I thought it necessary. Dekkappai 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, I did think this article might be a hoax, but only because of the bizarre writing style and complete lack of sources (not because of the video title). I'm sorry that I misunderstood your comment and responded boorishly. Respectfully, Satori Son 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Satori. Happens to the best of us, especially on as testy a subject as this. I admit to having been a bit on the boorish side to our friend Hong here too. Trying to watch myself... Dekkappai 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sure, it may not be accurate to judge a Japanese porn actress based on the American standards in WP:PORN BIO, that's why I specifically mentioned that she wouldn't pass a Japanese equivalent, having no similarly notable work or appearances as outlined in WP:PORN BIO. Meaning, even in Japan, she has no notable awards, no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Even if we are to invalidate the use of WP:PORN BIO based either on the fact that it uses American standards or that it is only a proposal, this person would definitely fail the official WP:BIO. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with you here, on this particular actress Hong. You seem to have found an actress who, to my knowledge and ability to track sources, in no way appears to meet notability standards. Obviously she is verifiable, though, and deserves a place on a list. I still say Japanese (or international) and American standards have to different though. The Amazon test for instance, would fail the vast majority of even notable American stars, and shows that even non-notable Japanese porn actresses (such as this one) have a mainstream presence in that country. Dekkappai 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm actually already giving many of these Japanese porn actresses slack on the notability and verifiability when I mention a Japanese equivalent of WP:PORN BIO. If we are to strictly use WP:BIO, many of them would have an even more difficult time passing. That's why it may not necessarily be to your best advantage to invalidate WP:PORN BIO based on either that it's only a proposal or that it is culturally biased. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be trying to say that there are only two possible ways to establish a Japanese adult actress' notability: By ignoring the vast differences between the two countries and the two industries and applying a test of notability designed for American adult actresses on Japanese actresses, or, if that isn't biased enough for you, by subjecting them to a test designed for general world biography. If American adult actors have been deemed worthy of a special set of notability standards, separate from world biography in general, then adult actors from other countries deserve that same specialized treatment. And how, exactly, are you cutting them slack on verifiability when even the least notable of them have a presence on Amazon? Are you actually saying a listing of a DVD on Amazon is not verifiable? Or are you just preparing your argument for deleting another list on grounds of "unverifiabilty?" The list is already being held to a higher standard of verifiability than many other lists I've checked on Wikipedia, and now any source is going to be disqualified, as what? "Commercial," "personal page," or just "icky because it talks about Japanese porn stars?" Dekkappai 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do keep repeating - these porn actresses that I've nominated have no notable mainstream work, no notable magazine appearance, no notable awards, etc etc. So aside from those, what would determine notability? We've got no criteria here to say, "oh, she's been in 22 DVDs so she's notable." How? Why? Why do 22 Japanese porn DVDs, no awards, no mainstream work, etc etc, make a Japanese porn actress notable, while American porn actresses need a lot more than that to achieve notability? Even WP:PORN BIO is still a proposal, so unfortunately, until the English WP decide to come up with a WP:JAPANESE PORN BIO, we've got no grounds to judge Japanese porn actresses on a different set of criteria. I mean, some of the editors reject WP:PORN BIO just based on the fact that it's a proposal. There's no other notability test then, except for WP:BIO. It's already pretty generous that Japanese porn actresses are to be considered under an imaginary Japanese equivalent of a proposed notability test. I repeat - without that, the only notability test left for them is WP:BIO. There's no other test. The only thing left is individual editors using arbitrary criteria and personal opinions to judge their notability. That's hardly good enough. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XanGo

[edit]

Non-notable, nothing other than self references and rather ad-like. Shell babelfish 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned out the adspeak garbage. It will doubtless return. Zora 06:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Did you mean Keep? Kuru talk 20:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be quite well know topically rather than something that needs to adhere to WP:CORP. Being a spam magnet is not something that warrants deletion of an entire article. It can be protected or the links can be added to the spam blackhole. Would like to see more references; there's a jillion ghits to flip through. Kuru talk 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article (at least currently) describes the language as constructed, so all comments about whether or not this language is "fake" are pretty much irrelevant. I have disregarded count completely: first of all, there were too many votes, but also it was clear that some kind of promotion of this debate took place somewhere. The policies this article would have to pass are WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:V, just like every other article. All three are an issue here. Let me handle them one at a time. WP:NPOV -- the issue here is how to present the substance of the Siberian language work. It's mentioned in the article that "some consider their approach unscientific," but regardless, the viewpoints go way beyond the sources, so WP:NPOV dictates that the article should at best be dramatically shortened. WP:NOT (notability) is somewhat of a problem, because without any published linguistic analysis of this, there's not much we can say. The project may be notable, as it's been covered in some media sources, though, but it's borderline, and the article is really about the language anyway. WP:NOT a soapbox applies also, but WP:V is the biggest issue: while WP policy leaves open the idea that we can use foreign language-only sources in an article, it's a bad idea in a case like this one where the claims go well beyond basic description: really, until there are source in English, the en.wiki community cannot maintain a policy-compliant article on this topic. While I considered a weasely "no consensus" close here, it's clearly in the interests of the community to have a decision here, and move on. And consensus is important for WP:NOT but not so much for WP:V anyway. Okay. I hope that explains my reasoning: I read every comment, and looked as best as I could at every issue. I do hope that if there's a deletion review, or any further debate on this topic that those of you who came here to simply add as many votes as possible will not participate: you know who you are, and you're just making all this more difficult. Mangojuicetalk 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language

[edit]

Relisted due to contested closing. `'mikka (t) 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The article is nominated for the second time. The previous afd is Here. The result was delete. Original research. The language does not exist outside the internet. The only references to the language itself are the authors blogs.There is no published books on this "language", nor any WP:RS study of it. abakharev 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is lie. Please read the following links about the old siberian, for example -
  1. Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.
  2. Богословская З.М. Словарь вариантной лексики сибирского говора. – Томск, 2000. – Т.1 – 303с.
  3. Вершининский словарь/ Гл. ред. О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998-2001. Т.1-5.
  4. Полный словарь сибирского говора/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1992-1995. – т. 1-4.
  5. Иванцова Е.В. Феномен диалектной языковой личности. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та,2002. – 312с.
  6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова 1998. – 320с.
  7. Раков Г.А. Диалектный идеографический словарь. – Томск. – изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998. – 345с.
  8. Словарь русских старожильческих говоров Среднего Прииртышья. В 3 т. Томск, 1992.
  9. Садретдинова Г.А. История заселения русскими Западной Сибири в связи с изучением сибирских старожильческих говоров. //Диалектологические и историко-лингвистические проблемы. Омск, 1999.
  10. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка: в 4 т., М., 1989.

And do not lie more. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where did e.g. Dahl speak about the "Siberian language"? BTW try to be civil 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of remarks "siberian" in his vocabulary. You directly lie and I directly say this, this is not abuse. And the AFD you mentioned was a year ago about OTHER article, which was just a stub. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please type in Google "сибирский старожильческий говор" or "севернорусское наречие" and read the NPOV sources. May be you do not know Russian dialectology and your lie is just mistake. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a impudent liar ! All of your sources are Russian language dialects about. For example : 4. Полный словарь сибирского говора - Full dictionary of siberian dealect 6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров - The dictionary of colloquial Russian dialects 10. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка - The explanatory dictionary of live Russian language

Keep unless all of its references are shown to be false. If this were a popular constructed language, we would still have an article on it. If it is, in fact, based on actual dialects, all the better. Note that there are interwikis to four other Wikipedias.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Links LiveJournal of Zolotaryov and Internet site "volgota group" by Zolotaryov. Then APN - "The experiments on creation of Siberian language should be lauded" (1 phrase somehow related), Kazakh and others - internet articles about Zolotaryov and his experiment. Not a single reference to any academic sources, since I assume the Zolotatyov mentioned in this articles is the same User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, I assume no academic references exist. Then I would suggest to publish something in referred sources then put it here. This the policy of WP:NOR and WP:V abakharev 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Alexander Gouk 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has 5 prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is from belarussian wiki, his contributions http://be.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%8D%D1%86%D1%8B%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%8F:Contributions&target=Alexander+Gouk
User has no prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMuscovites fear this cultural movement. Roman Baiduk bydook@gmail.com

  • Keep, per Nlsanand. Article may need to be re-classified, but, besides that, seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article about OR. There are articles about each and every pop-culture thingy, so why not about this?
    The claim of non-existence of S.L. looks redundant, as the lead already tells that it's an initiative (article could benefit from explicitly stating so, though).
    That talks it's based on do not exist, I doubt -- I remember reading "Parting with Matyora" ("Прощание с Матёрой"), and (Siberian) people there talked quite like that.
    Finally, for the assessing of the codification attempt itself, I think we'd have to wait for the scholars' word. End of problem? Yury Tarasievich 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep This language even will have the Wikipedia soon. It means that the community have already made its decission about the "natural" roots of Siberian! be:User:Booxter
  • Delete per previous AfD and per nominator, and because this subject is formally unverifiable in the English Wikipedia, as the sources listed above are not in English (which has been a consistent problem in discussing this article). This is not a language or dialect as commonly understood, it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience. This bears every appearance of being an astroturfing campaign; Yaroslav Zolotaryov is a leader in the web community which promotes this. Note that the article describes it as a "standardised language" which appears to be a WP:NPOV failure. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily be in English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion about High Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go - i know Russian, but i live in Israel, so i think i'm rather neutral, does that count? You'll just have to believe me that i'm rather indifferent to the politics of Moscow vs. Siberia vs. Belarus vs. Ukraine. I also know a few things about Linguistics (that's my major) and in particular about Slavic linguistics and dialectology. And based on all of the above i can say that this project is valid:
    It's true that it may be done by a small group - but the creation of Esperanto (spoken by over a millions now) and the creation of modern spoken Hebrew (spoken by over 6 million now) were also works of very small groups.
    It's true that this group has a certain "national" agenda, but it is very haphazard and i didn't see anything extremist or outright anti-Russian in it.
    It's true that to speakers of Russian this language looks like Cockney or Redneck English put to writing, but they completely ignore the fact that it has a dictionary of over 20,000 words and a complete grammar.
    They also ignore the fact that this grammar is rather different from Russian. The verb tense system is radically different, it has the definite article which is completely absent in Russian, and it has different phonology. All these things are very well documented as actual features of Northern Russian dialects. Now a group comes and makes a literary language out of these dialects. Let me tell you a secret - many major literary world languages started out as compromises between several dialects that were codified by scientists and promoted in schools by governments. After a few generations they became natural languages. Such are German, Indonesian and Urdu, for example.
    Please don't let ignorance influence your decisions. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is a multilanguage project and presence of the English sources is not obligatory term. See WP:V

