Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

Purge server cache

January 8

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adherin

[edit]

From speedy: "csd-g3, this page was created by an account with nothing but vandalism edits in his history. The original text of the page was changed into something completely different by him after the first 15 minutes of its existence. See talk page for a longer explanation by User:BorisTM about the subject." (I have no idea what is going on) r3m0t talk 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not even a stub, few hits on google, delete until people actually write an article for it --Joewithajay 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, I tagged it with that. I find it very unlikely that someone started an article about random nonsense, then got a change of heart and learned molecular biology in 15 minutes. Someone who should know something about the subject left a lengthy note on the article's talk page (Talk:Adherin) detailing how this is, indeed, nonsense and I don't think it's very purposeful to waste more of everyone's time on any unreferenced claims by a random vandal. - Bobet 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've restored your speedy tag that was missing during the course of the revert. Just in case, am voting here. --BACbKA 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Worlds Most Evil

[edit]

POV list. Punkmorten 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Capitalism Magazine. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Da Cunha

[edit]

600+ Google But notice almost every page is a Wikipedia mirror. Unverifiable, maybe vanity. delete

Lotsofissues 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Since the 23rd of September, 2004, Da Cunha has been listed as upkeeping Capitalism magazine. His name does not appear on the website [www.capmag.com], but one and a quarter years is a long time between two supposed pieces of vanity. I think that Cunha is the editor, although there is no evidence to prove that he is or that he is not. My inkling is that it was written by someone filling in the url gap on the capmag article. However, this article, in its current state, does not show much evidence of notability, despite the magazine's being notable. I would say delete, unless someone can pull something out of the hat showing that da Cunha is more than some editor, or at least, facts about the guy's life and thought. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Slow delete. We don't want to fall victim to systemic bias but until something verifiable shows up we have little choice but to delete. Let it linger for a while before closing just in case. - Haukur 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C) 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen party

[edit]

370 Google, most have nothing to do with this band. delete

Lotsofissues 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three cards and a top hat

[edit]

I couldn't decide whether to categorize this or nominate it for deletion, so I've done both. I guess it's, what... original research? Melchoir 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- this is a riddle, not an encyclopedia entry. Seems to be the Monty Hall problem in disguise. Reyk 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be classed under original research, but 'unoriginal riddle' would be more fitting. Delete. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment. I've heard this before, it may be reasonably well known. I found one site which had a description of the puzzle and added the link to the article. But obviously it is no great tragedy if this is deleted since the article is quite short and doesn't establish context, source or notability. - Haukur 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Now that Heraclesprogeny has made a great article out of this we're of course keeping it somewhere :) Maybe somewhere on Wikibooks would ultimately be the best place? But if no-one can find the perfect home for it elsewhere then let's just keep it here. - Haukur 15:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess I was a bit too hasty. Having now actually read through it I have to say that I'm not convinced that it's quite correct :) The point of the example is that the scam artist can always offer you the same bet regardless of the colour of the card he flips up. But he'll offer you a win in the cases where the two-coloured card is the one selected. Since the odds are 2/3 that the card is actually single-coloured you only have a 1/3 chance of winning. I think :) - Haukur 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Reyk DrIdiot 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see an obvious isomorphism to Monty Hall, although judging from the discussion Haukur found, the logical traps are similar. I considered a redirect, but it just seemed dishonest. Melchoir 01:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeThis is a fairly standard example used in probability theory to demonstrate some fundamental concepts, like a riddle because of its relatively unintuitive results, but not quite a riddle. I have spend a couple of hours revising it and think it would make a great example in the section on probability axioms or probability theory.Heraclesprogeny 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this changes everything. Heraclesprogeny, I've only skimmed the new article, but it looks like great writing! Not encyclopedic style, but that might be fixable. Did you draw on any references for the article? Melchoir 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Great improvement. Well done Heraclesprogeny! Though the prose may be original, neither the question, nor the logic meet the meaning of original research. Obina 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. It's a nice example, but I'm afraid it's not encyclopaedic enough. I'm all in favour of short examples to explain key concepts, but this is a bit too long and more text book material. By the way, I didn't read and think it over carefully but it seems to me the conclusion is wrong. I think that if a card is chosen at random, and then either side is also chosen at random, and this side turns out to be green, then the probability of the chosen card to be the doubly-green one is 2/3, but the article says it's 1/2. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed vote from weak delete to delete because it has no references, making it original research, as pointed out by Melchoir. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain. Changing again as the article is still being edited and some clues to references have been found (see talk page). I still think that it is not encyclopaedic enough, but it's approaching the gray area so I don't feel comfortable deleting it while it is being worked on. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (not to mention wrong). Sorry, Heraclesprogeny, but I've read it through and I can't imagine that you found a reference that would make the claim "Thus, there are only two possible cards, double green-faced or purple/green-faced, and each has an equally likely probability of being the one you chose". The whole point of the example is that this argument doesn't work. Melchoir 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm Haukur suggests the artle (newly written) is now incorrect. Perhaps he is right. But this seems a discussion for the talk page, and helpful to get right. This seems a basis to improve and fix the article, and not a basis to delete. And meanwhile, I shall not bet my salary! Don't know who is right. But I remain in the 'keep' camp.Obina 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with fixing the article, except that we are not in the business of doing our own mathematics around here. Ideally someone would come up with a reference, but pending that, it's all just original research. I feel justified in beating this dead horse not just because it's policy, but because the current article is a cautionary example of what can happen when even well-meaning, intelligent, and thoughtful contributors ignore that policy. Melchoir 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You all make valid points. When writing, I was afraid it was lengthy and a bit too "text book", and I didn't include any refs. because, at the time of writing, I wasn't using any. This is all learnt material and not original in any way, but I couldn't produce any references pertaining to the exact question. Any first-year text would do as reference for the rest. I thought this to be a good example because it illustrates so many fundamental and often overlooked points. Incidentally, I have attached a short paragraph at the bottom of the article for those who still have questions about the answer. I will try to dig up some references soon, but understand if it must be deleted. Thank you for your patience as this is my first effort at contributing to this valuable resource. Heraclesprogeny 12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was still quite the entrance! Happy editing! Melchoir 19:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry to change my vote. WP:NOR makes the right thing to do clear, whatever we all think of the new version.Obina 12:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been stated the article is wrong, but it's better to say it's ambiguous. No mention is made of whether the person will offer the same bet if another color shows. If the same bet is made irregardless of color (then modulo other possible ambiguities), then obviously the bet is not 50/50 as stated, since 2/3 of the time you will get a card with both sides the same color. This is similar to the "What are the odds that the other child is also a boy" question (or whatever that is called). That one is much more famous by the way, having been popularized by Martin Gardner, Marilyn Vos Savant, etc, with plenty of literature and references. --C S (Talk) 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the host would have done if the other color had shown is an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't affect the answer to the question, which is quite unambiguous. Melchoir 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. If the host offers the bet only when one color shows, then it's 50/50, but if the host offers the bet always, then you should bet the other side is the same color. The situation is ambiguous precisely because we are not told the host's intentions. And the intentions do make a big difference. If for some reason, you don't believe me, you can try repeated trials yourself and see: draw a card out and then guess the opposite color shown. Do this, say, 25 times. Now try this again (same number of times) but always guess the same color as shown. Now finally, start over again but every time you draw a card