English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

--Yakudza 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have founded some refrences even IN ENGLISH for him, see the talk page. Blinova was my teacher in Tomsk univercity, I have saw thousands of tapes with records of old siberian dialect, very many cards with the words, hard work of our dialectologists --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Siberian language - quickly developing project of the literary language, he is founded on real dialects. For removing this article voted basically on political reason. This only linguistical project, but not political. Why about completely artificial language Slovio exists the article in Wikipedia, but about language, founded on real dialect no? Previous nomination on removing was for little stub, presently this big and good article. --Yakudza 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. In the first VfD I would probably have voted for deletion as well, but it is obvious that a lot has changed in the meantime. Besides, it's true that the original version was nothing but an ugly stub. Given the fact that a) there will soon be a wikipedia in this language; b) there seem to be plenty of people who use it and the testwiki is flourishing; c) it has been mentioned, or even described, more than once in the Russian press - I think preservation of this article is more than warranted. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I should vote formally. Keep, of course. Artificial or not, the language lives in Siberian wiki and in siberian sites. The words were taken from veriable sources. In fact, Russian language is more conlang than Siberian, constructed by Lomonosov on Church Slavonic base. But languages like Ukranian, Belarusian and Siberian were collected from real farmers' dialects and have natural rights to survive and develop. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel archer (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years. The bulk of the article, "Historical survey" section must be moved into something like Siberian dialects of Russian language, but the self-promotion of a certain "standartization" effort is a way too overhyped. `'mikka (t) 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also find it despicable that the advocates substitute the question of validity of "Zolotaryov Siberian language" (the topic of the article) by the discussion about Old siberian dialects. Of course Old Siberian dialects is a valid topic. But we are not deleting it! We are trying to delete Zolotaryov's hobby. `'mikka (t) 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What are you so exercised about? Maybe it is a constructed language; so what? We have lots of articles about constructed langauges.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So what? I've never heard anybody complain about Tolkien's hobby or Zamenhof's hobby. I really don't think that matters. What matters is only this question: is the language significant enough for inclusion? Given the number of articles written about it, the fact that there is a community of users, and the fact that there is going to be a wikipedia in it, I believe there is.
Let me also point out that this language seems to be part of the grey area between natural languages and constructed languages. It is constructed, but for 100 % based on natlang stuff, and apparently made with the intention of it becoming a spoken language. Another case in point: Rumantsch Grischun, created in 1982 on the basis of various Rhaetoromance dialects. Nobody would deny its notability, and many living languages started their carreers the same way. A frequently used method of distinguishing natural languages from constructed languages is this: as soon as a language has second-generation native speakers, it cannot be classified any longer as a constructed language. However, no one would argue that this would be a condition for inclusion here. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting analogy. What does Wikipedia say about Romansh? "Romansh is not a single language but a group of closely-related dialects, all belonging to the family of the Rhaeto-Romance languages." And: "Romansh was standardised in 1982 by Zürich-based linguist Heinrich Schmid. The standardised language, called Rumantsch Grischun, has not been very well accepted, and speakers of the different dialects tend to address one another in German." Of course, Wikipedia has an article on Romansh - as it is considered an offical "language" of Switzerland and literature in the Engadine dialect exists since the 16th century. Where are the books IN Siberian? --Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep (I can't read Russian and can't evaluate all the sources), but please expand more on the "Volgota cultural group". It may not be notable enough for a separate article but it should be described a bit more in connection with this language. Presently there is just one sentence about the development of the modern standardization; most of the article seems to be about the various dialects from which this language was developed. Also, the various sources that Zolotaryov cites in this discussion and on the article's talk page should be integrated into the article itself as a References section. --Jim Henry 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since. (И вообще, задолбали, в натуре.) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article that was AfD'ed last time was a completely different article.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails WP:V. While time may be given to some articles to find sources, the fact that this has already been afd'd and uninamiously deleted weigh heavily against it. Am leaning towards speedy delete as one unsourced article about a topic could be argued as substansially similar to another, even if the unsourced information differs in the new article. Regards, MartinRe 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:V say that external links don't count? This article contains 8 sources besides the link to the Volgota group's home page.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links. Basically external links is an external "see also" section. If information in the article comes from one of the external links, it should be moved into a references/sources section and an appropiate note added to the information indicating which source it came from. Regards, MartinRe 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the external links, unless I'm mistaken, are sources demonstrating that the thing discussed in the article exists. That being the case, this seems like more of a formatting problem than anything else. Yaroslav should fix it. How do you justify using deletion as a remedy, though?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe correct expression should be "project of standardosation"? I am not sure what English word will be correct. In fact, Pomors have other project of standardization of Northern Russian, represented in Pomor site, very similiar to Siberian Language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused by Pavel's question. The intro to the article reads, "The Siberian language or Sibirskoj (сибирской говор) is standardised form of certain Northern Russian dialects. It was developed by the Volgota cultural group in 2005." What is the question, again?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the "Volgota cultural group" have formal or informal authority to standardize a language? That's the point. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer with a question: the Kurdish language is definitely real and natural. Does any group has any formal authority in Syria or Turkey to standartise it? No, because those countries see it as threatening separatism. Does it make the Kurdish language any less real? Now the proposed Siberian language is just as real - it is based on real dialects that were never before put to writing. Who gives anyone any authority to use any language? It's anyone's freedom to use any language he wants. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now the definition was changed to "constructed language", so question about authority has no meaning, conlang may be completely invented. Actually the opposite part tries to change discussion topic in all this AfD process. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it. No way. I see no reasons to delete it. -- 82.209.xx.xx 12:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shameless self-promotion. bogdan 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is not a language but a artificial slang developed in LiveJournal blog of Yaroslav Zolotarev, ukranian separatist. This article was deleted from here and from ruwiki as this is not correct to write about "3 millions of native speakers". That's no more that yet another flashmod. Please do not refer to Meta discussion: this is all lie (I don't know why there're 15 'against' votes while I've seen 34 - I failed to locate this edit). There they insist on existance of 8 native speakers, but that's fake too. Edward Chernenko 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edward, aren't you the same guy who promotes a plan for a "Padonki" Wikipedia? Padonki being, according to Wikipedia, "a subculture within the Russian-speaking Internet originating on Udaff, which is characterized by choosing alternative spellings for words for comic effect, as well as gratuitous use of profanity and a penchant for obscene subjects." It takes a lot of moxy to be for that but against this!—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was reduction ad absurdum only. I have no personal interest in this idea and I'm not a proposer. Edward Chernenko 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The words "ukranian separatist" well demonstrate how educated is their author. Ukrainians have no need in separatism, they for long times are independent state. And I am not Ukrainian, though I have many friends Ukrainians, who like Siberian language. And the rest of message is lie, very refutable (ложь, легко опровержимая). --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. per Edward Chernenko. Elk Salmon 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is as valid as High Icelandic and Anglish. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (i studied it a little). --Amir E. Aharoni 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity per bogdan. - FrancisTyers · 23:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't quite understand what's going on here. The Siberian language is an initiative on codification of certain Siberian talks (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about), undertaken by some organisation (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about). The article honestly states all this, and why should it be exactly deleted? Re-classified, possibly. Un-scholar, now? Let's see the scholar sources saying so. And there is such thing on en.wiki as an article about purely invented and quite possibly un-scholar Klingon_language. So? Yury Tarasievich 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it's about notability. There are only some blogs and forum threads, and promotion of SL in Wikipedia is a frequent subject of them. [5]. --Vladimir Volokhonsky 08:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST DELETE, this language is an original research "invented" by a small group of people supporting separatist movements in Siberia. Sources mr. Zolotaryov has provided do not prove his point of view. Also note the amount of meatpuppets. MaxSem 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "language" is a fake invented by Yaroslav Zolotaryov for his political intentions. It includes some real words from dialects of Russian used in Siberia, but most of its "dictionary" have no connection to Siberia, and even to Slavic languages. He lied several times that this language is natural, that there are millions of native speakers - no more trust for him, he is just a LIAR. MaxiMaxiMax 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And theese "some real words" are 13.000 in number. Please give one example of word "invented" by me. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people. The sources provided is not about subject of this article. --Vladimir Volokhonsky 07:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are they not about subject? Volgota and siberian language mentioned in them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This language is nothing but fake. They claim they have more than 10000 words in dictionary, but actually they only heaped up various words in haste, without verifing root congruence: for example, "terrorist" is "страхолюд": "страх" + "люд", but there is no such word as "страх" in this "language", but "траш" instead. --Boleslav1 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the official dictionary in the wiki and online dictionaries in Ukraine and Volgota. The word you cite is just the proof of non-artificial nature of the language - siberians have both roots, траш and страх, and they did not ask you from what root they must make the words))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Siberians" use normal russian language, nobody of sound mind would say "страхолюд" instead of "террорист". --Boleslav1 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those who came from European Russia during industrialiazation, people who destroyed our nature, who made collectivization and privatization, people who destroyed our language and our traditional culture, yes, they speak russian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous! My uncle come from forgotten village on Yenisei, he is siberian born and bred, his parents and ancestry lived there for a few centuries. Anyway, he speaks pure russian. Maybe you are talking about real natives - Chukchi, Evenk and others, but they have their own language. --Boleslav1 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
)))))) Very riduculous)))))) Centuries ago there was even NO RUSSIAN STANDARD, but dialects were very different, especcially different from Old Church Slavonic, in which modern standard is based. Give any refrences, but not false stories about your relatives))))))) You make me really laugh))))) What also you will say about your invented Enisey relatives?))) Maybe they invented Russian standard earlier than Lomonosov and Pushkin)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material per the first AFD and the susequent DRV. This is a constructed language of interest to a handful of people, who have apparently decided to use Wikipedia to promote their project.--Ezeu 09:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. Probably delete due to its non-notability outside Wikipedia. Keep If the article is kept, we should keep an eye on the article to avoid any possibility to turn it into a lying promotinal stuff of the invented language and the group behind it. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC), 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe dutch version of Jan may be taken as NPOV? He mentions POV of enemies of the language there, but he writes many about the language itself. Also, Jan is professional linguist and speaks about the thing professionaly. Maybe simply translate the Dutch version? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that easy, but translation of the Dutch version would be interesting anyway. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sinds het voor het eerst werd gepubliceerd, heeft het Siberisch enige bekendheid verworven. De meningen over de taal zijn verdeeld: Oekraïense en Wit-Russische nationalisten verwelkomen het project. Hetzelfde geldt ook voor vertegenwoordigers van nationale minderheden binnen Rusland. Russische nationalisten aan de andere kant zijn fel tegen het project gekant. Beide kanten zien het Siberisch als een typische uiting van regionalisme, of zelfs van separatisme. Hierdoor heeft het project een uitgesproken politiek karakter gekregen en is het moeilijk tot een objectieve beoordeling van de taal zelf te komen" He writes that political discussions about the project make the founding of objective view hard, but the other part of his articles describes language features in neutral way. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not dialect. It is colang that uses some dialect words. Dialect is someting people speak, not someting that only exist in LJKneiphof 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... that uses 13 000 dialect words)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleate. The majoraty of keep-voters thinks that if Siberian is not a language, it can still be seen as dialect. The truth is, that it is neither real language, neither it is a dialect. It is not real language because it is a colang, invented in 2005. It is not known outside LJ. The references above the discussion are not fake, but they are not about this constructed language, but about real dialects of Siberia. Those dialects are spoken in villages, but not widely. So-called siberian language uses some words from this dialects, but it is still a colang. Nobody speaks it. I think you should note that MaxiMaxiMax voted "deleate". He is native Siberian himself, and he lives in Tomsk, one of the oldest cities of Siberia. And if he says that nobody speaks "siberian", I would rather believe him. Kneiphof 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, I am also Siberian who live in Tomsk, many members of Volgota live in Tomsk and Irkutsk. So if you found some admin from ruwiki, who vote against siberian language, it is not proof to anything --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep refs at least show it got serious media coverage. Hmm... I gotta invent Uralic language or something... Grue  12:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grue, please look at these refs carefully. This Siberian language was invented in 2005, while the books wich are used as refs were published before. How can they be refs to the Siberian language if they are older than this language?!! These are the refs to the various siberian dialects. Kneiphof 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this dialects were codified in the language... --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant of course the refs at the end of the article, not those at the top of this AfD. I am an inclusionist and if this "language" is mentioned by different media outlets, I consider it to be notable.  Grue  17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May be it's still not a real language, but it is definitely a widespread phenomenon. So it should be saved in Wikipedia - possibly just being re-categorized as "artificial language". --Shao 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a widespread phenomenon. It's just an unpopular slang that used by several people over internet. They have own community when they inventing this new 'language'. All of them presented in this poll. They just trying to make own language, which is just slang, like F, Zh languages etc. Elk Salmon 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And all that you have said is lie without any veriable refrences --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha, not all of us presented in this poll. Soon will be actions in Tomsk, and you shal see all of us:-) Long live Siberia! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The deletetion is Russian Nazis' initiative. Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture.--Kojpiš Anton 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has no prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is from siberian incubator wiki. His edits: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Coipition%27Tong
Please withstand of russophobie here. Elk Salmon 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not russophobie, my belorussian friend speak about Russian Nayis who are against Siberian language, but not about russians in general --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't any russophobie. I estabilish a fact, that Russian Nazis against Siberians.--Kojpiš Anton 00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And 80% of opposition have come from ruwiki in last 24 hours) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ну дык! [6] --Yakudza 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate the link provided by Yakudza - "Let us reveal awarenes, and quickly" (reveal awareness - this is Bolshevik slang when they want to accuse somebody) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Вероятно, они просто хотят завалить голосование количеством высираемого бреда))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a problem with that? Do you normally discriminate people based on their origin? Are you a fascist?? Do your psycho childonian friends once again wish to "drown Muscovites in ther own blood"???? Guinness man 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, this is politically motivated russian flashmob, and all)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No Zolotaryovian! The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics remotely based on some very old obsolete Russian dialects. This crap does not represent neither Siberia nor Novgorod nor whatever else wild shit they claim to represent. This is not a zilch more credible than Padonki. No Padonki means no Zolotaryovian. Guinness man 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE: I wonder how this subject is again on discussion, probably people who allow it didn’t even devote a day to researching this language. Its an invented language by a couple of russophobs (or even only one). The "siberian language" is a fantasy which is only based on different dialects all over Siberia (just look at area of it and imagine how many EU countries fit in it).i underline the word DIFFERENT as sometimes met in one village is not met in another (due to very local dialect) Sometimes its not even a dialects it’s a word or phrases used in a single village for a generation or two and noticed nowhere exept that place (its like a “local slang” if we say it modern in words. But Zolotorev makes it a point even if it was used only on 0,1% of Siberian territory and only by around hundred of people living in a village (I probably will insult Zolotarev saying that every yard has its own slang but whatever). Also many of this language is based on phrases of uneducated population and what is presented by Zolotarev as a grammar or phrase building structure due to cutting endings or putting them in to the wrong plague. The bases of all this Zolotorev’s insanity is an old russian (which is no longer used and which was used ALL OVER RUSSIA and not only in Siveria), and when this platform is not enough - mr. Zolotarev takes an Ukrainian language and invents smth from this. As a greatest development of fantasy mr Zolotorev even was thinking of giving Siberean an arabian writing, but I think now he had to give it up coz its “too much”. Also some sources given here by zolotorev are not standing on his point of view or even sometimes made with his cooperation (web sources). I ask mr.Zolotarev not to comment my message (he wont get an answer anyway) because i'm sick enough of his lifejournal messages asking to vote for keeping his language fantasy in wikipedia and I will not devote my time for discussing his fantasies. 213.171.61.131 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Jaroslav S.[reply]
And we have test wiki of 1500 articles, and 10 writers write there in this "invented Old Russian" Siberian wikipedia now is the best wiki in incubator --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vreemd, jij bent de enige waarvan ik tekst in hoofdletters zie. (of adden 'k ik dit int West-Vlams moetn srievn?)--Pan Gerwazy 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of Yaroslav Zolotaryov's sources (http://lab.org.ua/article/727/) has the protagonist of the language Dmitry Werkhoturov say "Может быть, к концу своей жизни я и услышу живой сибирский язык." Perhaps, at the end of my life I will even be able to hear living Siberian language. (Yes, "will be able" because he uses the perfective verb) This is what this is about. Irpen is right, this should be Siberian dialect or plain Siberian. It is not a language.--Pan Gerwazy 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just renamed the article into "Siberian language project", hopefully it's not a violation of any policy. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy (as far as I know) against renaming articles mid-AfD. In any case, my rationale to delete the article still stands. The project is non-notable. --Ezeu 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason looks quite sensible. I changed my vote from "keep" to "not sure". Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a sufficiently notable conlang in that it has generated substantial press attention. All of you Russian/Siberian fellows, could you please discuss the merits of this conlang on the article talk page and not here? Sandstein 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I'm sure it's really free encyclopedia, so i think we need to find the motivation of both sides in this qeustion. The motivation of delete'rs is not very clear, but the motivation of keep'rs is just to respect own native language. Remember - nation is alive until language is alive. We have no any rights to kill this language, anyone of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluz (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete This is not real language, it was compilated from most "non-russian pronounced" dialectic words of different Russian regions. Nobody said this langauge using currently codified combination of words. Every russian may understand most of talks of regions - but Siberian is strongly understandable by many native Russian from cities and from far regions.--ShurShur, from ruwiki 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified and, as such, fails WP:V and is not suitable for the English Wikipedia. BlueValour 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said earlier: Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily be in English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion about High Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I do not know, if the majority of votes is rellevant in this discussion. You can see - almost every Russian votes "delete", every ukrainian and belorussian "keep". Everybody knows, that amount of Russians is greater, than amount of ukrainians and belorussians. But is this vote about amount of Russians in wikipedia or about the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support pbato I have to say my full support to STRONG COMMENT published by Iron Jan. This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it.
  • STRONG KEEP . Just the existance of such phrase in several sources prompts for an article that would define them, explain, describe. This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too. It is disputable, of course, how to define and describe the phenomena, but we can not deny the existance for it. Only this extensieve discussion is already a proof. If there is such a strong opposition to something - it can not be caused by meaningless stuff. And I guess why some people here oppose... but Russia is changing too. Whether they want it or not. And the best way to deal with it - to get involved into this change, my friends...--Bryndza 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edward Chernenko. --Nikolay Kolpakov 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinRe and Angr. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A set of words is not a language. --CodeMonk 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Siberian is set of texts but not set of words 2) this argument is irrelevant to discussion. When russians will cease talk here about politics, about their relatives from Siberian vilages, etc? The voting is about notability of conlang. All the proofs about it's notablity are given. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a set of words. It's also a complete grammar with roots in actual spoken dialects and a bunch of text, translated and even a few original ones. In its current state the grammar is incomplete and somewhat haphazard, but its ideas has undeniable scientific roots. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current edition was filled with politics by russian "editors". I strongly propose restore Nat Krause's version, which was politically neutral, and linguistically more interesting, than to read all this accusations. Is it interesting for english-speaking reader to see all this shit about "anti-russian" language in the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yaroslav, this your claim is just another quite fine illustration of your deeds. Nat Krause's descriptions were not changed (except at the single insignificant place). Only your deceitful promo texts were corrected. Despite you didn't write that exactly that those "russian editors" were changing Nat Krause's text, you wrote is a way that one would think so. It's so of you... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean just this phrase "Unfortunately, ...", etc. This is your POV, it is related with politics, and you want to include it into linguistic article. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this interesting linguistic approach is significantly corrupted by the "anti-Moscovite" agenda and ties with proclamation of "Siberian independence". This is clearly expressed your political Volgota-phobic POV. What does it do in the linguistic article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is quite resonable to have links to generally unknown project from Wikipedia: it helps to the Page Rank a lot. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volgota has rather big Page Rank and you can see this in propriate places, Best way for reader to get acquainted with the language more is to jump to it's main site; however, I do not insist that link to Volgota site should be included in the article. Let your greed be your own sin) I am discussing only the political shit in mouthes of russian "voters" who do not know what are they speaking about, but have come here to save Mother Russia, and those accusations in the article, which you so strongly want to include --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Slav, and your "Siberian" language is quite comprehensible to me. Aren't these and these YOUR own words on the main page of your project at Incubator?! (Translation: "July 17 - Independence Day. July 17, 1918 The Siberian State passed Declaration of Siberian Sovereignity. ... Hail Siberia!") Is this about linguistics?! Whom are you trying to cheat?! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is russian paranoia at play))) What relation has word "Long live Siberia!" in siberian wikipedia to the description of the conlang? I did not write anything about politics in the article, but russians did. So all this political aspect here is only your guilt. Please acknowledge, that all your speeches here is lie, and you have only one motivation, only one goal - you fear Siberians, you fear Free Siberia. So you want to bring your politics, your fear even to this non-political article. My friend Xcobo, he is Lojban lover, said in his LJ about all this "discussion" - "if this is simple non-notable conlang, even simple conlang like Lojban and Esperanto, so why had they come with so big accusations in big amount? They simply feel the strange power of this Language and they fear it". Such were words of non-wikipedic and non-Siberian person about all this meeting, which was prepared by ruwiki in best traditions of Stalin's "judgements". Go back to your Russia, bring your hands back from Siberian Language! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you have many articles in ruwiki, glorifying Russia, and I do not come to the article "Russian language", and do not write in it - Unfortunately, Russian language was language of cursed Empire, tool for killing dissidents and opressing nations, but you shamelessly did this in article about Siberian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about linguistics. The work on the language is linguistic work and not just a bunch of words with funny spelling. If you think that this is also a political issue, then you just can't get a joke.
Someone said that "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" (maybe it was Uriel Weinreich, but i am not sure.) I don't think that Mr. Zolotaryov has an army and a navy to fight for Siberian independence, so don't you worry about his little jokes about it. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that is not a joke. Further readings (about army, by the way :-) ): These are Yaroslav Zolotaryov's words too (at the main page of Siberian Wikipedia Incubator): "January 29 - Day of Siberian Army. On January 29, 1918 squads of the Free Siberian Army began to be formed. Let's make 10 000 articles in Siberian Wikipedia before the Day of Siberian Armed Forces! Hail Siberia!" Ok. And the fact that "Volgota" means "Liberty" is just another so-called "linguistic joke". And after that you dare to say that Yaroslav doesn't have any political agenda! :-/. If his project was a pure linguistic one, it wouldn't meet such a strong opposition. I suppose it's quite wrong to allow him to hide his political agenda by "linguistics". There's no strong opposition against Zaliznyak's Old Novgorodian Language. Guess, why. :-/ Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is not about political aspects, even if they would be. So you want to bring politics in non-political affairs, and write your political POV in the linguistic article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your Siberian language project is just a mean of your political movement, and therefore it can't be kept alone. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you own recognize, that fearing political aspects of the language, you had come here to lie about it, and all your russian votes is in fact against Siberian independece, but not against the article. But Siberian independence is not discussed in original article, that were you who began discuss it there and in this discussion. There was nothing about politics in Nat's variant, so please restore NPOV version. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way. I think, there's no chance that the discussed article will be turn into the promo-page of your non-notable (outside Wikipedia) conlang. As for me, prove that even single my word is wrong, before saying that I'm lying. :-/ Anyway, the judge is the community. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you think it should be turned into promo page of Russian imperialism:-) I have proved everything, and I have answered to everything, even to the political accusations, though they are completely irrelevant. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. As I said above, the judge is the community. And despite your activity may hide the reality for a short, eventually the truth will come to the light. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this truth was already revealed by neutral particpants like Jan, Amir, etc. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. notability/verifiability problem. A linguistics-related article cannot be based solely on publications in second-rate newspapers and websites (and author's site). This is not a "Hurricane Catrina" news stuff. This is science, which should be verified by experts in the area, not by paparazzi and bloggers. Mukadderat 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What should verify this science? Notability of conlang? It is notable, which is verified by this newspaper publications --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... And was not deleted in 6 wikipedias, 4 official, 2 incubator wikipedias ... --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about "non-notable conlang". This is song in Siberian Standard, translation of "We shall overcome" http://volgota.com/muzika/overcomesib.mp3 Our friends from Sweden have recorded it. After a week will be Volgota Congress in Tomsk, so we shall have more links to newspapers, and maybe some scientific publications. Some people from other Siberian cities and from siberian emigration to EU already have plane tickets. This is objective process of demorcatization in Russia, of democratization in language too. And band of conservators can not stop it by lie and by nationalistic flashmobes. Your time is passed, and our time is coming. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, once more: Different dialects in Siberia DO definitely exist. But your Siberian language IS definitely a conlang. It is incorrect to use references to works on Siberian dialects as if they were on your Siberian conlang. It seems to be clear enough... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite correct, language Standard is based on them and every Northern dialect speaker can recognize the words. Just your opression makes the language movement more political - you opress by unknown reasons, so members of the movement became more angry. You can see in Wiki just top leaders of linguistic department, but in reality this is wide international movement, so all your efforts is in vain. Will the article be in wikipedia, or will not be, will be siberian wiki or will not be, this is objective process, it will develop anyway. One of my ukrainian friends tried to explain this to you already. After a week it will be liturgy in Siberian language in Tomsk, we have priests, and we have intention to make the language sacral --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All your base are belong to us", er? :-) Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of the new projects (and neither for fighting the project too). Wikipedia should just contain correct verifiable information. As and if the project is notable enough, it will be included into the Wikipedia for sure. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not promote it in fact the other side tries to kill article about language widely disputed everwhere, and you do this by evident dirty tricks like changung the topic of discussion to politics or to discussing Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't try to promote the project, please keep silence and don't touch the article. If the project is really notable, the article will live without your intervention. If your target is not to promote the project, just don't promote, and let the community decide what to do; it's that easy! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only answer to you silly questions. All the promotion is done by hordes from ruwiki, which were invited from Community Portal of ruwiki, and cry all kinds of nonsense here. Please cease lie and cease change topic of the article, and I shall cease to answer you, this is very simple. You just want to include the politics in the article in order that the article will look like article promoting political movement when this is only article about language standardization project --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article about politic project should reveal it, not hide. Period. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you 1) change the topic of the article to promotion 2) appeal to delete it as promo-article. This is your tactics --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this "All your base are belong to us" is just about you. Discussion proves that you only repeat some words like spell, but you even do not know their meaning, words like "conlang, dialect, language standard" etc. Every linguist involved in the discussion tried to explain their meaning for you, but you simply repeat them again and again, hoping that "judge is community", as you have said. Actually you want only force the community to delete article, repeating the same flood in the discussion. You wait that people will get tired of this and they will close the discussion. This funny tactics can only damage ruwiki reputaion in russian net-community, and in other discussions, not about siberian, already damaged it. You can read a lot of critics about wikipedia in russian LJ just because you did this thing in similiar way in other discussions. Maybe it is time to stop it? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite wrong thinking that I know few about conlangs and Russian dialects. You say "every linguist"? Ok, every linguist sees differences in scientific approaches (that you claim to be useless, putting a huge resources in Tomsk State University (one that you attended) to null) and those you use. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not see this russian liguists, who are against me, here, only some western linguists trying explain something to you, and angry guy DrBug, who do not want to cease write offtopic and very-very want to fill linguistic article with political accusations --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please give one example of "invented" word, please give it)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just another illustration of your manners. Conlang is not necessary consist of words that nobody has ever used. And I've already pointed that. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is another illustration of your hypocrisy. Language is based in dialects - this is real thesis which you can not disprove. Being not able to disprove you simply repeat some slogans for a week, and this tactics is stupid and evident --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the hypocrisy? In a statement that "Siberian language" is invented by you? that the fact it uses some natural words doesn't turn it into a natural language? Hm. If this is hypocrisy, the Earth is flat. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the words it used is natural, and you continuosly try to change disscussion topic only for prohibit the article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your group even filled Meta with totally stupid promotion to open wiki in Padonki slang - such was you fear of Siberian Language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My group?! Sorry, I don't have any group. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You supported them. Please cease attempts to change discussion topic --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's you who should cease arrogating crimes to me. The discussion became boring, anyway. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let us stop the discussion, it is irrelevant to the topic and it goes to nowhere, only to increasing of hate between us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happy to stop the discussion per se. But as a person who knows something about a topic, I have to point your incorrect statements to persons who know less on it. As soon as you stop writing incorrect statements, I'll stop commenting here. Here's an incomplete list of facts that you try to conceal:
  1. The Siberian language project is your (together with few dozens of active supporters, most or all of whom are not linguists) project to construct a language (conlang) based on real Russian dialects spoken in different places of Siberia (by Chaldons and others).
  2. You (and your group) are "Siberian" nationalist(s) (some are anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists), and the Siberian language project is a part of your efforts to create preconditions for separating Siberia from Russia (leaving it our of control of government of Russian Federation).
  3. The Siberian language project is considered non-scientific by many linguists.
  4. The Siberian language project is young, and created in 2005 only. References to publications before this date can't be used as sign of notability of the project.

It's that easy! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you may repeat all this fantasies 10 000 times, they will not become true, but shameless lie. Why do you repeat them more and more? You are not sure in them yourself perhaps? All this is lie, and I have already answered to this. So you believe that constantly repeated lie became truth? I do not believe so. Please stop speak nonsense irrelevant to discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the last sentence is top of russian argumentation here))))))))))) How can we use refrences to publications about the project before date when project starts))))))))))) We only use refrences about dialect on which it is based of course))))))))))))) You do flood only for admins that they stop the discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the very beginning of this discussion. Where Alex writes that 'There is no published books on this "language"' (clearly about your Siberian language project), and you response that "This is lie." and cite a number of books about Russian dialects, not your Siberian language project. This your normal way of discussions. Ok, I'm sure that others are able to read and to find your misinformation. I don't think it's reasonable to argue with you directly. But if any really neutral mediator is interested in finding the truth between us, welcome! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any definitely neutral user will ask me, I will provide citations for all the statements above. You wrote too much in internet, Yaroslav, so it's too late to try to hide. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this in talk page of the article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very interesting for me to discuss every sentence of proposed article, this is my project, but not in this place, because you do not discuss the notability, but content --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who started to talk about changes in the article's content. But ok, it doesn't matter. To make the discussion clear, could you please sum up below all the statements that you consider to be illustrations of the notability of the project? Please don't put here references to books published before you started you work on this project or other weakly related stuff. Please put here only facts directly related to the project, such as a number of people directly involved in creation of the language descriptions (core team), which conferences were held and when and number of their attendees, and so on. Also you may wish to expose your and your team credentials to the public. It may help to the community to make a right decision. Despite I'm sure in all these things that I wrote above, I'm quite interested in establishing as more correct facts about the project that may help to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the refrences about project itself were given in the article. Some of them were removed by the oppisite part. I can discuss about those removed refrences for example and prove that they hav relation to the project. But according to wikimedia polices, if something was mentioned in the press, the article sholud be. But you only speak about politics, about dialects etc, when your friends try to take refrences from the article, that's all. All your speeches in this place are only demagogia with one goal - change the topic of the discussion when the answer is clear: the project is mentioned in press and the article should be in wiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yaroslav, I'm talking about notability (as per your own request). So don't run away! Please put here precise list of clear and strong statements illustrating notability of your project. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT policy only prohibits OR and unverifiable info, but we provide about 9 links not from my blog and not from my site, and not from any other blogs. Your friend deleted 3 of them, but 6 of them even your politically motivated friends can not delete. So if it was mentioned in press (and will be mentioned more in the next month), it is notable --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So will you anytime discuss this refrences, but not to talk here about your politics and about your opinion on the language? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yaroslav, first: they are not my friends. By the way, I would mention, that originally my vote was "keep", and only after discussion here I changed it to "not sure".
Now, please confirm that you mean the following links (then I will disclose their content to the public, and the community will then decide whether or not they indicate the notability):

Three screefuls article is devoted to idea of decentralistion of Russia and turning it into a weak union of independet regions. The only mention of Siberian laguage project is following: "Так что сегодняшние «виртуальные» эксперименты по реконструкции, к примеру, сибирского языка можно только приветствовать." ("So current "vitrual" experiments to reconstruct a Siberian language may be only saluted."; "Siberian language" links to Volgota site.) It can't be considered as a coverage of the project in a press.
An article about Volgota project and Zolotaryov. Siberian language project is mentioneed as a part of the movement. As for the "Dialog.KZ" site, it is on-line-only resource, and I'm not sure that it should be considered as a public mass media.

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is our links, Volgota, or language mentioned in this articles--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered my close of this AFD, and have relisted it for further discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I'm a fan of conlanging, but this strikes me more as an attempt to promote a private project than as a writeup of a notable conlang. POV and weasel words just add to the problem. Ergative rlt 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perplexed Question - I've read this AfD discussion twice, and I still don't know what the hell is going on. here is the russian wikipedia article; I have no idea what that says, but it's pretty obvious that the article is in trouble on that wiki. A bigger issue is, what should be the normal procedure when clearly the majority of the productive writing is going to take place in the Russian wiki? Isn't it most reasonable (at least for this article) for the EN wiki to just follow their lead? My Alt Account 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no - that would be like using the Persian wiki as a reference for information about Israel. Most Russians really hate it when someone gets funny ideas about their language and will dismiss them on sight. --Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I've no doubt that many Russians are very nationalistic, and some of these let it get in the way of logic. But the plain fact is there are obviously hardly any non-Russian, native English speakers who can even evaluate the sources on this article. It seems like a waste of time for us to even debate it. Either way, we are relying on the explanations of fellow wikipedians who can read the sources. My Alt Account 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try to help as much as i can. My native language is Russian, but i live in Israel and i am very far from being a Russian nationalist. I support Siberian language out of linguistic curiosity (linguistics is my major) and the political cause of Volgota is of little interest to me. As i mentioned earlier in the discussion, this is a conlang developed by a small group, but it is rather more than Esperanto or Slovio - this actually aims at becoming spoken as a revived natural language. Thus i find it linguistically valid, albeit rather haphazard at the time. Think of it as a language developed by a wikimob instead of a commitee. The times they are a-changing. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. DS 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Alice Williams

[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 02:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think being famous at one time makes her encyclopedia material now. I can almost cetainly find a score of Wikipedia articles on people who aren't as famous as they once were.♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just not part of WP:NOT or WP:BIO. The policies and guidelines exist to make for a level playing-field for all, not just the articles you happen to like. The fact other articles are worse isn't a precedent, since we judge each one on its own merits. Put them up for afd, if you would. Tychocat 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, actually. I don't think she's interesting, or important, as I said, but few enough people are on CNN -- on salary, at least -- that I think it's notable. I'd say all BBC and ABC and whatever the South African version is presenters are notable too, so it's not just a country bias. I believe there's a line on WP:BIO to the effect of "this is not intended to be an exclusionary list."♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going from "weak keep" to "keep" because previewing showed me there is an article on Gabe Pressman. Let's say, we don't need an article on my father.♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - As I said, put it up for afd then. Tychocat 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dad occasionally mentions the idea of writing his memoirs. If they're published, but by iUniverse, I might be willing to AFD my own father. As for Pressman, however, I'm going to err on the side of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water expander

[edit]

Unverifiable, one Google hit for "'water expander' trick". Borderline nonsense. Deprodded by original contributor. Accurizer 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Speedway

[edit]

Prod removed without explanation for duo of doubtful notability. Daniel Case 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC2445 Syntax Reference

[edit]
  • Content is not encyclopedic. This reads like a technical reference, not an encyclopedia article. If anything, information like this belongs in a WikiBook, not on Wikipedia.
  • Most content is plagiarized from RFC2445 itself. The page acknowledges that the content has been "directly quoted, extracted and/or reformatted" from the RFC, but this citation does not change the fact that such inclusion is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

—Adam Atlas 02:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Per the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, the exceedingly weak deletion arguments and the strong support for keeping the article. Editors wishing to merge this to Hold On (Tim Armstrong song) should discuss this on the talk page. A merge may be a good idea for now, depending on the timescale of release. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Poet's Life

[edit]

Album by someone from a notable band, but distributed only over Myspace. Dubious A7 candidate, so I decided to bring it here. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete fails WP:Music article was previously nom'ed for speedy, and deleted as non notable. Article is now reposted, and probably should have been speedy delete as reposted material. Article is blatant spam.TheRingess 06:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that speedy criteria only applies if the article went through a full AFD. If the article was deletion by speedy deletion or by proposed deletion it cannot be deleted as reposted material. In the future it would be better to tag it for the reason the article was speedied in the first place because that would have a betetr chance of success. --My old username 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I really don't understand how this article is blatant spam, other than the fact that it's about something one could conceivably purchase. Which would make an untold number of articles on albums, cars, hamburgers, etc. spam as well. Dina 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't understand how this fails WP:Music; please explain. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 06:45, 30 August 2006
  • I was the one who speedied this first, but the claim to A7 is not strong on second look. It's an album article, not mainly on the musician or group. The musician was (is?) from a notable band. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Article adheres to notability outlines and in no way fails WP:Music. The repost was an accedent on my part and I take full respocibility. Tim Armstrong is a notable, and arguabley the most influencial musician in modern punk rock history. Although, the album is a virtual record, it is a record none the less. The album has a predetermined number of tracks, and possibly a predetermined order, which is as of yet unknown. This article's story, and the album is still unfolding, and it remains to be seen if the album will only be available online. Worthlessboy1420 (Article creator) 02:45, 30 August 2006
  • Strong Keep for starters, the album will NOT be distributed only through MySpace, that's just where the information came from. Epitaph Records' website has an entry for the album, and you can download a song there. Joltman 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Separate album (assuming it is new/different material, not just a re-release) by a notable artist. Weak keep due to freeness and lack of secondary sources at the moment. Wickethewok 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please don't have this deleted. It's still an album being distributed by epitaph.com, not just through Myspace. This article is good and so is the first song off the album. Keep it.
  • Strong Keep -- Tim Armstrong and the bands he's been in Operation Ivy (band) Rancid Transplants and Dance Hall Crashers are all quite famous in the ska/punk scene. Op Ivy gets 965,000 Ghits and if you check [here] you'll see that information about this band is linked to from several articles about this period and its music. I may be showing my age here, but seriously -- Op Ivy and Rancid were huge in the late 80's early 90's alternative music scene. And, as others have stated, the "distributed over Myspace" in the nom was based on a misread. I think a new solo album by a member of several notable bands is in no danger of violating of WP:MUSIC. Dina 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or failing that merge. I think we can all agree that Tim Armstrong is notable, and bear in mind the following from WP:MUSIC: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." -Elmer Clark 04:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based solely on the notability of the performer if nothing else. A lot of artists are self-releasing music or doing so in "non-traditional" forms. Just because it's being issued solely through MySpace, or a personal website, or iTunes can no longer be used as criteria for disqualifying such releases, I'm afraid. It's 2006. 23skidoo 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reopened this debate because it did not meet the speedy keep criteria (still one delete vote). Kusma (討論) 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, album does not exist yet, WP:NOT a crystal ball. If you want, merge to the only song on the album that exists so far, and make a full article later. Kusma (討論) 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kusma. Merging to the song article works for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He's notable, album seems to be new songs coming out by the month, I don't think WP:NOT:crystal ball applies. --kingboyk 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the album itself isnt notable, even though the artist is. HawkerTyphoon 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be better (e.g. sourced), but albums from notable artists are generally notable, and I do not want to delete simply because the album is being distributed through non-customary channels.-- danntm T C 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albums by Tim Armstrong are always noteworthy, not a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Tim Armstrong doing something off the wall again, what a surprise. He's never gotten scads of mainstream media coverage, but it would be nice to get some references outside Epitaph. Shell babelfish 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Speedy Keep as per all other keep votes. Cjmarsicano 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. I don't like "Sweetest Day" either, though. DS 02:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day

[edit]

Was prodded and removed. Possible hoax, seemingly not notable, is this something enyclopedic? Looks more like a back-door advertising gimmick Avi 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A google seach returns over a half million results. Many of these are reliable, albeit dedicated solely to romantic topics. I once sent a Sweetest Day card. It's a "Hallmark holiday" but in midwestern states it does bring in a lot of revenue in for flower, candy and card shops. I'd say that makes it notable, if only for the economic benefits for certain industries. It may also be notable for the controversy surrounding it. I wouldn't oppose a merge into Hallmark holiday. Srose (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of sources on this, it's apparently a minor holiday being pushed by various greeting card and candy companies. --Xyzzyplugh 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the hoax tag to the article because the Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a hoax in my opinion. Primary source information from The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper published October 8th, 1921 and October 8th, 1922 shows a very different beginning to the holiday. Here is a more factual account of how Sweetest Day began: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetest_Day&oldid=71758612 . (I realize that this version needs further editing/removal of caps/formatting) I do not believe the category of Sweetest Day should be deleted; it should just be reported for what it is: an 85-year-old hoax. Miracleimpulse 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure I agree with your hoax tag. There is a difference between "hoax" and "popular mythology". The popular mythology of the day is that Kingston created it as day to honor orphans and shut-ins... and that version of events has been widely reported. This should be in the article (see WP:V verifiability not truth). If there is an alternate version of events that can be sourced (i.e. the Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper article, this could be included as well as an alternate, sourced, version of events. The article space is big enough for both versions without making any judgements as to which is true.--Isotope23 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:V and yes... this is real. It's a "second Valentine's Day in the fall" celebrated in 4 midwestern states, and it is fairly prevalent there (as are the allegations that this is a "Hallmark Holiday"). Midwesterners are strange folk.--Isotope23 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being from Illinois, I can tell you that Sweetest Day was never heard of before about 1989 when Hallmark began marketing Sweetest Day cards here. Miracleimpulse 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweetest Day is documented in Maud Lavin, ed. (2004-10-04). The Business of Holidays. Monacelli. ISBN 1580931502., in Scott C. Martin (1997). "Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays". Journal of Social History. 31. (which describes it as "a ploy by the confection industry" as a reincarnation of Candy Day), and in Bennett Madison and James Dignan (2002-12-28). I Hate Valentine's Day. Simon Spotlight Entertainment. ISBN 0689873727. (which says that "Luckily, Sweetest Day has failed to attain the global stranglehold of the abhorrent Valentine's Day."). The main problem with this page is an accuracy dispute. Deletion is not the means for solving that. Keep. Uncle G 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a (semi) real holiday, albeit only in the Midwest. There are usually displays in Hallmark stores and radio ads for a week or two before Sweetest Day. This is where I first heard of it. --Transfinite 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having the article (esp. as it stands now) is not advertising for the candy and card industries. NawlinWiki 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've lived in 3 of the 4 states listed in the article, and I can attest to the fact that this is a real phenomenon (I hesitate to call it a "holiday," as it is a sick invention of the flower, candy and card industries--then again so are much of the practicies in the modern versions of Halloween, Valentine's Day and Christmas). It's a real fake holiday, so to speak. Rohirok 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an advertising gimmick, but then so are all the other Hallmark holidays that have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I live in Wisconsin, and i have accually celebrated this day. It is an emerging holiday here in the mid-wast, that seems to be getting more and more popular by the year. I've even seen the Holiday mentioned on calenders distributed widely through the US. The accuracy of this article, however, is debatable.
  • Keep I work at the Vermont Teddy Bear Company for a couple of holidays a year. Sweetest Day, while not their largest holiday, is at least big enough to hire on extra part time help to the tune of about 50-100 extra bodies. So it's known and has effects far outside just Wisconsin. Dismas|(talk) 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a nauseatingly successful Hallmark holiday here in the Midwest, and eminently verifiable. --dtony 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, it's a holiday is it? Is it religious? Nope. Is it official? Nope. Is it notable apart from that among a wide swatch of the population (Hallowe'en, Valentine's)???? Nope. NN.-Kmaguir1 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is demonstrably notable because it has been noted, by people independent of its creators (whomever one asserts them to be): 2 books and a journal article. See above. Uncle G 08:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, show me some wiki guidelines on holidays which say that a non-religious, non-official, non-notable holiday, and I mean this strictly--not just what has been mentioned--should be included. I wouldn't even have problems including fictional holidays, like "Festivus", from Seinfeld which I'm sure is on wikipedia, because that's notable, but its notability stems from the fact it was on Seinfeld, not from the fact it's a real holiday. I take the position that holidays, real holidays, not just those invented, as this one is, by corporations and without involvement from the people, at a religious or state level, must include celebration or commemoration--I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. If it were fictional, it'd be notable as a joke. But as real, it's about as notable as "Win a Hawaiian getaway week". A few pop culture references do not a holiday make--they may make something else. But as long as it's an entry whose purpose is presenting a holiday, delete. If they want to call it other than a holiday, they can add it back.-Kmaguir1 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Official?? Is there a governing body that I'm not aware of that presides over holidays? Dismas|(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take the position that holidays [...] must include celebration or commemoration — I'm not sure how people celebrate or commemorate this. — Then please read the article. It actually tells you how this holiday is celebrated or commemorated.

          A few pop culture references [...] — There are no pop culture references in the article.

          real holidays, not just those invented — Most of the holidays that you categorize as "real" were in fact invented. Many religious holidays, which you accept, were invented, for examples. They were just invented longer ago than 1921. All secular holidays, such as Arbor Day and Labor Day, are invented. Your espoused criterion that holidays must be "real" and not "invented" is an entirely faulty one. Your actual criterion appears to be who the inventor of the holiday is. You're happy to accept holidays invented by churches, legislatures, unions, and television programme scriptwriters, but not holidays invented by greetings cards and gift companies. That's a highly subjective judgement, and not a particularly consistent one (given the inclusions of scriptwriters and unions). Notability is not subjective. It is a failure of our duty as encyclopaedists to exclude things from Wikipedia that we personally don't like, or think shouldn't exist. As encyclopaedists, we should be looking at what the sources say. The sources discuss this holiday. Uncle G 10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable and verified. Batmanand | Talk 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holiday is celebrated in Ohio. My parents say it was created by Hallmark to sell more cards. IS verifiable holiday.Trevor 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It isn't really "notable" or important, and I understand why many would just as soon not give it more publicity. Still, it exists as fakelore and a marketing phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed in Chase's Calendar of Events, a standard reference work on holidays and observances. Gamaliel 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It exists and is advertised plenty, I always hear about it that time of year. Nate 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Ermengarde

[edit]

Does not assert notability or discuss the plot. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been expanded a bit--I don't think that it can be expanded a heck of a lot more, so people can judge pretty well whether it's a notable-enough subject for an article. I guess, having put a little work into it, I would change my vote to Keep. Nareek 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Promotion Christian Mission

[edit]

Nothing notable about this organization Nv8200p talk 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of common phrases in various languages

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals, nor user and travel guides. The article states "This list is intended to serve as a comprehensive basic introduction to those languages", indicating that it is contrary to such policies. The information in this article can be added to and looked up by phrase at Wiktionary and by language at Wikitravel (I know we can’t transwiki to wikitravel, but some of the information is already there). Another possibility is Wikibooks. As it stands, there are no cited sources, making this page a mix of unverified material and/or original research. In addition, the scope of the article is so large as to be virtually indiscriminate. The article is nearly 160kb long and there is nothing about its scope that would limit it from growing. There is the possibility of splitting the article into subpages, but the above concerns overshadow such a solution. AEuSoes1 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with some reluctance. Clearly a lot of work has been put into this, but I agree that it is in no way within the scope of Wikipedia. This is probably all already available on Wiktionary, but if not transwikiing would definitely be a good course of action. -Elmer Clark 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is this really the second nomination? I can't find the first - it's not linked from the article's talk page, and it's not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common phrases in various languages. I'd be interested to see under what justifications it survived an AfD in the past. -Elmer Clark 04:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't even notice that. Apparantly the article was called Common phrases in various languages at the last nomination. AEuSoes1 05:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, the only argument for keeping offered other than "gee it's already so long, it sure would be a shame..." or "I think it's neat" is that is has some value in the study of linguistics, which I consider a dubious claim at best, and I think it was well responded to. People need to realize that Wikipedia is not a repository for "interesting stuff" - how interesting something is is definitely not a criterion for inclusion. Sticking with my delete vote on this one. -Elmer Clark 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It really would be a shame to delete such a useful guide. Think of how much money it would cost someone to get this information in a reliable manner without this wikipedia article? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Transwikiing to Wikibooks or Wiktionary (or transferring to Wikitravel) would be feasible only if the information were verifiable. As it is, I've found some mistakes in languages I know, so who knows what other mistakes there might be? Better not to propagate misinformation. —The preceding signed comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know this is on Wiktionary already, because some of my edits from the Spanish part of the page are there. Danny Lilithborne 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's supi-dupi — Jared Preston 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm new to Wikipedia, and not sure I understand all nuances; but similar sort of material might have been found in an old-fashion 'dead tree' encyclopaedia. The old encyclopedists were not against including articles you could learn from; and I think the phrases main function is to illustrate language similarities and differences. JoergenB 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion to group members of particular language families together in tables (thereby showing the similarities with greater ease) was made in October 2005 but no one was willing to make the appropriate changes. Showing phonological similarities between languages is best done with individual words and showing syntactic or morphological similarities is best with phrases that aren't necessarily "common." The scope of hypothetical nameless "old-fashioned" encyclopaedias is not really relevant unless one wishes to change Wikipedia's consensus-forged policies.AEuSoes1 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that organising by 'language groups' is superior for displaying the similarities and differences. (There is some controversy about grouping, and indeed about the whole classical tree model for language relations; but (naively??) I don't expect much controversy in this case.) I am quite willing to undertake a reorganisation along these lines myself. However, I fear I do not understand all of your policies (even if I've read some recommended guidelines and have browsed some talk sides and histories, trying to understand 'what really goes on'). Is it OK and normal to do a drastic re-organisation of a page, while a discussion on its deletion goes on? Will this influence the voting process in some way? I'm not so happy about the idea of doing the work to-day and finding out that it's all been deleted to-morrow, without letting people viewing the result and possibly reconsidering their votes.
I also would like to know if there is some simple way to make a manual index of a page (apart from the automatic one). If I reorganise by language branch, I think it would be useful to complement this with an alphabetic index. JoergenB 12:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you wait until the discussion is closed. If it's deleted then create something like comparitive syntax of language family members or something like that. AEuSoes1 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or one could add this kind information to any of the articles on language families. That's where I would look for this kind of information.
Peter Isotalo 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enforcement", in a word, is what's gone wonky with AfD these days. It seems that at least some editors are prepared to discount "keeps" because they are not stated in terms of rules lawyering. Observing that a page is useful and informative, or that it has been here from very early in the project and has thousands of edits from many different hands, is for some reason not good enough. If the "rules" lead to this page being deleted, there's something wrong with the rules. - Smerdis of Tlön 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion in Wikipedia is not per se a mark of quality (or most fancruft would've been deleted and hopefully forgotten by now) and neither is it an insult to the contributors that the content they have amassed over the years is moved where it actually belongs. All wikiprojects have their own role as reliable sources of information, and I think you should reconsider your view of them as mere scrapyards where content not accepted in Wikipedia is sent to wither and die of neglect. / Peter Isotalo 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said anything of the kind about the other Wikiprojects. What I strongly object to is the attempt to ignore consensus and intimidate those who disagree with this proposed deletion by proclaiming an intentional disregard for opinions that do not cite chapter and verse. Again, if the rules now require this, the rules have become the problem, not this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with Peter's discounting of votes, I do find this discussion to be a largely one-sided one intellectually. None of the keep votes have been followed by any serious rebuttal to the claims in the nomination. I share Peter's frustration in the debate's one-sidedness because Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy and yet many people are operating it as if a simple vote count is enough to build consensus. AEuSoes1 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to cite vacuous clichés here, but "the map is not the territory." Every word of WP:NOT has value only to the extent that it is an attempt to synthesize prior consensus; it is not a law to set boundaries to consensus. This page has been around in one form or another since Dec. 24, 2001. It is valuable and useful, and frankly the obliteration of its history for average users would shock my conscience. To expect arguments founded upon policy rather than the opinions of users as to what belongs here makes policy a golden calf. This debate is one-sided for only one reason: one side refuses to listen to arguments that aren't framed in their terms. As a debating ploy, this is a fairly good "I win" button, but it has nothing to do with consensus. This is what riles me: not that the page has been once again proposed for deletion, but rather that the rules have taken on such a Frankensteinian life of their own that some people feel cowed to say that "while yes, the page is valuable, the rules say it should go; so it is written, so let it be done." Again, this suggests not that the page should be deleted, but that the rules have turned into something they never should have been allowed to become. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, WP:NOT is a general outline that certainly has exceptions, but what is the justification for making this article an exception? That it's useful? It's just as useful at other wikimedia sites. Are there any other reasons? AEuSoes1 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given some of them. It isn't a "usage guide" or a "slang and idiom guide;" certainly not within the meaning of these phrases, which by my understanding were intended to exclude every new neologism that appears in rap music to have an encyclopedia article, not this. It has an almost six year history of being at Wikipedia, with thousands of edits by more than a hundred editors. All of that vanishes if the last text is simply transwikied. I tend to think of it more as being in the tradition of a Mithridates, a classic reference book containing samples of many different languages. We could re-start it with other widely available texts in translation such the Lord's Prayer, but that would raise POV issues and may occasion sectarian strife. The current selection of texts add usefulness to the samples. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued that it's a usage guide; I've argued that it's intended to be a travel guide.
That's a lot of editors. No one found the time to back up their claims and conform the article to two of Wikipedia's three main policies? AEuSoes1 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not look like a travel guide to me. Yes, it is useful to travellers, but so is, for example, List of embassies and high commissions in Ottawa or Travel medicine. Being useful to travellers doesn't make something a travel guide in the spirit of the WP:NOT policy. In the spirit of WP:NOT, I think you have to ask, "Is this of value for intellectually curious people who aren't travelling, as well as for people who are travelling?" Kla'quot Sound 05:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somewhere within Wikimedia projects. Far more encyclopedic than Wikipedia's seven lists of Pokémon. If it doesn't cite sources, cite sources. If it needs cleanup, clean it up. If it has mistakes, correct the mistakes. These are not reasons to delete. If it violates WP:NOT, identify the right Wikimedia project and move it. Fg2 01:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it does violate WP:NOT and it's already on other Wikimedia projects, should we interpret your comments to mean that you'd like it deleted, Fg2? AEuSoes1 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. My "keep" vote is a vote to keep the information in Wikimedia projects. If it's kept on a Wikimedia project other than Wikipedia, I'd be quite happy. Fg2 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention invoking WP:Pokémon test is always a red flag in an argument. wikipediatrix 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is Wikipedia that place? -Elmer Clark 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that User:Lady Lily is a brand-new account seemingly created only to vote on this AfD. wikipediatrix 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too, but I choose to assume good faith. AEuSoes1 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not for its how-to value, whiuch is minimal, but because it helps the reader see similarities and differences between languages Kla'quot Sound 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already been pointed out by some of our resident linguists in the previous AfD that the comparative value of standard phrases in various languages is very low. Idioms of this kind don't allow for any kind of serious linguistic comparison because the phrases vary according to custom and culture, not the languages themselves. Comparisons like the ones you're referring to is best done with Swadesh lists, and we already have tons of them. Incidentally, there are plenty of people who think they should be deleted too. / Peter Isotalo 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this list is not a tool for serious linguistic comparison, however it is wonderful for more informal comparisons. E.g. it's something of a revelation to monolingual English speakers that a language could have three ways to say "please." Examples are also really the only way to get a sense of how the language sounds.
As AdiJapan points out below, the introduction is a problem. However the rest of the content seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Some articles on individual languages (e.g. Greek) have a short list of phrases in the language, which is what this article mostly consists of. So perhaps there is a problem of organization, which can be resolved by splitting this article into smaller articles and linking them through an index page or category, but the content itself should be improved, not deleted.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, examples are of great educational value for the general reader. We're talking about a small number of examples per language, not a phrasebook. Kla'quot Sound
"Informal comparisons" sounds like trivia to me. Having language samples is never frowned upon, but if you want to get the feel for how a language sounds you should use excerpts from literature or lists of minimal pairs instead of tourist phrases. No recent language FAs have these kinds of lists because they're considered too trivial for serious encyclopedic articles. / Peter Isotalo 08:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point. Looking over these comments, I get the sense that this AfD debate tends to split along "serious linguistics" versus "populist" lines. Are 15-20 examples of phrases per language, along the lines of, "How do you do?", too trivial for inclusion? I would argue that the general reader does not think so. Wikipedia has room for both literary and popular examples. Kla'quot Sound 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki, then delete Ironically while taking a break from Wikipedia, I found this article in a Google search while looking for how to say something in Japanese. Not bad, but this isn't the place for this info. Lets put it on a sister project so it can have a happy home. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly second this - the article belongs on Wikitravel, not in Wikipedia, but it would be a royal shame to discard all that work. ropable 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The only wrong thing about this article is its introduction. Otherwise I find the contents undoubtedly encyclopedic. It is the only article we have that allows a direct comparison between languages. The introduction should focus on that instead of talking about tourists. AdiJapan 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly you haven't seen The Lord's Prayer in different languages or any of the Swadesh lists. AEuSoes1 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives AfD, we should rewrite the intro and include links to the Lord's Prayer list and Swadesh lists. To avoid confusing the current debate, I'm not going to do this yet. Kla'quot Sound 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. I refer to this page a lot, I dont want to download it. I think it is a shame that people seriously want to deleate valuble infomation from wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakana-g (talk • contribs)
  • Stong Keep. This is a valuable article to Wikipedia and should not be deleted. Jdas07 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : per WP:NOT --Ragib 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : This was the first page I ever edited three years ago today. It has grown into something that oodles and oodles of people on the internet have found of great value. Sample sentences of languages do have a place within an encyclopedia, and I recall seeing such before. Though this is admittedly the largest compilation I've ever seen. I really see no strong reason why it should be deleted. --Chris S. 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Common phrases do have a place in an encyclopedia, especially to those who are trying to learn a new language. Information and facts out on the web are unchecked, unlike Wikipedia where its users constantly keep an eye over any vandalisms or inappropriate translations. It is because of this that I would like Wikipedia to keep this page. Iman1102 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Same reasoning. While it may not be strictly "encyclopedic", it has great value as a reference. Maybe one day there will be a separate Wiki language reference... until then, if it needs work, it can be fixed; if it violates policy, then policy needs to be reviewed in the face of obvious USEFULNESS Twang 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Invaluable reference , specially for those learning langauges.--Jondel 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As pointed out above, it violates WP:NOT, and is not encyclopedic. -- Donald Albury 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Doczilla 05:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. agreed with nominator. A wictionary or textbook kind of information, nonencyclopedic. Also POV problem. what is "common phrase"? Hopelesly unreferenced. Finally verifiability problem: for example, in one language "Good afternoon" is translated as (a version of) "Salaam aleikum". Mukadderat 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The list in its current form is not encyclopaedic and should probably be transwiki'd. However, some form of list of greetings in various languages would be encyclopaedic. Other problems include lack of sources. The main current problem I'd say is the title "common phrases" and "various languages" is not precise enough. - FrancisTyers · 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is deletion attempt three or more, so it becomes more and more difficult not to repeat old arguments. My reasons echo the user Catherine’s in the discussion of last year and Smerdis of Tlön’s of this discussion. The article is the opposite of pompous, ego-enhancing or elitist, it's fun, it's a large project with many voices working towards a common goal in relative harmony for a long period of time, it's what people enjoy finding and musing over in an encyclopedia (especially younger wiki surfers), it's still actively updated and linked to, it's useful and it's harmless---all the things that are wonderful about Wikipedia as a project. Perhaps the name can be changed and the languages divided into sub-groups to keep the size manageable? Pia 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera's Law

[edit]

[Check Google hits]. NN by any standards. Has the air of legitimacy and good faith, but cannot be included due to WP:RS. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, they seem to pass WP:MUSIC, having four albums by a label notable enough to have a WP article about it. --- Deville (Talk) 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal's Gone Bad

[edit]

Music group article, does not assert notablility. FuriousFreddy 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, with stropng reservations. No doubt the article is very interesting, but a significant part of it unfortunately must be deleted as original research. `'mikka (t) 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker commentary

[edit]

Comes off as OR, only one editor has worked on the page, and with pages on the commentators, this is not needed. Renosecond 03:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This isn't an essay, it's an article. Though it has some OR to it, I think it just needs cleanup as opposed to a nuking. There are obviously commentators on the game of snooker, why not have an article about the topic? --Daniel Olsen 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are not any other sports with their own commentary pages. This info could easily be transplanted to the respective announcers, who all have their own articles. Renosecond 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there sources upon which such an article can be based? Please point to some. The article does not, and the (sole) author on Talk:Snooker commentary says that this article was constructed "according to memory and discussions with people I have met" (i.e. is the author's and the author's acquaintainces' own novel synthesis and anlysis of snooker commentary) and "is not something that can be easily looked up" (i.e. is difficult, if not outright impossible, for editors and readers to verify). In other words: By the author's own admission this is unverifiable and original research. Uncle G 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not encyclopedic but not an essay.--Ageo020 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good informative article. Lancsalot 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Probably should also AfD Commentator's curse, created by the same author as an extension of this article. --Dennette 10:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is unverified and appears to constitute original research.--Isotope23 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs to be Wikified and clearly tagged as OR Tx17777 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi, author here. Snooker commentary is a world unto its own, and it does have these patterns to it that could not be easily incorporated into any other articles. I have been open in my admission about the citation problem, readily incorporating the [citation needed] function wherever I feel my own version on things in unacceptable for this encyclopedia. I would love to be able to cite everything but I can't, surely you can see how this is difficult to do. I would like to hear the opinions of a few snooker fans who can vouch for most of this information, since this is the only way to cite it to my knowledge. I would suggest the article be kept, but with some infoboxes warning about OR etc., leaving it open for others to suggest citations. I have recognized this as the main problem with it. If this thread [11] goes any way towards convincing any of you that this information is true, if only tenuously verifiable, then great. It's the best thing I could find on the web, but I appreciate it's still not great as a reference source. I'm not going to argue any further, if you feel the need to delete it it would be a shame from my perspective, but I do understand that it doesn't meet certain criteria, and will probably never make it onto the Main Page as a featured article! Kris 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought Wiki policy was no OR, not 'some is ok' and/or 'tag it as such'? Marcus22 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, right... OR infoboxes are a temporary notice while sources are found. Anything that cannot be sourced should be removed, not left in an article indefinitely with OR or citation tags. In this case, removing the original research would leave the article blank. Just tagging this as OR is not a solution.--Isotope23 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an unsourced, opinionated personal essay on a subject whose notability is slim anyway. wikipediatrix 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article may contain OR but it should be tagged and references should be dug up, I don't think it would be too difficult considering the number of linked-to bios. Anything that can't be referenced should be axed though, article definately needs some trimming Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost completely OR, author admits that references are unlikely to be found. No objection to it being recreated with references, but the current article clearly isn't going to improve. Yomanganitalk 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great article, it gives a real insight into snooker commentary, and people who are voting for deletion obviously just don't follow the game of snooker. Everything in it is true. Yes, it lacks citations, and yes, it is in need of input from more NPOV Wikipedians, but this can be worked on over time, I don't think it would be wise to just delete the whole thing. I understand why people voting for deletion are doing so, but as a snooker fan I would urge you not to. You make me laugh Renosecond, putting this article up for deletion. Not the first article deletion debate we've been in is it? I like what you said about Lancsalot's vote: "Personally, I feel that this vote should be deleted ……… as it just states opinion…" And you have some gall telling the author himself he has no right to an opinion regarding keeping the article. There's no wonder you've been banned from Wikipedia in the past, I enjoyed the little tantrum you threw about it as well. It seemed you didn't quit after all – we wouldn't be one to get a bit hot-headed when someone doesn't agree with us would we? Then say things in the heat of the moment? Anyway, all I can say is if this article gets deleted it'd be a real shame. Pre1twa 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Pre1twa is a brand-new user account, and this is his very first contribution. wikipediatrix 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, I quite like Snooker, but unsourced, uncited articles based on admitted original research just don't have any place on Wikipedia, no matter how interesting they may be.--Isotope23 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as with Isotope23, I am voting delete. (And not only do I like snooker but I do, sometimes, both follow and play it). Nevertheless this article is contrary to original research. Marcus22 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pre1twa has been a long time viewer of wikipedia and has only had the need to sign up and create an account in response to a 'certain person's' 'delete happy' views on a subject that is of great interest to him. Pre1twa 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I appreciate your staunch support Pre1twa, I think the best thing you can bring to this "forum" is silence, cheers mate. I'm enjoying this debate and agree with most of you, be it for or against the article. You're all intelligent people, but I don't agree with the encouragement of disallowing opinions, that would perhaps belie the very reason this page exists. So please stop suggesting such things Renosecond. The ultimate root of everything we as a race perceive as knowledge is opinion, we just trust others more than others. I will stand by my above Keep stance, but likewise won't complain if a delete was arrived at, because in the cold light of Wikipedia rules, all deletists are probably correct. I said I wouldn't argue my case any more — and I'm not, I just don't want an inherent bias to stem from disregarding all the people who vote for the article. Kris 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please only state Keep or Delete once per discussion... and please read WP:CIVIL Pre1twa.--Isotope23 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not "delete happy", but I do feel that WP needs a level of quality and consistency. This article was something I stumbled upon and I did not feel that it met the criteria for an article here. Just because an article may be interesting does not mean it should be included. And I hope that some of the keep votes be heavily discounted, as they are not valid reasons to keep an article and some are made in poor faith. Renosecond 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup the bad parts, I'm sure there is enough verifiable information for a short article. bbx 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepage

[edit]

An article about a wiki/blog software that was deleted under Prod but restored per request by the main editor (who also seems to be the sotware creator). 217 unique Google hits, one news hit on Google news, zero on Newsbank. Procedural listing from WP:DRV, so I'll leave it to the community to decide. ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As you said, page was created and edited by me. As i see, wikepage is not seemed to be important, and not meets any Wikipedia inclusion standarts, it's logical to be deleted. But if you look up any other software,- for example wiki softwares like Wikepage - scWiki, PukiWiki,CitiWiki ...etc... and maybe other many wikis, and of course many blog softwares, must be deleted. I can list hundreds of web based softwares which can not to be seemed important. Lastly, I want to thank you for your peer review process and chance to talk. Sblisesivdin(talk) 20:59, 31 August 2006 (GMT+2)
    • Comment We have something like 1.3 million articles as of now, and all deletion is done by hand. There are many, many articles that slip through the cracks simply because nobody detects them. If you think those articles describe non-notable software you can help and tag them for deletion. This is not malice against your program, just simply a slow process. ~ trialsanderrors 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment IMHO, many people think that Wikipedia is a strong reference base because of its 1.3 million articles. I like to see information about CitiWiki. Because maybe you don't need wiki softwares, but any information about CitiWiki concerns me. If wikepage.org has an Alexa ranking of 236,056 (in top %2 of Alexa list) it means, it has a potential developer and user base. With a strict deletion policy, Wikipedia can not be Wikipedia as many people know and use. It's not a top %2 thing, any information that people search is important. And this can not be foresighted by hand, it's a statistical thing. Thanks. Sblisesivdin(talk) 21:44, 31 August 2006 (GMT+2)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Athletics Union

[edit]

Delete listicrufts. A list of a university's athletics union would appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Most universities have one and this does not appear to assetr notability either. Ohconfucius 03:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete:
Close the door early.
The tears of the tendentious
melting WP:SNOW.
Nandesuka 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to Write Haiku

[edit]

Or rather, How to write very short poems in English that some people regard as haiku. And if I seem opinionated, so does the writer ("I"), as he or she writes for "you". Perhaps these points could be worked on, but the article is doomed, as Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. -- Hoary 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two rules -
Meter is five, seven, five;
Meaning is oblique.

And well done to Daniel for getting there first! Grutness...wha? 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Summer" they report?
Late winter here in the south!
And still I say delete

Grutness...wha? 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of York DramaSoc

[edit]

Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Student drama group which has not substantiated its assertion to notability per WP:ORG. Sending productions to the Edinburgh Fringe alone would not suffice, and a search of the EF website for "york university" returns 0hits. Ohconfucius 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Cheng

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC.

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of York Filmmaking Society

[edit]

proposed deletion of non notable student group per WP:ORG. Certainly not notable outside of the University. Only one commercial release mentioned, scheduled for release this Christmas. Ohconfucius 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loot the dog

[edit]

Neologism, World of Warcraft term. Does EVERY term used in an online RPG deserve it's own page? Wildthing61476 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baker

[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, altruism or not. Crystallina 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Kagan

[edit]

Good joke, and does seem to have something to do with electricity in Brazil, but no assertion of notability made in article. Daniel Case 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • More Information will become available in the coming days about Nelson Kagan + his friends. Of course all information must go through many people before we offer it to the public. About him teaching at the univeristy of sao paulo, this is correct.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbutter (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 was Slightly speedy Keep so the article can be used in DYK. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Raja

[edit]

Has been through an AFD before where the result was Delete as his only claim to notability was attempting to break the record. But now it appears as though the individual has finally broken the record. Was tagged as a speedy but I felt it deserved an AFD as it also is a DYK candidate. Just listing here No opinion from me. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any way that I could get access to the original article mentioned in the first AfD to see if it contains any information I left out? Forever Old 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best option is to undelete the history so that everyone can see it. Try listing the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review#History only undeletion after the present AfD closes. Melchoir 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the article request as part of a general removal of extant pages from the Math sub-page for Requested articles. GRBerry 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per Wily D Bakaman Bakatalk 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gas street works

[edit]

Non-notable company. 356 results on Google. →smably 04:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Monroe

[edit]

NN summer camp not too far from where I live. Daniel Case 04:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWMC

[edit]

A disputed PROD. Article has no sources, no editors seem capable of providing them (Google turns up little to nothing, for example), and even were it verifiable and sourced and not a hoax or something, I'm not sure it would be notable. --maru (talk) contribs 04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franklin Borkan

[edit]

The only hits the name gets are retreads of this article, and "richie borkan" doesn't get much either. His contributions seem to be rather small at best. Renosecond 03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaelen Petrie

[edit]

delete non notable actor, who starred in two obscure films which are not notable outside the Mormon community. "Jaelen Petrie" scores 7 unique Ghits out of 26 hits. His most recent film 'Picadilly cowboy' was only released on August 12 of this year, the vast majority of whose 133 unique Ghits (out of 548 Ghits) are for imdb and its mirrors. It appears on some blogs and lists, no evidencce of reviews. Handcart, his previous effort, 'Handcart' ranks amongst the 70 thousandth in DVD sales ($0 box office gross per Amazon. Ohconfucius 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyFreeImplants

[edit]

Website that does not seem to meet WP:WEB in terms of notability. Some mentioning of site elsewhere, relatively low google results, -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , seems to me that this is a legitimate article. I've heard about this company twice on the radio, and was present at Erotica-LA for the giveaway and as such I thought it would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. In full disclosure I am a user of the website and have contributed to several women on the website. I considered adding this article before, but it wasn't until the website was featured on the BBC story (cited in the article) that I felt it was worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Jahgok 22:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doesn't a BBC news special about the topic make it meet WP:WEB? After some further digging I've found that the topic is also featured in an upcoming book Beauty Junkies: Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession With Cosmetic Surgery by Alex Kuczynski an author for The New York Times. The book has not yet been released however. Jahgok 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: To me, it's dependent on one's personal definition of "non-trivial" mentions per WP:RS and WP:WEB, about the site itself and not just the topics of breast enhancement, cyberbegging, etc. The blurb about the BBC Three show doesn't mention the site at all, just the breast enhancement market in general, and there's no indication (without watching it or reading a transcript) that it's mentioned in a more than passing fashion on the program itself. Likewise, the Houston Press article is more about cyberbegging in general, and mentions the site in a vague "here are some sites we found" context rather than truly being "about" it. The AVN thing is also just an ad for some promotion that mentions the site in a context of a giveaway. I can't speak to the reliability of Vyuz as a news source, however. Of course, other editors' opinions may vary, so I welcome their input as well, in terms of possibly changing my recommendation. --Kinu t/c 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has 3 referenced noteworthy news articles (BBC included). MECU≈talk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Did you even look at the references? They have nothing to do with the article's subject, as mentioned above. --Kinu t/c 01:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As mentioned above, I have a user account on the MyFreeImplants website, and I can attest to the fact that the BBC show mentioned the website in the TV program. The program aired yesterday (Tuesday, August 29, 2006) and there was a rush of new female signups on the website, probably a good 90 new girls all from the UK who saw the show. Jahgok 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In addition, although the BBC website doesn't specifically mention the website by name, here is the reference to it:

        Laura Taylor has wanted a boob job ever since she was 14. She's so desperate to change her breasts she’s logged on to an innovative website that allows men to donate money to women to help them fund a boob job.

        It is my opinion this is an obvious reference to MyFreeImplants. There are no other websites like this to my knowledge. Jahgok 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kinu t/c 05:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per Rebecca. The notability of this person is borderline. Normally, in a borderline case I would favor keeping the hard work of those who wrote the article but in this case, when the subject has requested its deletion, I really don't think we have a choice, and must delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brett

[edit]

NN. Clear failure of WP:BIO – the subject has written one book which is not particularly successful and has blogs (but does not write print articles) for two Australian newspapers. mgekelly 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? (JROBBO 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Because the claim to notability is borderline at best and there are ongoing BLP issues. There is very little to be gained from keeping this article around. Rebecca 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please DUA (don't use acronyms). What is BLP? And what about my merge suggestion? (JROBBO 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
BLP stands for biographies of living persons. People keep vandalising this article for some reason, and I know for a fact that it has caused the subject of the article distress. With such a borderline claim to notability, this for me throws it right over the edge into deletion territory. Rebecca 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Salinger syndrome

[edit]

This appears to fail WP:NEO. None of the sources confirms the usage of the term, which does not have widespread acceptance. Ohconfucius 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool club

[edit]

A page about a forum that barely establishes its notability, not to mention is barely sourcable. I mean no offense to the people at the Not Cool Club, but I don't think this is worthy of a Wikipedia article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, but the Not Cool Club is not trying to promote itself. It may not be notable to the people who are not members but to the people involved in the NCC its a big deal. Why not let the Not Cool Club have a page? Its not even near completion yet, lets just give it a chance. YoungHopelessLoser 169.203.255.194 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hadn't seen the WP:WEB article (this was my first time creating a page on Wikipedia), and after reading the line "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted", I agree that perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for this article - this might be more of the realm of Encyclopedia Dramatica.SpillWaterLikeLove 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bopo

[edit]

This article writes more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Also is written from 1st person (from bopo's person), which strikes me as a possible copyright violation. This article was originally a {{prod}}. But User:bopobopo removed it. Thanks! Deon555talkReview 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolls like butter

[edit]

Not Notable phrase; I get about 750 ghits for it, including of course hits for this article. There are several suggestions on the talk page that it be deleted or merged. I shall dare the wrath of the Steve Jobs junkies and attempt to slay this article. Brianyoumans 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar pena

[edit]

Seeking consensus on this article of a relative newcomer in minor-league baseball. Ohconfucius 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable player at the lowest minor-league level, played for a college not exactly known for their baseball program. Thousands of players at this level, most of whom will never advance. Fan-1967 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes a claim that he is playing for the Kansas City Royals. According to the MLB site, the active, 40-man, and depth charts for KC do not show an Omar Pena which would seem to indicate he is still in the minor league system.
  • Delete According to basbeballcube.com he played 25 games in single A for KC this year. He has never played above this level at any time during his career and therefore is currently not notable like his brother Carlos Pena. Hope he makes it though, but he has a long tough road ahead of him. DrunkenSmurf 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think anyone with MLB experience is notable enough for an article, but class A players are not, unless they were a first-round pick, prospect with a lot of media attention, had noteworthy achievements in college, etc, none of which seem to apply here. -Elmer Clark 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Libnan

[edit]

This website is non-notable. Google shows 951 pages that link to the site, with roughly half of those links coming from the same site. f(x)=ax2+bx+c 06:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Daly

[edit]

His claiming is 'nn', plus nothing here is sourced. A google search, because of the commonness of the name, was inconclusive Kmaguir1 06:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Davies

[edit]

NN: clear failure of WP:BIO. mgekelly 06:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inconclusive. While he would probably not meet notability were he a disc jockey in the US, he is an on-air personality on BBC's Radio One. My understanding is that this is an extremely popular, widely-distributed station (see BBC Radio 1, and in fact one of the few official broadcast outlets in the United Kingdom. By UK standards, he could very well be not only notable, but a celebrity. I'd like to hear from some of our colleagues over there--is he notable? --Pagana 08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As far as a quick search of google shows, this guy is legit. I get 45,000+ hits. No doubt a lot of these may not refer to the same man, but the fact that he does indeed appear to be a DJ on the BBC makes it a speedy keep and a rather daft nomonation for AfD. Please research a little more before nominating - or else prove me wrong. Marcus22 15:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think you're probably right about this being a keep now. I must say though that the article at present does a pretty awful job of asserting the guy's notability, so I think I should be forgiven for this. I'm from England originally, so I realise that Radio 1 is a significant radio station, but in my day the presenter of the Rock Show was never anyone notable. Google hits for such a common name are meaningless too – I sat behind a Mike Davies in school. mgekelly 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Kelly, I certainly don't think you need to be "forgiven" for AfDing this. You should be thanked for taking the time to raise the issue, which is how it's supposed to be done. Also, you're quite right that this isn't exactly a sterling example of writing. I think Marcus22 might want to step back a bit from calling this AfD "daft". There's certainly no reason for you to be on the defensive here. --Pagana 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment er.. actually I don't want to step back from calling this AfD a "daft" one. For a start, 'daft' is hardly a strong word to use, but more than that, if everyone nominates an Afd without checking it out a little first, how is that going to make Wikipedia look when, as will happen, far more famous names are AfD'd? I'd hazard the word daft... Oh and as the nom has withdrawn, should this not now be speedily kept? Marcus22 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't withdraw my nom, otherwise I would have said so. I was thinking out loud – admittedly that's probably also daft behaviour. Moreover, this isn't an issue of me not knowing the facts, OK? I'm English, I know what Radio 1 is, that's not the issue. It didn't occur to me that Radio One DJs were notable by dint of that status alone, which seems to be what you're arguing, not implausibly, which is what I was trying to say: hey, that's a good point, I didn't think of that. mgekelly 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But on this matter the US and the UK are not comparable. Believe me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. It's as simple as that. There is absolutely no question about it. I am very surprised to see this AfD still standing. Are all the admins. on holiday? Marcus22 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article says nothing to assert notability. Marcus22 says: Believe me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. It's as simple as that. There is absolutely no question about it. Sorry, but faith-based assertions don't sway me. I hereby raise that very question. I'm willing to believe you and change my vote; now persuade me that I should believe you. (You'll have to hurry, as soon I'm heading off on internet-free vacation.) Certainly my own experiences of flicking the frequency dial of a newly rented car in the Youkay in desperate search of something that isn't inane chitchat or inane muzak (entertainingly described example here) doesn't suggest that Radio 1 DJs are the slightest bit noteworthy (though I realize that there have been occasional and justly celebrated counterexamples). -- Hoary 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unlike you to be so unobservant Hoary. For a start, what about the 45,000+ google hits? As fas as I can see - and I'm not going to go through all 45,000+ of them (!) - the greater part of these refer to this Mike Davies. Not convincing enough? Well, I'm rather surprised.

Now how about my comment that Believe me, a BBC Radio 1 DJ is notable. etc...' - I'm guessing you were either not quite awake when you said that 'faith based assertions' etc.. or, much more likely, you just don't know the situation via a viz Radio 1 in the UK. Well, I'm afraid I can't prove anything to you or anyone else about how major a player Radio 1 is but - and so you'll just have to believe me (or do a little research!) - but it's a little like ABC or CNN or whoever else is the main media organisation in the US. This guy has a potential listening audience of 55,000,000. He's not some 2bit DJ on a backwoods station. Marcus22 08:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn and nobody is arguing for deletion. GRBerry 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nasiriyah

[edit]

No original research. This page has no sources or links what so ever and the warning template has been up for over a week. No one seems interested in maintaining or fixing this article including its creator. NeoFreak 07:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. There were only a couple of lines in the article; apart from BBDO consulting having 150 employees, everything was already in the other article. Merging from here is up to any interested editors. Mangojuicetalk 15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBDO Consulting

[edit]

The article seems to be advertising (against WP:SPAM or WP:VAIN, and probably WP:CORP too). AndreniW 07:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Whiskervilles --- Deville (Talk) 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskerville

[edit]
  • non-notable web comic; Alexa doesn't seem to have any traffic information and no linking sites; not many relevant GHits with a stray pet care center taking top GHit; just not able to see how this meets WP:WEB ju66l3r 08:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because you were asked to come here in a forum or web-comic, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

  • KEEP IT Leave whiskerville alone. This comic has been around for 4+ years now, and does have a following. Most Topics on Wiki aren't Notable....Take Keyra Augustina for example. Wiki is suppose to be about sharing EVERYTHING, not about censoring something you don't know anything about. VIVA LA WHISKERVILLE! --- MIKE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.59.197 (talk • contribs) .
  • Whiskerville the webcomic is informally involved with the stray pet center mentioned above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.131.12.128 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep I've run across whiskerville a couple times. I'm not sure why it's not showing on Alexa, I found it linked from a couple places I frequent. Maybe it's just the company I keep though. At a minimum, whiskerville has less relevance to scrooge mcduck than it does to this comic. I can't even find that reference through Google until page 4 and that reference is in German. --PaulM 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: JPaulMartin (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • KEEP IT! What kind of encyclopedia excludes a subject just because someone hasn't heard of the subject yet? How else can knowledge be shared?-Sheena Gabbert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirtgirl1104 (talk • contribs) .

— Possible single purpose account: Dirtgirl1104 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Wiki says: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]...........Well Whiskerville is distributed online via a few places. One is Whiskerville.com obviously, two is Testcase.net and three is Jokethemonkey.com (Alexa Ranking of 541,246 and 10K in pageviews a day). So on any given week Whiskerville is seen by over 10000 people on the internet. Does that work? Or am I stretching it? And just so you know, I am not the guy who does whiskerville...I'm just a fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.59.197 (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP IT! This is the funniest strip I've ever seen. Better than alot of the syndicated comics you seen in papers. I say keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.94.129.172 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Two things I'd like to comment on are that this is not a vote, but a discussion and relatedly, the discussion needs to apply to the notability (and therefore appropriateness) of having Whiskerville as an article. Being a great web comic or even being one of many that might need to be removed for lack of notability is not an argument for keeping it. The most recent comment above from 24.6.59.197 is much better at stating a case for keeping the article (although just because jokethemonkey.com gets 10k views doesn't mean they're all looking at Whiskerville). If the article is kept, it needs to do a better job at establishing this supposed notability. There are no links to any press coverage, awards, or any other reason to think that Whiskerville is just a slightly web-syndicated personal website (and given the ease of syndication on the web, that's hardly expansive viewership). ju66l3r 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Whiskerville page on Wiki says this "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. " That means we have every right to share our thoughts on this matter. Whether it be by a comic pointing us here or someone suggesting we come here. This is a free site, and we have every right to voice our opinions. Also Whiskerville is published in an Oregon Newspaper. If you delete Whiskerville from Wiki then I DEMAND that you guys flag all other Webcomics that aren't in print. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.59.197 (talk • contribs) .
    • Could you give some evidence about the syndication in an Oregon newspaper? Heimstern Läufer 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out to you, except just sharing your feelings doesn't help an administrator make a decision to keep the article or not. Your feelings need to be backed up with solid proof of notability as it relates to the rules of Wikipedia which have been quoted a few times now ( WP:WEB, WP:V are two examples). If you'd like to make it a goal to have all webcomics not even as notable as Whiskerville removed, then I would applaud your effort if it's deemed that this webcomic should be deleted. I will AfD those articles when I come to them, too. I didn't hunt out Whiskerville or webcomics, I AfD what I see that meets what I think are the criteria when I happen to see them. ju66l3r 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Self-promotion; can be recreated by independent user if it is noteable. User:Yy-bo 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSES YOU BUNCH OF EGOMANICS! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE A PLACE WERE PEOPLE CAN ADD TO THE WORLD...ALL YOU PEOPLE "SELF-PROMOTE" YOUR AGENDAS ON HERE...LEAVE WHISKERVILLE ALONE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.59.197 (talk • contribs) .
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle, the webcomic fails WP:WEB and probably would still do so even if the purported syndication were confirmed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect, merged articles cannot be deleted per GFDL requirements.  RasputinAXP  11:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aegon I Targaryen

[edit]

Fancruft, violation of characters in fiction. Five of six editors agreed to merge and all info was merged into two other articles. Single editor refuses to accept merge and continues to revert merge. All good info already merged and this page is ready for deletion. NeoFreak 09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Frasheri

[edit]

If what the article says is true, then Frasheri is a notable ski-jumper, but the article lacks sources and so far, I have not succeeded in verifying the truthfulness of the article with Google. Szoltys1990 has created all the versions of this article and was asked to source it. The reference provided here is to a "Polish book", which does not say much. Unless a specific and reliable source can be found, I think this article needs to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Webb

[edit]

Tragic, but completely non-notable person. Borderline speedy deletion. Dr U 09:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedity

[edit]

Contested prod, non notable web comic, possible vanity Nuttah68 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:WEB, no secondary reliable sources. Wickethewok 14:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - Provides an accurate, concise description of a respected webcomic. Author tours conventions with the authors of Mac Hall, 8-bit Theatre, and CTR-ALT-DEL - thus at least three respected authors in the webcomic community believe him to be a peer. This article is a stub, but should be given time to grow. I wrote about half the article, and am in no way affiliated with Comedity. I just was looking through Wikipedia looking for information on some webcomics, came across this one up for deletion, and added to it so that a useful resource wouldn't be deleted. Magus 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Weren't there specific notability guidelines for webcomics? This meets the 100 comics limit and has certainly been around for long enough. --Kizor 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB guideline or WP:V policy. Yes, some people once floated the idea that Wikipedia ought to throw out all our content policies about "reliable sources" and "no original research" and instead we should write encyclopedia articles about every web comic that manages to reach the arbitrary milestone of 100 comics. Then we realized that was a bad idea because 1) It's not that noteworthy that somebody managed to draw five comics a week for two and a half months, 2) Nobody would ever consider writing about every blog with 100 posts or every flickr account with 100 photos or every wikipedia editor who writes 100 encyclopedia articles, and 3) If no third party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are writing about those 100 comics, then we really shouldn't (and can't) write about them either. We're an encyclopedia, WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's on my watchlist which means it's not notable. Having done guest strips for others is nothing, turning up to conventions means absolutely nothing. - Hahnchen 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikthewok, Dragonfiend. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payroll Service Company - Cambridge UK

[edit]

Payroll company in Cambridge, UK. Not even close to WP:CORP. De-prod'ed by creator. Canley 10:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete A7.--Andeh 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna pavlakis

[edit]

Hoax, nothing related on google[12]. Unfortunately hoax is not a speedy category so here we are. Weregerbil 10:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, G4, yet another recreation; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP. NawlinWiki 11:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Many Facets of the Inner City Posse's stance on Homosexuality

[edit]
  • Delete: I'm not entirely clear on what this even is. Maybe a veiled attack page? Maybe a spam page? None of the supposed references offer any clue. The title is apparently wrong (s/b "Insane Clown Posse's stance..."?}. I was expecting it to be a book or external article title when I opened it - but no. This should at least be merged in somewhere else. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than merge anywhere - completely unencyclopediac with nothing to salvage. Completely wierd article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For what it's worth, its Alexa ranking is now 437,248. --- Deville (Talk) 03:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zantarni

[edit]

Nonnotable MMORPG; 236 unique Ghits; Alexa rank of 400,413. NawlinWiki 11:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was del `'mikka (t) 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Holod

[edit]

Delete Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete "Maxim Holod" -> only 165 results, "Max Holod" -> 402 results... but he's better known as "Fractal Structure".. check out the discography or search google for "Fractal Structure", and see the first page... or push "I'm feeling lucky" and you'll be directed to his official website. Should I make the main page as "Fractal Structure" instead of "Maxim Holod" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underestimated (talk • contribs) .
Please read WP:MUSIC which is the applicable guideline on including musicians on Wikipedia. While a Google search for "Fractal Structure" returns 3.3 million results, only a handful are for this artist. He just doesn't seem notable yet. Gwernol 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user has been blanking this discussion and removing the AfD notice from the article in an attempt to disrupt the deletion process. Gwernol 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The Fractal Structure search actually returns a mixed bag of ghits. A lot do indeed refer to music. Whilst I dont know enough about it to say how many refer to Max Holod I'm inclined to think that there's not enough out there to satisfy WP:MUSIC but it may need a closer look. Marcus22 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I took a closer look at the Google results. A search for "fractal structure music" returns 701,000 results, but the vast majority of these are nothing to do with the subject of this article. A more accurate search on "fractal.structure music" gets us down to 31,300 results; again most are about the fractal structure of music, not Max Holod. A search for "fractal structure (max, holod)" only returns 168 Google hits, only 39 of which are in English and even some of these are not about the Max Holod (see, for example [13]). It certainly does not seem like this artist meets WP:MUSIC. Gwernol 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Price (publisher)

[edit]

Delete - Self-promotional vanity. Grumpy2006 (t c) is Dave Price according to the image license pages in images uploaded by him. e.g. Image:Peterson.jpg .. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Slobojan

[edit]

Contested PROD, nominator stated "NN local politician withg copyvio issues" (bio is largely from the local paper). The copyvio issue may be fixable, assuming that other reliable sources can be found to substantiate the details of the mayor of a small town, but per WP:BIO it is highly unlikely that being mayor of Thunder Bay, Ontario is a significant national office which in and of itself confers encyclopaedic notability. For comparison, this town is rather smaller than Reading, Berkshire (where I live). I know one of Reading's former mayors, he is a schoolteacher at my son's primary school. The two roles are of roughly equivalent importance, in my view. The world has many tens of thousands of mayors, most of them worthy and sincere individuals, but only one of them is Clint Eastwood, and it's not this one. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few points I want to get out:

  • I've been reading through Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, and the Sources section specifically says that local newspapers are an acceptable source of information. I was also very careful to attribute the article, as I did not want to make it seem as if it was plagiarization - I wanted it to be clear that there was a source, and that source was attributed
  • After reading the Information to be included section, I see that I haven't really put much of value into this article from a historical perspective - I will fix this up, however I believe that 5 days is too short a time. Can I request that a deletion decision be deferred until 1 month from now, Sept. 30th 2006? By then, if the article hasn't been updated or reached an acceptable level of content, I will tacitly agree to it's deletion
  • I would propse that, if this article is pegged as being worthy of deletion, that a thorough cleanup be done on the Ontario municipal elections, 2003 page as there are numerous articles that I have seen there which contain less information than this one (see Wayne Thomson, Karen Farbridge, Rob MacIsaac, Lynn Peterson)

User Talk:Straxus 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wayne Thomson = former incumbent mayor. Karen Farbridge = former incumbent mayor. Rob MacIsaac = current incumbent mayor. Lynn Peterson = current incumbent mayor. This line of argument holds no water whatsoever. Bearcat 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lynn Peterson was the mayor of Thunder Bay - even though her article is a stub, it's still a valid encyclopaedic topic. Stub is not a criterion for deletion. Checking the rest, they are either mayors of former mayors of reasonably important cities - not Iron Bridge, Ontario, but Thunder Bay, Ontario. Encyclopaedic. WilyD 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was never mayor of Thunder Bay - he ran, and lost (according to the article.) I'm pretty sure every mayor of Thunder Bay is an encyclopaedic topic, but I don't think the same is true of failed candidates. Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage would almost certainly be true of any mayor of a large city (and Thunder Bay is the largest city within about a thousand kilometers) But he lost. WilyD 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the above list of candidates: Hmm, it appears I did miss the fact that they were all past mayors. However, what about Donna Upson? User Talk:Straxus 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An interesting mix of viewpoints is being shown - on the one hand, it is stated that Thunder Bay is too small a city to really merit much attention (User Talk:JzG above). On the other hand, it's being claimed that the city is a big one and that as a result the mayoral article should be preserved (User Talk:WilyD above). In a multi-contributor environment like Wikipedia, I realize that it's very difficult to apply editorial consistency, however I would refer again to the Wikipedia:Candidates and elections page and say that I will attempt to bring this article up to that standard in one month. I'm also not trying to turn this into some sort of contest - it matters not to me who won or lost a given election, but rather that historical background on the election is present for readers to analyze. As far as my own opinion about Thunder Bay, I lived there for 18 years and it is definitely the largest city within a long range. It's approximately 800 km to any city which is larger than it, and it serves as the nerve centre for Northwestern Ontario (of the population of 250,000 in the region, it contains about 110,000). I believe that it qualifies it as a local 'major city', and the much lower population densities in Canada mean that the major cities are significantly smaller than in the UK. User Talk:Straxus 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I've done some further research, and it turns out that mayoral candidate is not the only historically interesting information about this person. It appears that he was both Board Director and Chairman of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, and he is also currently on the Board of Directors of the Thunder Bay Airport.

References:

Does this raise the level of historical interest enough? User Talk:Straxus 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Chamber of commerce role and airport directorship don't really make much of a difference. Agent 86 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chamber of Commerce still doesn't cut it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia precedent has generally permitted articles on people who have been elected mayors of cities, even small ones, but the same precedent has determined that unelected mayoral candidates are not notable enough for WP articles unless the person meets WP:BIO in other ways. Frankly, nothing here meets WP:BIO. Not running for mayor and losing, not being on the Chamber of Commerce, not being on the board of directors of the airport. Delete. Bearcat 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention that he invented the Internet? ;)

Sounds like I'm not going to win this one - I guess the electrons in this article are going to be recycled into something else. Can't say I didn't try though! User Talk:Straxus 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyngo's web

[edit]

Blatant advertising, site does not come close to meeting WP:WEB Wildthing61476 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Blaze Football Club

[edit]

English football clubs below level 10 in the football league system are considered not notable per discussion on the Football WikiProject. An article on an amateur club playing in an amateur league far below that level should thus be deleted. – Elisson • Talk 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostcherry.com

[edit]

Another myspace clone site; no evidence presented that it meets the criteria in WP:WEB. Geoffrey Spear 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ramadan

[edit]

Suspected hoax; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article provides no reliable sources; Google turns up nothing on this person. Author's only contributions are to this article. Prod tag (and all maintenance tags) removed by third-party editor (whose only edit was to that article). I will happily withdraw the nomination if someone can provide citations. -- Merope 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily userfied original research. Just zis Guy you know? 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Reads like an essay, no sources, should in any case be added to anthropology directly. Prod removed by author. I also nominate Recent Trends in Anthropological Thought. by the same author, which is even more clearly an essay. Huon 13:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 03:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanstreet

[edit]

No notability asserted. Reads like promotional material. CobaltBlueTony 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was d3lete. --- Deville (Talk) 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H1phop

[edit]

Non-notable. Claims to be the home of lots of well-known Internet hip hop artists but fail to mention them. Site only contains a forum which requires registration. No Alexa traffic rank TexMurphy 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, Thunder Bay is a significant Canadian city. I know to Americans that 10^5 people doesn't sound impressive at all, but this is Canada, and northern Ontario at that. Thunder Bay's importance inside Canada is comparable to something like (to choose a random medium-sized midwestern town) Cleveland's importance in the US, and one notes by way of precedent that List of Mayors of Cleveland, Ohio has a whole bunch of bluelinks. --- Deville (Talk) 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Peterson

[edit]

Makes only one claim of notability, being mayor of a reasonable-sized town, but that falls below the level of office which is considered inherently notable per the notability guideline. Absent any independent claim to notability, this is just one of the myriad local politicians for whom there will never be sufficient interest to ensure ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BIO sets the bar at "statewide office", not city-wide. wikipediatrix 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
# Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage No, it basically demands mayors of highly important cities be kept. WilyD 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that due to the position of mayor, almost all mayors would get some significant local coverage. -- Whpq 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be the case for the mayor of Iron Bridge, Ontario WilyD 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out my very poorly worded comment. I didn't mean to say that Thunder Bay as sparsely populated. I meant to compare the population density of Norethern Ontaio, to Southern Ontario. The northern part of the provine is more sparsely populated than the southern part, and Thunder Bay represents a major population and activity centre for a large region. Using population unqualified as User:Ohconfucius did doesn't properly represent the importance of the city. Once again, thatnks for pointing it out so I can properly express myself. -- Whpq 12:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I believe if more Wikipedians would look at the matter they would agree that the subject matter is fictional and the source article (of which there is only one) is clearly intended to be a spoof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.255.139 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (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 was keep; although this is completely insane, it is also clearly not a hoax. The sources given by CosmicPenguin make this clear. --- Deville (Talk) 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret legging

[edit]

Completed nomination by User:216.120.166.5, whose reasoning was: "Hoax website cited." Since that article survived a previous AfD, it may not be a hoax, but it has not improved since then. The source given is highly dubious. Thus, from me a weak delete unless a reliable source is given. --Huon 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LISTEN. ITS LEGIT AND IT HURTS. GIVE THE GUY SOME CREDIT.

  • Delete as possible hoax, and a miserable failure of WP:V. Resolute 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If its a hoax, then it has fooled lots of folks over the years. I have a Uncle John's Bathroom Reader from the late 90s that reprinted this same article the same Outside magazine article cited. A google search for "ferret legging" listed many clones of the Outside article, as well as some legitimate sites that may have been influenced by the article [16]. This article [17] implies that it may have started as a joke, but turned into reality. On the other hand, we have sites like this [18], which doesn't seem to me like it was inspired by the Outside article in any way. I found at least one real competition [19] as well as some blog entries describing the experience (no pictures though). I would have to say that either this is a very well done hoax that has fooled absolutely everybody, or its a real activity. Either way, I think its notable enough to stick around. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you seem to be saying, this article has already appeared in print elsewhere, then this article is a copyright violation and should be deleted even more speedily. wikipediatrix 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor wording on my part. By article, I mean the Outside magazine article that inspired the wikipedia page (second sentence: "It was first brought to light by Donald Katz, in an article entitled "King of the Ferret Leggers", in the February 1983 issue of Outside magazine."). - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems you have to say Outside Magazine is some sort of Mad magazine for camping enthusiasts to say this is a hoax. Outside seems to be a perfeclty legitimate magazine. Incidentally, Outside recently republished the story in The Best of Outside: The First 20 Years (Vintage Departures) (Paperback). If Outside magazine is not a hoax, then this article cannot be considered a hoax. Scarykitty 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article claimed to be from the Outside Magazine, but not on that magazine's official homepage, hardly counts as a reliable source, especially as that very same text is claimed here to be from 02/92 Harper's Magazine. Everything I happened to find via Google seems to be slang dictionaries, pages claiming it to be a joke ([20], [21], note reference to Harper's Magazine), and diverse references to the article cited as a source and its author, Donald Katz. To me, that fails WP:V for a sport, and for a hoax it would need a complete rewrite (and some more authoritative source stating it realy is a hoax). Either way, the current version is not up to the standards required for a Wikipedia articla, and unless we can agree on whether it is a hoax or not, I doubt it can be improved. --Huon 16:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its possible that the Harper Magainze is an adpated version of Katz's story - it was published a decade earlier, and many of the qutoes are identical. That might further the theory that Katz originated the hoax, but you can't deny it has legs = a modern version of the Jackalope, perhaps. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Go to Amazon, search on "Reg Mellor", one of the sportsman profiled in the original article. Up will come the book "The Best of Outside: The First Twenty Years." It will invite you to use Amazon's online reader to click on page 145. On page 145 is the story "The King of the Ferret Leggers" by Donald R. Katz.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/102-1395916-0836915?asin=0375703136&pageID=S04E&checkSum=Qay9li+p4Hjqen82dxkMDa33ukhiTFZNMKFo6+UQFtw= Scarykitty 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I found another source in the Book of Alternative Records, which added additional detail about the date and place of the world record. Plus Katz himself published "King of the Ferret Leggers and other True Stories." I added both these to the page. Incidentally, in 2005, someone linked to the Outside story on the ferret page. The talk page reflects that people thought it was "ridiculous" ("Anyone who reads that article swill immediately put things into perspective. By comparison it makes "Reefer Madness" look like a true story") and the reference was removed. But with two sources, I'm now convinced it's not a hoax and I believe the article should stay as is.

Scarykitty 10:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete or Weak Keep but Clean Up I don't quite believe the Outside article is a hoax, but it is RIDDLED with gross factual errors-far too many to be the only reference. It describes ferrets as "a shark of the land, a piranha with feet, fur-coated evil, and the only four-legged creature in existence that kills just for kicks" and as having "the jaw musculature of a pit bull." claims that "A baby was killed and eaten in 1978" (despite the fact that ferrets weigh only 2-3 pounds) and that "little is known of the diseases carried by the ferret because veterinarians are afraid to touch them." despite ferrets having a LONG history as labratory animals. Yes ferret legging does get a lot of hits on google but almost all of them point to reprints of the Outside article. One of the non-Outside sources mentioned in a previous comment is even worse: "With claws as sharp as needles, they are also able scamper up walls and across beamed ceilings in pursuit of moths and flies." which is utterly false and seems to confuse ferrets with geckos. If this article is to remain it needs to have a better source. I am convinced that this jackass-stunt really did exist so I would rather see this article improved by having more reliable references than deleted outright, but without more and better sources it is too unverified to stand.JeffStickney 18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have verifiable evidence of anyone other than Katz claiming to have done it? wikipediatrix 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches would be deceptive on that because the same article that Katz wrote for Outside appeared later in Harpers and then in Katz' book. This would make that one source appear to be 3 sources. Furthermore almost everything on google that is not a direct reprint of that article derives its information from the article. The Katz article's numerous factual errors do render it unreliable and I do stand by the comment that I made earlier on the Ferret talk page that "Anyone who reads that article will immediately put things into perspective. By comparison it makes "Reefer Madness" look like a true story". However I notice that the Wikipedia article now also has a footnote to the book "Gould, Philip J.; Ralf Laue (2004). Book of Alternative Records. Metro Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 1843581264". Not having read it I can't comment on the book's reliability, but book sources are considered as valid as online sources WRT wikipedia policy. JeffStickney 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the Book of Alternative Records source has information not present in Katz' article, such as the date and place of Reg Mellor's world record. Just because there are errors about the behavior of ferrets from people who observed the sport doesn't invalidate the existence sport/practice. My guess is that the sport has really died out (perhaps with the Reg Mellor generation), but Katz did capture it (even if poorly or hyperbolically, in the eyes of some), as did others and it should stay here. Please note there are now two sources in the article Scarykitty 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's disputing that this man put Ferrets in his pants, and no one's disputing that people have written about it. What people are disputing (and rightly so) is whether this makes it a real sport, or at least a notable sport for Wikipedia purposes. Even if real, we don't give articles to every nutty competition conceived by bored miners and lumberjacks. However, I have an idea for a compromise: Katz's book might make a decent article even if the "sport" itself does not. wikipediatrix 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSince the votes are 50/50 it is clear that there will not be a consensus to delete. Can we close this now? JeffStickney 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Userfy. NawlinWiki 14:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kev n

[edit]

Totally fails WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed without comment. IceCreamAntisocial 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJDownload.com

[edit]

Advert for nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well... thanks for the sharp and rather unjust decision on your collective parts to vote for the removal of "djdownload.com". If you would kindly take the time to find out a little bit more about DJdownload then you may realise that it is an important part of DJ culture her in the ol' UK, and if you insist on its removal then I suggest that you review and delete "Beatport", Sony Connect, and all the other Online music stores on Wikipedia. Beatport in particular cares to mention (purely for research purposes i'm sure...) the prices of its download on the same wiki article!

"Isn’t music the best human invention ever?" - quote, Theresa Knott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdownloadadmin (talk • contribs)

I standby that quote. However this isn't about music, it's about using wikipedia in order to advertise, and that I am not happy about at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38 Acres

[edit]

Non-notable Christian Rock Band, popular at most in their local area (Illinois). One album; article claims that they have toured, but according to their webpage, only in their local area. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Also, Vanity page, created by User:38Acres. Prod and prod2 contested by author. Mangojuicetalk 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was would have made this a disambiguation page with a link to L. Aravind but someone already did that so I'll maintain the status quo. --- Deville (Talk) 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind

[edit]

This is a ego page for some person with the name "Aravind". There are millions of people with the same name in India, and if everyone puts their resume in wikipedia,where does it end?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akesavan (talk • contribs) .

Note - Page moved to L. Aravind.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is too general. If the article is about a specific person, it should use their full name instead of just a first name. Iluvitar 21:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Giant in biology. PubMed reveals 178 1st and 2nd tier publications includind Nature, Cell, and Science publications. Principal Investigator at NCBI. Search L. Aravind on Google. Some sort of titan in bioinformatics. You will note that I am basing my comments on NOTABILITY not READABILITY. --Antorjal 05:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblegum (wrestler)

[edit]

I did a google search for this wrestler, and it didn't come up with any decent searches. Seems to be a lesser wrestler that isn't that known. Wikipedia isn't the place for any wrestler. RobJ1981 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go... a good article on Phil Blitz (aka Bubblegum). upto standard and worth keeping --- Paulley
It being a good article or not doesn't matter, it didn't turn up much on Google and appears to be non-notable. RobJ1981 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the British wrestling fans would consider him notable. Just because he's not known in the States doesn't mean he can't be considered notable elsewhere. With that said, at the same time, Google does turn up relatively little about him, so I'm not sure on his notability myself. James Duggan 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thoguh that is mainly because of his name bringing up results for the chewing gum... if you try his name plus one of the promotion he works for i.e NBW you can see that its a different story --- Paulley
Comment There's actually some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in regards to the notability of wrestlers of various levels that may turn into a larger project. Right now, the suggestion is that unless they've worked for one of the Big Three companies, notability is pretty suspect. But... not sure how that works towards English wrestlers. I'm neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bubblegum is fast becoming one of the biggest names in british Professional wrestling and is working all over the UK and Ireland. He certainly belongs here.
  • Keep Just because the wrestler is not widely known does not mean his entry is subject to deletion. The article is factual and accurate and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.197.183 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 September 2006
  • Keep, wrestler appearantly notable to the wrestling community. bbx 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Moore

[edit]

This is a tough one. I vote weak delete, and let me go into why. First of all, wikipedia can't put on its site everyone who commits murders. Poor people commit murders every day, and there's absolutely no mention of it on Wikipedia, but some kid whose parents can afford a video game system, and all of a sudden, there's upper-class white outrage. And that's what the article basically consists of, that outrages, asking us to be outraged, plus the normal criminal set up. Now, there is the 60 Minutes stuff, but this stuff isn't fleshed out. Was it merely mentioned as a lead in to a segment, or was the entire segment based on this one kid? I think there's no way of knowing, because I didn't see the show. There are 1.6 million hits on google on it, but it appears difficult to quantify how many are really this Devin Moore... but again, even if there is a large number of internet hits, who gets on the internet? people who can afford it.-Kmaguir1 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a grey area, but please realise that the incident might be more significant to United States society than a simple murder (as crass as that sounds), as it could be used to justify limitations on civil liberties such as free speech. Honestly, I was surprised when I read this article - I live about 15 minutes from the police station where this happened, and I heard plenty about the killings shortly after they occurred. However, this is the first I have heard about a video game connection. I was aware that there was at least one alleged "GTA murder" in the national media but had no idea that it and this local case were one and the same. As far as I can recall, there was no mention whatsoever in the local media about the game connection, at least not around the time of the shooting. In other words, the video game "defense" seems pretty contrived to me, and it might be a good idea to see how much credence is given to this defense by the courts, legislature, ESRB, etc. If this is just yet another cop killing in Alabama which happens to have idiots running the defense and spouting potentially harmful ideas about the dangers of free speech and media, then it doesn't belong in an international encyclopedia, as bad an incident as it was. If, however, we later see changes in the law or the entertainment industry based on this case (which seems unlikely), then it might be worthy of mention as a social phenomenon. So perhaps delete now, but include it if it becomes a bigger issue? -Barry K. 24.116.114.143 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a really tough one. I'd say that this could be merged into the controversy section of the article about the video game that inspired the murders, because ever since the murders, the game has gotten a very bad reputation. Srose (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me that this was pretty big news at the time, so he would seem notable enough. Dsreyn 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources or references, and since this is a living person, remember Jimbo's admonition: "don't place a citation needed tag on it - remove the information entirely". Furthermore, the vast majority of the Google hits in a search for his name are not about this person, but rather about the NCAA football player of the same name. wikipediatrix 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added three references. Despite the fact that there's another person by the same name, these weren't too hard to find. Not sure either why it's significant that this other Devin Moore has more Google hits. Dsreyn 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Triple cop murderer and prisoner on death row provoked by seeking to live out virtual-reality. The article is verifiable. Although he didn't inspire a song such as I Don't Like Mondays, I think this case will be remembered and cited as a prominent case of VR inspired violence, and so it probably warrants a separate article from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Ohconfucius 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, information is verifiable and notable. The many google hits (I only get 1.5 million and only 40,000 with quotatation marks) on his name should be evident enough of his notability. That his actions resulted in a case against a video game for putting an idea in his head is significant, and it could end up being a landmark case. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, the vast majority of the Google hits in a search for his name are not about this person, but rather about the NCAA football player of the same name. wikipediatrix 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not true. A search for "Devin Moore" and "Grand Theft" together gets me 17,300 hits, and taking "Devin Moore" out of quotation marks gets up to 33,000 (the 1.5/6 million figure was way larger than it should be because there are plenty of instances where both occur and neither the NCAA football player nor the killer are mentioned). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if the statement by User:Wikipediatrix is true, how is that a reason for deletion? For example - if you search for "Ted Kennedy", I expect that the most matches by far will be for the US Senator. However, there is also Ted Kennedy (hockey), longtime NHL star and member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Should we delete the page on the hockey player because the Senator happens to be better known? Dsreyn 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frontloading (Technical)

[edit]

These are all dicdefs not suitable for WP. They have been hanging around for over a year. No-one has shown any inclination to do anything with them in that time so they are probably not expandable. Kindest thing is to put them to sleep. I also nominate:

Delete all. BlueValour 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden era of the NES

[edit]

Unverified and possibly editorial in nature. There really doesn't seem to be anything here that isn't already covered in the main Nintendo Entertainment System article. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus (television show)

[edit]

This page appears to be a hoax to me, since the article itself states that the show in question doesn't exist. However, it does sort of assert notability, so it didn't seem a good candidate for a speedy. It's a bit difficutl to google as the words "hiatus" and "television show" obviously come up with a lot of unrelated hit. But I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Therefore in violation of WP:V and WP:HOAX Dina 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a clear attempt to give something non-notable publicity. Just look at the website [23]:

We're wikied! Dunno how long before some wikimanager stomps on this like the shred of hearsay that it is, but at the moment Hiatus is at Wikipedia. I urge you to edit it to your heart's delight

They've been quite successful too. This is the number one hit on Google for "hiatus television" --Lo2u (T • C) 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a different article. Shmuel 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke may be on the Jokers: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842738/combined


I'll repost what I said on the talk page: The article wasn't put here as a joke -- the fanbase the article mentions *does* actually exists. Not only that, the article specifically states that the show itself never existed. So what's in-authentic about the article? Something can't be a hoax if the thing it's talking about actually exists, i.e. the fanbase of supporters for the non-existent television show "Hiatus" The only thing that might make this article viable for deletion is the fact that the fanbase isn't that large yet.

Take a look at the original (pre-stub) article. Looks like a clear attempt at a joke to me. Anyway it's irrelevant, as you say this just isn't notable. Something doesn't get an article just by virtue of the fact that it appears on the internet.--Lo2u (T • C) 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fanbase the article mentions has been in existence for just over a week, and consists of a couple dozen people at the outside. Most of the content in the non-stub was either made up, or was based on one posting on the very new fansite. Wikipedia is not for original work, and it's not for stuff you and a few friends just put together. In the event that "save Hiatus" becomes a widely followed movement (on the order of Snakes on a Plane or even Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten) -- and I, for one, hope it does -- an article will be in order. At the moment, it's premature, and not remotely encyclopedic. Strong delete. Shmuel 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per everybody. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deyon davis discography

[edit]

Empty article on non-notable person SmartGuy 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of clichés in online personal ads

[edit]

This page lacks any sort of source material and smacks distinctly of original research. While I agree that these cliches are well known as I do recognize some of them, this is the sort of thing which really needs some sort of sourcing to work. Lankybugger 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NATO helmet

[edit]

Fails to source research, defying WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:NPOV, having been asked to do so in December of 2005 with a cleanup tag. It is also a non notable article, devoid of pertinent information other than obvious statements about the function of a helmet. Shazbot85Talk 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: delete per what argument? I think it's standard to say something, no?--Anthony Krupp 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noted that none of the pages it links to link back to NATO helmet. And that the image on NATO helmet comes from one of the pages it links to. I generally prefer to keep stubs and ask people to work on them. I note that nominator has already contacted article creator with just this request. (Very ethical. Not like some deletionists.) I've contacted others who have worked on the article to let them know about the AfD. No strong opinion either way on my part. Perhaps very weak keep contingent on someone providing sources. If someone shows up here and says they'll research this, great.--Anthony Krupp 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just don't think it's neccessarily worthy of research which is why I proposed it for deletion. I have no qualms about proposing a stub for deletion if it seems useless. I don't think an article on a particular type of helmet will grow into something anymore meaningful than it already is, and I just don't think of it as meaningful. Perhaps the article can be deleted and merged to be listed on the main Wikipedia helmet page, that would seem far more productive to me rather than just having a random helmet article on a specific type of helmet. Shazbot85Talk 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Why don't you just add this tiny stub to that page, then, and signal that you've done so here? I think that will speed the AfD along nicely.--Anthony Krupp 15:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to, there's already a portion devoted to helmets and I don't feel it would be productive to add another section specifically for NATO helmets. The riot helmet section seems to be far more informative as well. Shazbot85Talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. wikipediatrix 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Survivor: Cook Islands, with no prejiduce towards recreation as a substantial article; that is to say, when more than two sentences can be said about Mr. Gonzalez.--SB | T 22:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gonzalez

[edit]

New contestant on yet-to-be-aired Survivor: Cook Islands. Non-notable. Tarc 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the official page of the reality tv series he's on is hardly proof of notability; only that he is a cast member in the upcoming show. Tarc 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeff. Okay, season hasn't aired yet, so this can't expand from a stub until then, but there's no crystal ball issue here, and I believe an article would be well-merited once the season has started. I wouldn't want to make things confusing later by having a delete precedent here. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already precedent to delete. See the discussion on Adam Gentry. Tarc 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete A6 by User:Ram-Man. ColourBurst 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Spyrou

[edit]

nonsense

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

The result was speedy close, article converted to redirect. --ais523 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Steven O'Donnell

[edit]

This page should be deleted because it does not contain any information except an external link -- Casmith 789 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete --- Deville (Talk) 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Wrestling Federation (UWF)

[edit]

Small promotion, that when searched on Google.. came up with no decent matches. Inactive promotion that was an indy promotion, and isn't very known. RobJ1981 10:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I remember hearing and reading quite a bit about them when I was a kid. I'd definitely call for some sort of expansion on the subject first, if there's anyone out there that can do it, and see what the results are. Delete This UWF is non-notable and not the UWF I was thinking of (Herb Abrams' Universal Wrestling Federation). Deputy Marshall 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No comments even after relist so I'll treat it like a prod. I agree with the deletion since it's a one sentence article with no claim of notability and a collection random external links. - Bobet 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrance Ventures, LLC.

[edit]

nn company Postingq 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MVM, INC

[edit]

nn company Postingq 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 03:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeport Brewing Company

[edit]

WP:SPAM Postingq 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Hour

[edit]

Absolutely non-notable, just read the artcile (approx.5 lines) Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian postage stamps

[edit]

This article would/could be encyclopedic if it was remotely completed. The article was started as a list, but was entirely empty. — The Future 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hamilton (Canadian politician)

[edit]

Like Lynn Peterson (also at AfD) this is a person whose sole claim to notability is having at some time been mayor of Thunder Bay, Ontario, a moderate-sized Canadian town. Looks like a one-term mayor (five years). Mayoralty of towns this size falls below the criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO and there is no other claim to notability here - actually it's a stub so nothing much there at all. Just zis Guy you know? 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We should draw the distinction between the position/office itself, which could be encyclopedic, but the office-holder is probably not. It is not automatic and would depend on what the person did, and its impact. Ohconfucius
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability beyond the backyard. NawlinWiki 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.Y.W.C

[edit]

Non-notable backyard wrestling cruft Dsreyn 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The relevant information is already in the actor's article. Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Box

[edit]

too small to be its own page CobaltBlueTony 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was unanimous keep; longtime contributors and new users agree. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15

[edit]

A DRV consensus (heavily infested with spammers, but they were ignored) overturned the previous AfD on this subject in light of new evidence (including a New York Times article, published since the last AfD.) Please consult the DRV for the citations to new evidence. The version here is the most recent sourced version in the article history -- other, better versions may be in there for those who wish to check. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to be honest I don't care one way or another if this gets kept or deleted, but unlike the last AfD, there are now finally 2 non-blog sources provided which could be considered multiple sources under WP:BIO if one is being generous.--Isotope23 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Page appears to have more content from a user who archived it. To re-iterate the main points from the previous discussion, it's been mentioned in multiple media sources, a small sample of which are here:
  1. New York Times, 25 August, "Today in Business"
  2. Chicago Tribune, 23 August, "Shoot From The Clip"
  3. New York Magazine, 28 August, by Adam Sternbergh "Hey There, Lonelygirl"
  4. New York Newsday, 17 August, by Megan Chan "Channeling into a new generation"
  5. Denver Post, 1 August, "Click These"
  6. Alameda Times-Star, 23 July, by Candace Murphy "Today's kids have their own outlets for creativity"
  7. The Times of London, 19 August, by Jonathan Richards "Worldwide acclaim for lonely girl"
  8. AgoraVox, 21 August, by Matthew Ingram "What Is YouTube Good For?"
  9. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 6 August, (trans) "The Webcam Generation has a new star: "Lonelygirl15. But is she authentic?"

I came here to find out about the lonelygirl15 phenomenon and found out. Thanks It's notable enough to make it into print media, it can be verified, and Wikipedia is in a position to be ahead of the curve in writing about topics like this, not behind it. I'm with the New York Times on this one.--BigCow 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, several of those could probably be considered trivial coverage, but #3 and #7 (both linked from the article) are not... the are full writeups on the subject.--Isotope23 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that link: "The debate rages at Wikipedia over whether or not Lonelygirl15 should have an entry in the online encyclopedia. If you have an account, please go to the Deletion Review and chime in (preferably supporting Undelete) about the matter." Heh. No comment. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I preface by sayign that I realize I do not have a lot of edits. When this article was for AfD last time, I could see saying that she was not notable enough, but I think her popularity has skyrocketed since that time even further. There do exist multiple sources including newsworthy sources such as the LA Times referencing her. Also, the whole controversy involving the trademark application along with a few other theories not yet mentioned in the article makes this possible to be a genious marketing event. I think because of all this, she is notable enough to have an entry. 24.168.219.121 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Encyplopedias mustn't dictate what interests people (e.g., articles on the fruit fly need to be there, though not of interest to everyone.). Lonleygirl15 is video literature.... real, fictional, or semi-fictional, boring, interesting? no matter. It is a cultural phenomenon that exists and captures the attention of a lot more people than, say, difficult academic new music, or arcane Sanskrit poetry. Elitist intellectualism has no place in legislating what constitutes general human knowledge. Semari1 16:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skuzzlebutt

[edit]

Doesn't warrant an article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution_Diet

[edit]

Not notable. No reliable sources. Looks like spam Jefffire 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatos Device

[edit]

Joke weapon from The Onion (note source); talk page of article claims that the joke is well-known, but no sources for that claim. NawlinWiki 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is, and the creator of the Thanatos Device page has already added a reference to it. --McGeddon 08:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Frank R. Wallace. Note that this article must be rewritten to be a neutral description of this person and his ideas, and it must also reference reliable, third-party sources that are not related to Frank R. Wallace or his publishing company. Wikipedia articles are not the place for an uncritical description of this person or his ideas channeled directly from his books. Both the Neo-Tech (philosophy) and Frank R. Wallace articles were originally created and their text remains substantially written by a now-banned user whose express and only purpose on Wikipedia was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles.

The text from the current Neo-Tech article cannot simply be copied into the Frank R. Wallace article. It must be added only as a neutral description of Neo-Tech that is proportionate to a well-balanced, well-sourced article on this person and his ideas and activities, with reference to sources unrelated to him. Anything that does not meet these conditions, which are essential to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, will be deleted. The keep result of the prior deletion discussions were contingent on the cleanup of this article to conform to Wikipedia policies, and were based on the notability the subject insofar as it is what some commenters described as a "mail-order scam" and as "cultist crackpots"; yet the article currently mentions nothing whatsoever of these activities or views. —Centrx→talk • 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination)

[edit]

No peer-reviewed sources on either side of the issue. Also, WP:NEO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Close No AfD notice on the article and from the looks of it, the article is locked from editing due to an edit war. This is a content dispute, not an AfD issue... besides, we don't need peer-reviewed sources for every article to be verified.--Isotope23 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There was just a AfD earlier this month. This article is based on primary sources. It is perfectly legitimate to cite authors of books as a sources about what tbeir own own books say. Just because there are no secondary sources available, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. And, Neo-Tech is definitely noteable. WP:NEO (neologism) doesn't even apply. JoeMystical 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources. Basing an article strictly on primary sources is not best practice.--Isotope23 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Here is the deal. One guy named Frank Wallace developed the philosophy. He published his own books. Since then other authors people have been writing about the philosophy, and Wallace has published their books and articles for them with his own publishing company. I don't know if the latter would be considered secondary sources since they're technically not self-published, but it's all that's available. There are no books that go into describing Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace's publishing company, that I'm aware of. JoeMystical 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Tried, didn't work. Care to suggest something better? Bi 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article should stay but be made more interesting. It is a collection of citations from two or three books, and that doesn't qualify as a good article on a philosophy.--SidiLemine 17:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SidiLemine, if you oppose the motion to delete, would you consider indicating this by saying Keep. Thanks, Addhoc 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Addhoc this is, like any fast-learning experience, getting pretty painful. I find it hard to believe that poeple would get THAT heated on an encyclopedia article. Did you notice that the other wiki's article on NT are exact replicas?--SidiLemine 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find an article on a school and nominate it for deletion... you'll see just how heated people can get here...--Isotope23 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean on the foreign language Wikipedias? Yes, it looks like they were translated from this one. The French version looks just like it: [27] And the German: [28] JoeMystical 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understand that people get heated after you want to delete an article...; but to get angry at the bad editing of an article on which you wanted to participate (that should prove you deem the article worthy of existance) to the point you propose (3 times!) to delete it... Well, it's good to see people take the project at heart! By the way, It's just the french article that's a copy of this one. I quite like the portuguese one. Full text: "Neo-Tech is a philosophy similar to Objectivism. Its goal is to clear mysticism from the human mind". Plus a link to Pax Neo Tex (prank by Bi)--SidiLemine 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bi appears to be using Wikipedia to self-promote his joke web page. JoeMystical 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why would I even propose an AfD to delete my own link if I'm self-promoting? User:$yD: the first 2 AfDs were by other people, for other reasons. Bi 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JoeMystical, I obviously didn't mean that. Please keep me out of your contest of bad faith. Bi, I didn't know that. Do you know what were the reasons? That could prove instructive for this time.--SidiLemine 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. VfD by Tony Sidaway: reason: "Original research, neologism. Obscure crackpot ideas."
  2. AfD: reason: Neo-Tech is a scam.
You can see traces of them on the talk page, by the way. Bi 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your reason is that it is weighted on one side only, right? One thing I wanted to ask around for a moment is, when something is evident ("cats have four legs", say), at what point can you just say it without it being OR? Any idea where I can look?--SidiLemine 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the top of the page for my rationale for this AfD. Bi 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two AfD notices in a month is excessive. Addhoc 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, you know what? I started this AfD because people were telling me on WT:NPOV that an article with only self-published sources is unencyclopedic and should go. And now you're saying that it shouldn't go. OK, how about this: if you really want to keep the article, please please please draft out a plan of how you would improve the article, instead of giving vague requests to other people to "find some secondary sources" and make the article "more interesting", yadda yadda yadda. Bi 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anyone that told you an article is unencyclopedia because it has only self-published sources is wrong, under the condition that self-published sources are only used a sources for what the author of those sources are saying in an article about the authors of those sources. A book by Frank Wallace is a good source to show what a book what by Frank Wallace says. There's no disputing that. But, since Wallace's books are self-published they're probably not good as secondary sources, which means you couldn't use Wallace's opinion in a different article about something else. The article is not too bad as it is. The way to improve it would be to bring in more books by Wallace and others who write about Neo-Tech. The way to not improve it, is to do what you were doing, which is bringing in posts from anonymous people on forums and even a web page you made yourself as sources. That would be using self-published sources as secondary sources, which means using self-published sources in a article other than an article about the source itself. You made a web page called Pax-NeoTex which is making jokes about Neo-Tech. You can't use that as a source in the article, meaning it's not a reliable secondary source. You could only use that as a source if you're using it as a source about Pax-NeoTex if there were a Pax-NeoTex article. You're not a published expert on Neo-Tech, but a self-published jokester (that is, your web page is a joke page). JoeMystical 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:NEO specifically disagrees with your argument: "Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Plain and simple.
        • Comment That's not applicable at all. Do you think Scientology is a neologism and therefore that article should be deleted? That's absurd. This article is not about a word, but about a philosophy represented by a word. JoeMystical 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Scientology does have peer-reviewed secondary sources discussing it, including a senior thesis. And you're splitting non-existent hairs: obviously when one discusses a word, one will discuss the meaning of the word. Bi 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment This article is not about the meaning of a word. WP:NEO does not apply whatseover. JoeMystical 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • CommentHere they go again. Bi, you must admit it is possible that there is no available documented criticism on these guys. If there's none, it just means they're not important enough to attract some. JoeMystical, the article as it is is not interesting and will strike almost anyone who stumble upon it as an ad. For the sake of your own cause, please consider making it look like there has been some other consideration than the books. Basically, Islam is defined by the Coran. But if you got out there and did the article only by citing it, it would look unapropriate. I know, it's not a cult, but you get my drift. Or else, consider changing it to articles about the books.--SidiLemine 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment If they're not important enough, then shouldn't the article be zapped, according to WP:Notable? And again, I refer to the quote above from WP:NEO. Bi 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment Books about Neo-Tech are cited in other books, such as in Church Disputes Mediation (Gracewing Publishing 2003, page 287) and in Fresh Wisdom: Breakthrough to enlightenment, ISBN: 1419618555 (page 117), but as far as I know there are no criticisms. So the fact that it is cited, if not criticized, indicates some importance. Even without those citations, it's obviously noteable. JoeMystical 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There's a line between being imporant enough to attract controversy and being notable. But I think I'm loosing my time here. How about we flag the article as "neutrality disputed", and wait until someone (Bi maybe?)edits a book against it? Then we'll have opposing secondary sources. No, more seriously: JoeMystical, you didn't answer my proposition.--SidiLemine 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • To improve the article? That's what I've been trying to do, but Bi here deletes the cited material. He's doesn't want the article to exist, but since he can't get rid of it, he tries to delete almost everything out of the article. JoeMystical 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You're still not answering SidiLemine's question. Bi 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Which was? JoeMystical 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Not just to improve it, but to balance the canon citations with stuff not from the books or from the authors. --SidiLemine 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Oh I see. Are you new to Wikipedia? It sounds like you're advocating what is called "original research" which means to put things in an article that can't be cited from reliable sources. See WP:OR. We can't put our own opinions, arguments, or criticisms in Wikipedia articles. That's a big no no. 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, actually I am new. Please don't bite me. Or get sarcastic, for what it's worth. I never mentionned our opinions. I just said "stuff not from the books or from the authors". As in newspaper articles, sales review, that kind of stuff. I'm amazed at my own patience sometimes.--SidiLemine 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh ok. I thought you meant our own opinions. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or anything. Yes that would be good if they existed. All the books are published by Wallace's company and I don't know if they've released numbers on how many books have been sold. If so, you really couldnt use it as a secondary source. You could just say something like "they claim that 500,000 books on the philosophy have been sold." JoeMystical 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some, not about Neo-Tech the philosophy, but Neo-Tech the company -- Integrated Management Associates. Are we confused enough yet? Bi 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and if the nominator can vote too, then I say delete. Bi 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once more, the whole reason for this AfD was that there aren't any peer-reviewed sources from either the pro-Neo-Tech side or the anti-Neo-Tech side, so if you'd like to keep this article, please at least suggest something more useful than "find some secondary sources". Jeez, I'm tired of this. Bi 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another darn comment... OK, I just had to get this out of my system. Friends, Wikipedians, countrymen, do you know why the Neo-Tech article is still not of encyclopedic quality? Why people keep voting to not to delete the article, but to clean up the article, but it's still a mess?
I'll tell you why. Because everybody keeps waiting for someone who's not himself to clean up the article. You see this in the first VfD, you see this in the previous AfD, and you see this in the comments above. Yes, yes, the article can be great article, if only somebody who's not me goes the extra mile to clean up the article and pull out good-quality secondary sources from his magic hat! Yes sir, it'll be a "headache", but it's not my headache! And guess what, everyone ends up waiting for that someone who's not himself to do all the dirty work. Read the comments above, read the comments in the VfD, read the comments in the prior AfD, and judge for yourself whether I'm right.
Stop this. Please. This has gone on long enough. Keep, don't keep, I don't really care now. But stop all this buck-passing.
Thank you for your attention. Bi 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article doesn't need much "cleaning up." It's pretty well sourced and informative. I was trying to make it even better but then you go and delete the sourced information. Either help improve the article or get out of the way, please. Don't give us this "passing the buck" stuff. I wouldn't call deleting large amounts of information "cleaning up." . JoeMystical 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What a mess! Bi, no one at Talk:NPOV told you to place this on AfD again. I specifically advised you on how to deal with individual statements that cannot be verified from reliable published sources. I advised you to follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, and to not edit war. I also suggested that you just walk away from this if you had a personal stake in it. JoeMystical, it is indeed true that an article that can be supported only by self-published sources does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and should not be in Wikipedia. I suggest that you read the policy on self-published sources. -- Donald Albury 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So what are you getting at? You say the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, yet you won't support its deletion. And then you "advised" me to do a whole lot of things I've already tried to do. Can anyone suggest something more constructive? *birds chirping* Bi 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability say: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves." JoeMystical 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Why it says "and other published sources of dubious reliability" I don't know. Obviously the sources are not of dubious reliability. How could a book be of dubious reliability when used as a source for itself? It's just straighforward quoting and paraphrasing. JoeMystical 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Self-published sources may be used as a source for what an author said about himself, i.e., Joe blow claims that he was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a 1949 Studebaker. They may not be used as sources for other things, i.e., we can't use a self-published source for Joe Blow claims that Spirow Agnew was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a BMW Isetta. -- Donald Albury 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Right, but besides self-published sources being used as a source for what an author says about himself they can also be used as a source for how the author describes his philosophy. They can't be used as a source for asserting whether the philosophy is good or not, of course, but a book can always be used a source for what's in that book. JoeMystical 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate motherhood statements. That's all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi (talk • contribs)


  • Merge There has been a proposition that we merge the article with Wallace_Ward, as has been one on the German Wikipedia. Anyone agreee with the idea? --SidiLemine 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As mentioned on the talk page, I'll support a merge. Bi 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A merge will not make all problems go away, but should make things more manageable. -- Donald Albury 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Donald Albury. Addhoc 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It doesn't make sense to merge. I understand why those who voted to merge would do so though, because they probably were not aware that of the following: Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. There are other writers who contribute their ideas to make what is called Neo-Tech. Only citing Wallace, you would not get a full picture of the philosophy. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. Wallace's son, Mark Hamilton, has probably written about half of it. I oppose a merge. A merge with Frank R. Wallace makes no sense. And a merge with Objectivism would be original research because no secondary sources say it is a form of objectivism. The Neo-Tech article is a pretty good article. It's pretty well sourced and defintely written NPOV. There are PLENTY of sources. The books themselves are the sources. It is a good article, and the vote is totally uncalled for. "Bi" who put this up for deletion spends his time writing his own web page called "Neo-Tex" which is a feeble attempt to ridicule the philosophy. He doesn't like Neo-Tech and wants to get rid of the article and wants to remove as much words about Neo-Tech from Wikipedia as possible. Look at what he did to the Neo-Tech article. He tried to cut it down to almost nothing, deleting sourced information: He cut it down from this [29] to this [30] That is totally unjustified. Wikipedia is about being informative as possible, not least informative as possible. Bi has initiated this action for all the wrong reasons. Please consider changing your vote, because it's going to be moved back to its own article eventually anyway. Probably no one will change their vote, but at least this is here for the record so anyone can see exactly what this was all about. It is totally improper attempt to delete a fine article, with those voting not having enough background information to make an informed decision. JoeMystical 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it would be more acceptable to have a full-extent description of the guy's system of thought on his own article than on a separate one. Plus it would put the length of the neo tech citations in perspective with something else, instead of being evaluated per se. Should we wait for JoeMystical to approve, or is there a time limit to these things?--SidiLemine 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No one has a veto over the decision. AfDs normally run for five days. An admin determines when to close the discussion and what the result is. - Donald Albury 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, SidiLemine, does your new "Merge" vote mean you are cancelling your earlier "Keep" vote? I've struck it out for you for now, but it'll be good to confirm. Bi 07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup, no worries. I wouldn't want to loose the subject altogether, but if we keep it that way we might as well merge it for added consistency. Oh and I support merging with Neo-Objectivism, as "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism" Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest .--SidiLemine 10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'd lean toward delete on this one, but if there's a related article and a precedent then just merge it. Durova 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy's Four Fingers

[edit]

Band with one album, working on second. I don't really see an assertion of notability here, but the article has been on WP since Nov. 2005 so I'm hesitant to speedy it. NawlinWiki 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Udders Productions

[edit]

spam from non-notable corp Akradecki 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch-slap

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Whispering(talk/c) 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep because the nominator withdrew the nomination. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Punisher 2

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispering(talk/c) 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down East Yachts

[edit]

I'm somewhat conflicted about bringing this to AFD. On the one hand, it strikes me as just a place to hang some link spam on. On the other hand, it is about a real company who produced some real boats. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As the original poster I believe it should be kept and I plan to expand it further. If it strikes you as a place to hang links on it is probably because I have really just gotten started getting the information posted. It was a real company that was part of the history of sailing in america and the sailboats are still out there being used. It would be nice if wikipedia could be a center of information on these boats. As far as the links themselves, they are all good sources of information, not commercial. Lasher9999
  • Weak keep. It would be nice to have some refs I could actually verify, instead of what could be (for all I know) a press release in a 1970s magazine, but... I guess it's good enough. Sort of. Kafziel 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Kafziel 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the change Kafziel. Two of the references are from books. One is from a magazine review. If you would like I can scan the books and email to you. Lasher9999 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, by the arguments raised, he verifiably meets the relevant notability guideline WP:BIO -- Samir धर्म 08:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kar

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable businessman; a minor executive at a small subsidiary company. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:V as the only verification comes from sources within his company. Possible vanity page. Kafziel 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This businessman definitely has a decent level of notability. His peers in Bangalore have elected him as President of TiE, which is significant, and he's also verifiable as a contributor at the World Economic Forum. I've added both to the article. --Mereda 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of WP:BIO do you feel he meets? Kafziel 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try the Google test again. My answer's 56k, one week into the start of his TiE year in office. It doesn't make sense to me that we should delete someone at this level of media visibility, big in Indian IT and edging towards being an international name. There's even a story about him being nominated a few years ago for WEF's "100 Future Global Leaders". Will he make it at that level, I don't know and i'm not guessing, but he's already well above the "college professor" test.--Mereda 21:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Google test is not a valid test of notability. The WEF isn't really, either; if you pay your dues, you're in. The company that sends representatives may be notable, but not necessarily the representatives themselves. None of the links in the article are stories by neutral and reliable third parties. Kafziel 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While ignoring the Google results, did you notice the book [31] with a chapter about Kar? Personally I still think his TiE status matters because he's identified by others as a business role model and mentor. It's more sensible to keep an article about him and improve it. Mereda 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Businessman types tend not to be notable unless they're at the top of a truly huge company (Bill Gates) or they have other achievements (Richard Branson). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and the fact that this isn't a proper encyclopedic biography, but essentially just a collection of links to information elsewhere. If his company is redlinked, they're not notable enough for him to be notable. Akradecki 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Correct me if i am wrong, I believe it'd be called vanity if he himself wrote the article. Right? --Gurubrahma 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "We've kept articles that are worse than this one" is a spectacularly unpersuasive argument, by the way. Nandesuka 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the couch

[edit]

"Jumping the couch" has only gained notability because of the notability of Tom Cruise and the couch incident, as well as the notability of Urban Dictionary, who coined the term. I know the term has been referenced by several reliable websites, but there is no evidence of the term being in common usage in everyday speech/writing, as are some other pop culture neologisms such as metrosexual. Until we see this neologism clearly being used by many people (not just listed on websites as one of the coolest slang phrases of the year), I don't think it should have its own article. A brief mention in the Tom Cruise page, along with the couch incident, is enough. --Schzmo 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrorcube

[edit]

Prod removed after some effort made to achieve WP:BAND; still, I don't think it's gone far enough. Daniel Case 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Kayak Maintenance

[edit]

Original research, unsourced -Nv8200p talk 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kenward

[edit]

This article is pure vanity and probably autobiographical: the only editors are two anonymous users and Rkenward. I think Ryan Kenward is not notable enough for an article. Google only gives about 200 hits, most of which are his personal sites and profiles. Stefan Jansen 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Park Tropang Hudas Gang

[edit]

non-notable group with none/few ghits Zephyr2k 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caister Allendale FC

[edit]

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this things does not exist. --Dangherous 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Natural Born Killaz

[edit]

A small ECW event that isn't a big part of it's history. This is just one of many ECW events that don't belong here. RobJ1981 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following events if Rob doesn't mind, because they are the same as this(non-notable event that only has an article becuase of their unique names): ECW Born To Be Wired, ECW Double Tables, ECW Beer, Blood, Babes, and Barbed Wire, ECW When Worlds Collide, ECW The Night The Line Was Crossed, ECW Ultra Clash, ECW Enter The Sandman. TJ Spyke 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge all the articles into one, making it one article, instead of deleting the history? — The Future 02:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these events were notable though, ECW just had a history of giving most of their shows unique names, just like we don't have pages for every single WWE tour(despite them all having unique names). TJ Spyke 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats still no reason why we can't have a list of the names somewhere. (Not the results though) Why don't you just list them under a new section on List of ECW pay-per-view events? Even though they aren't pay-per-views, there is a section for non-pay-per-view supercards on this article, so make a new section there maybe? — The Future 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK witht them being listed there, just not having their own pages. TJ Spyke 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, patent nonsense, recreated for the third time (the first two times, it was asserted that he invented the sand castle), will protect. NawlinWiki 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sandcastle

[edit]

This is the virtual equivalent of a WP:NFT issue. This made up character in an online game is not notable: there is 1 Google hit, and it isn't even about the character in question. Speedy template removed, or else it would have been handled that way. Erechtheus 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Communism

[edit]

Appears to be entirely original research, or more precisely, promoting one's own essay about Communism. It has not received any media attention, has not been published anywhere (apart from a couple of web forums), so it's hardly verifiable even if it were a notable political idea - which I think it isn't. --Zoz (t) 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Note that the expression "new communism" is widely used in the popular and academic press (see for example, George Will's essay in Newsweek, 5/9/2005 p.72. "The Stalins of this "new communism" are people like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and even Tony Blair..."). However none of these, as far as I can tell, refer to the same theories expounded upon in this article. Note further, the person who wrote this article misspelled "communism" in the first line. Uucp 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP New Communism is clearly a new and diffrent idea from Communism and other ideas. It has characteristics that are not Communist but are more Nationalist. Spelling has nothing to do on weather it should be deleted or not. For spelling can be corrected. Why don't we fix the article not delet it. --PETER THE GREAT 05:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep because as Peter Watson has said it is a clear and diffrent political idea from normal Communism and has some characteristics as Peter has said that make it a bit Nationalist --59.100.36.85 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete looks like original research to me delete per WP:NOR. Whispering(talk/c) 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So why don't we fix it --59.100.69.118 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete, there was a discussion at [[32]] following some similar lines like this. However, this article is solely made up of OR and unreferenced material. IP number of 59.100.36.85 should be checked for possible sock-puppeting (language similar to other Peterwats edits). --Soman 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have just fix the article about New Communism doesn't have to be deleted. I think it might need to be fix a bit more. So I vote to keep it--59.100.0.9 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forums Of WWE

[edit]

small forum trying to advertise itself Zephyr2k 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Negro

[edit]

Not an established term, not even a neologism. I wouldnt go so far as to call it nonsense, but it is certanly borderline. Ezeu 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation Zero

[edit]

Contested prod. Totally unsourced and unfounded speculation, a fine example of what Wikipedia is not. Exterminate. VoiceOfReason 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute color space

[edit]

Fails WP:NOR

This article already went (successfully) through the Proposed deletion process--yes, it was deleted. Unfortunately, since links remained, and since no traces for the reasons of its deletion remained, it was re-created and subsequently edited by well-intended users. This approach intends to avoid the confusion.

This article was created and edited in good faith, but the very concept and content are, in my opinion, misguided. There is no such thing as an absolute color space--try finding a definition of this concept outside Wikipedia (and ignoring Wikipedia mirrors), and you will fail.

The reason is that the concept of an "absolute color space" doesn't reconcile at all with the well-established concepts of color space and color model. In essence, this article duplicates some of the concepts in both color space and color model, without really clarifying what a "non-absolute" color space would be. That's because there is no such thing as a non-absolute (relative?) color space. -- Gutza

  • Delete. See deletion log. Shouldnt have been recreated. --Quiddity 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article seems to be trying to describe, with several errors, what the industry calls a device-independent color space. Gazpacho 03:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure? See [33] about halfway down. --Quiddity 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to say I really don't understand why this was nominated. I've worked with colour management for many years and the terms and definitions of "absolute colour space" and "relative colour space" are well-known in that field. A Google search brings up several non-Wikipedia references and definitions. It's certainly not original research. --Canley 06:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the author of the request for deletion, and I stand corrected: the article should be kept. I don't know whether I should de-list it from AfD myself. For anyone curious on what happened, I'll explain myself. I did do my research before proposing this for deletion the first time, and I really didn't find any credible source at that time; I obviously didn't do any more research for listing it on AfD afterwards. Quiddity, I think the article you listed was inspired by Wikipedia content, so it wouldn't count if that was the case (I found several wording similarities between Wikipedia content and that article.) Of course, I can't be certain it was. But Canley's vote and explanation made me search Google again--lo and behold, now I found several very credible sources mentioning absolute color spaces--including a patent application by Seiko [34]. I apologise for the trouble, and, as the person who proposed deletion in the first place, I explicitly authorize anyone who knows the procedure to de-list this article from AfD. --Gutza T T+ 07:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied; redirect deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Conduct

[edit]

User:MissConduct created this WP:BIO-failing vanity/spam piece about herself. wikipediatrix 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's about 330 distinct hits, not all of which are relevant. Dlyons493 Talk 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being notable within her field (fetish and bondage). My search yields 77,500 relevant results, and it should be noted for the umpteenth time that "distinct hits" are complete rubbish; according to Wikipedia:Search engine test, Microsoft only returns 552 unique hits, and I highly doubt anyone is going to argue that we're comparing apples and apples here. RFerreira 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Rohe

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, WP:PORN BIO. Article is nothing but a list of redlinks. wikipediatrix 19:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moehring

[edit]

Vanity by non-notable businessman. Google only turns up his personal site, Wikipedia mirrors, and some sites that appear to be other people with the same name. Page was created by "Cmoehring". MysteryDog 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEUA

[edit]

Survived an AFD over a year ago despite not having any sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEUA. Still no reliable sources covering this so it fails WP:V. Delete as nn organization. Wickethewok 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy, closed by Improv

Blue Hell and List of Blue Hells

[edit]

Closed -- moved into userspace as per WP:NOR. --Improv 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Maus

[edit]

Vanity article about non-notable individual; edited multiple times by User:Kirbymaus and once by User:Wikikirby. Article was prod'ed by another user but this was removed by the original author. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay because Mr. Maus is a notable person in seven different television/radio markets around the pacific/southwest.

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


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

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Adil Hossain Nobel

[edit]

Only 22 Google hits for "one of the best male model of his generation". Fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakton Cross Country

[edit]

Have not seen any decent evidence to remove the site as it provides details about the cross country team and is allready linked with the main school site. All though it seems frequent vandalism occurs, in all instances it has been swiftly taken care of.

High school cross country team; nonnotable even though they are state champions. NawlinWiki 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge and Rewrite. Non-notable. If there is an article on the high school, then merge with the high school article and re-write, because the article is not in what you would call, tip-top shape. --Nishkid64 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep it it is a bunch of kids who are excited about what they have accomplished. If you don't think that it is strong reporting ask them to step it up I am sure they would be willing to work harder. Go Cougars

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

The result was delete, I deleted this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hughes (Writer / Director), so I might as well close this AfD now. --- Deville (Talk) 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Drop

[edit]

Non-notable that I can find. Don't think it meets WP:V -Nv8200p talk 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated

[edit]

Warez group article with no reliable sources. Few google hits as well, so I didn't find any sources either. Seems to have survived a VFD a year or so ago despite not having any sources or verifiability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated). It looks like it was kept because of WP:IHEARDOFTHIS. Delete as unverifiable original research. Wickethewok 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. TRSi is a well-known crack/warez group in the early-mid '90s on PC and Amiga. Perhaps we can find some more external links for you but the existing ones are a good start for verifiability. --Vossanova o< 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The external links listed are not reliable sources in any way. Can you provide some that meet WP:RS? Wickethewok 20:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple new links to the article (replacing worthless ones). I can't guarantee they meet WP:RS though. Scenery Amiga is the best link of the bunch for group information. --Vossanova o< 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:

  • relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or
  • not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Team (warez)

[edit]

No verifiable information regarding this subject. No reliable sources. Delete per WP:V and as original research as well. Wickethewok 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triad C64

[edit]

Entirely original research and not verifiable in the least. No reliable sources. Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Wickethewok 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete participants of illegal activities regarding dead systems... how is that notable again? Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; I'd say Triad was a pretty important cracking group in Nordic countries at least (how do I know? eh... um... my... backup copies of some C64 games here happen to be cracked by them, and if that stuff has somehow come to my hands on the pre-Internet era, that's quite an accomplishment. And yes, I have genuine versions of the games now =). However, the verifiability is a bit of a problem here - "underground" stuff tends, by definition, stay pretty obscure and by definition hard to verify... Their demoscene career, however, is probably better documented by outside sources. So even if it's deleted now, I don't mind seeing it again if someone fixes the article to have better sources. Especially on the demoscene stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm - I'm having trouble figuring out how reliable the sourcing is .... WilyD 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability isnt the standard here folks... verifiability... to that extent the information is verifiable, even if its poorly written and needs npoving. Clean it up ... dont delete it.  ALKIVAR™ 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but needs cleanup - My youth between the age of 4 and 8 was largely occupied by Triad cracktros. // Gargaj 17:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Myles Long 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, famous warez group, and not that it matters but during most of its time on the warez scene, Triad was doing nothing illegal (because of outdated copyright laws). bbx 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiveProcess

[edit]

Found nothing on this product, aside from the company's own press releases. ccwaters 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference http://www.GHA.org that is the website of the Georgia Hospital Association. They are a current customer of LiveProcess. One of the reasons that I feel so strongly that it needs to be on Wikipedia is because it is somewhere people go for information they trust. The purpose of this is to make them aware that this is out there.
Thanks,
Joe Simonovich Jsimonovich@liveprocess.com 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsimonovich@liveprocess.com (talk • contribs) [reply]
Also, here are some links to articles about LiveProcess:
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=2BF66D5C-92B9-437D-B455-F0378C98D536
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=4491
Jsimonovich@liveprocess.com 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. Article reads like an ad, and the author's comment above about the purpose for this being here is clearly advertising. That being said, the concept is an interesting one, and a viable article could be written from a non-product perspective on the general need for unified languages. Akradecki 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per cleanup noted below. Nice job. Akradecki 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been totally revamped as of 9/1/06 to better fit in with other Wikipedia articles on software procucts. Please review. Thanks. Jsimonovich@liveprocess.com 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy and delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Scano

[edit]

Vanity or Resume -Nv8200p talk 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Founder Members of the FA Premier League

[edit]

Original discussion

I nominated this page for deletion a year ago on the basis that it's essentially superfluous and redundant. That nomination was closed as no consensus. In the intervening year since then, the page has become orphaned and receives almost no attention. I am again nominating it for deletion for the same reasons -- all of the founder members of the league are noted as such in FA Premier League and all this article is is a short summary of each team with their recent news, all of which is encapsulated in the teams' respective articles. There's no point to this page. howcheng {chat} 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is indiscriminate - the premier league was just a continuation of the old football league division 1. The information could easily be kept in FA Premier League. Catchpole 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irgent

[edit]

Ad, seems to lack notability & widespread use. Alexa rating is unremarkable (3,894,678). ghits: [35] & [36] & [37] — NMChico24 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Gaming

[edit]

This is a self promotion article and not notable. Iluvitar 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Madness Online

[edit]

Vanity, self promotion article. Not notable. Iluvitar 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boo

[edit]

Musician is non-notable and fails WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy and delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Donselman

[edit]

Not notable, appears to be autobiographical Mikejs 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Russell Borken

[edit]

non-notable author. 7 unique Google hits for "Glenn Russell Borken" (zero for "glenn borken"). His two "best known" works only produce one Google hit apiece - this page. Utterly fails WP:BIO, may be a hoax. See also father Richard Franklin Borkan's nomination above. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (RuneScape)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Simple as that. The RuneScape Wiki has an article on magic, so go edit that if you want to keep this article.Richard 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only content from Magic that isn't now contained in combat or explained in other articles is the needless list of weapons and armour. Information on the ins-and-outs of individual items is very easily obtainable from fansites or the RS knowledgebase and in a blunt format with all the stats which we cannot apply here anyway. At the time the AFD was listed these were not merged, and it's right to stand back and look it again, as your comment encouraged me to do. Now that the other information is merged, the article has carried out its purpose and becomes part of the combat article which in time can be built up to a high-standard. Despite all this, it would have been better if this information was merged properly and time was given to that process before the AFD process began. If one of the other articles which could be merged to combat is listed to AFD before that process is done, I shall be voting keep to stop this running around. QuagmireDog 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that ^ I have added more material from Magic into RuneScape combat, rewriting a lot of it, and will continue to do so tomorrow (a little sleep would go a long way). I'm hoping this will prove satisfactory to all parties. QuagmireDog 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted under the CSD A7 criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vx rangers

[edit]

football club created in 2006 -> not notable Zephyr2k 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Past Lineups

[edit]

Delete Pointless article. Vital information can be easily be put into a couple of sentences on main page. SenorKristobbal 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firecold

[edit]

advertising spam, proded but prod removed by author Akradecki 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Thε Halo Θ 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly's

[edit]

Fails WP:CORP Zephyr2k 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as requested by author on article

Surrency Spooklight

[edit]

Original research & unsourced, was tagged with a speedy {{db-copyvio}} but the editor has claimed to be the author of the website in question (which isn't commercial anyway). Thanks/wangi 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas (mythology)

[edit]

Article has been tagged {{notverified}} since October 2005. A comment added to the article (rather than talk) states that the subject is not included in the Oxford Dict. of Celtic Mythology. The results in Google books are unpromising [39] [40]. As noted at the article talk, the name itself is improbable (Dubglas or Dubhglas are possible). The web results are plentiful enough, but there is no reliable source for the information here, or in the related articles. Scáthach already contains the smergable material from this article and the related nominations. Fails to cite any sources, let alone reliable ones, and so fails to meet the requirement for verifiability. As it hasn't been fixed in almost a year, I see no reason to believe that it ever will be. Accordingly, I suggest that a delete is in order. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate the following articles with the same rationale :-

Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach manga chapters

[edit]

Wikipedia is not shopping guide site. Jooow 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps because manga is published in separate chapters, rather than in one single volume. Keep. Vashti 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this list itself makes perfectly clear if you look at it, when manga is published separately, it is published in a series of volumes, certainly not as separate chapters. That's why the list is divided into volumes, see? And why the ISBNs are per volume, not per chapter?
      Sorry, but this list is like listing every chapter in the Harry Potter series, and as such is pointless detail. A list of volumes would make sense, but this should be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm. I mentioned several multi volume works in the above list of titles. The Hakkenden is a 106 volume work. There are also works like Dickens' Great Expectations, which has a serial publication. We really don't need every single chapter of a manga like this. "Good reference" or not, it's listcruft. --Kunzite 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Hakkenden, as well as other serialized novels, sound like they could indeed use sorted chapter listings then. Indeed, the Hakkenden probably deserves an immense amount more detail than is currently given on it. (It doesn't even have character articles or basic plot overview) But we simply do not have enough interested editors, and the Hakkenden has little or no presence in English. It's a pity. --tjstrf 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point a few of those articles out? --Kunzite 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim.com (Dennis Digital)

[edit]

spam Jooow 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly (golfer)

[edit]

non-notable sports figure (and belly dancer) Akradecki 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Programming, Inc

[edit]

nn company, or spam. Jooow 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted - CSD:A7. Thanks/wangi 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3xb

[edit]

nn group Jooow 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blimp (band)

[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 was CSD:A7 --- Deville (Talk) 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StudentsMetro.Com

[edit]

nn website, group, org. Jooow 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scurr oval showdown

[edit]

This one probably should be speedied, but I sent it here only because it made an (unverified and dubious) claim of notability. The prod tag was removed without comment. It appears to be nothing more than a vanity article about a sporting event between college buddies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please address any of the following to argue for this article to be kept: WP:NOT (WP:NFT being related), WP:V and/or WP:N. Currently there is no proof whatsoever that the article passes any of these, and a fair amount of proof that it fails them. BigHaz 07:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grace period. Allow the editors of this article to address the issues.ChibiWong
That's what AfD is here for. The article was nominated on August 31 and debate remains open until 5 days later. That sounds like a grace period to me. BigHaz 09:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One IP connected to this page and User:ChibiWong have both vandalised my userpage, despite the good faith in which everyone is acting here. See here for the IP and here for the named account. BigHaz 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

OhNoitsJamie Talk

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

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of top WWE Champions by combined length

[edit]

There already is a page called List of WWE World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length List of WWE Championship reigns by length; this is essentially a rehash of the same material. If this content is to be retained (which seems questionable), it belongs on the existing page. Dsreyn 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Point taken. However, there is also List of WWE Championship reigns by length, which would seem to be the companion list. I changed the nom above to reflect this. Dsreyn 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of box set albums

[edit]

Unmaintainable listcrust, better served as a category. This has been nominated before, and the reult then was a delete. J Milburn 00:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, forgot to link to this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box set albums. J Milburn 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no useful purpose from what I can see. Ohconfucius 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep please read WP:LISTs if you don't understand the point of lists. Categories are not the same as lists. Since Box set has an article, List of box sets cannot reasonably be argued to be listcruft. Essentially, nominator has advanced no rational for deletion, nor can I see any. No policy, guideline or proposal even suggests we should delete useful, encyclopaedic content, so I have to suggest we keep it. WilyD 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, there are times when lists are more helpful than categories, but this isn't one of them. If you are simply looking for examples of box sets, the category is fine. If you are looking for box sets by a specific artist, this list would not be as helpful as, say, the artist's discography either here or elsewhere. It is very unlikely that somebody looking to fill in gaps in albums would choose to do so by filling in missing box sets as opposed to, say, missing albums from a particular artist or time period. Also, please note that there is very little tying these sets together except that they are multiple discs packaged as box sets. This list does not help to explicate anything about box sets, nor could it. That is why it is not, in my opinion, "useful, encyclopaedic content." GassyGuy 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In essence, though, what you're arguing here is that this is a stub quality list, and that merely being a stub is a criterion for deletion. It isn't. If you look at Wikipedia:Featured lists you'll see plenty of lists that meet all of the quantitative complaints you've voiced here, yet been elevated to featured status simply because they're better developed. WilyD 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not attempt to tell me what my argument is. My argument is not that this is a stub - my argument is that it serves no purpose that the category does not serve, and that not only does it not help to explicate on the concept of box sets (which, if it did, would give it some merit as an article), but that it could never help to explicate that concept. That is my argument. GassyGuy 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to do with it being a stub for me. It's just a list that is simply too broad and unmaintainable. It's like doing a List of record albums. 23skidoo 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a combination of attack page and silly vandalism. Clearly, EmileVictor (talk · contribs) knows someone by this name. Uncle G 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ray

[edit]

I can not find anyone of this name who appears to be notable, and this page is about Mr. Bean anyways, for no apparent reason. J Milburn 09:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_August_31&oldid=1116878548"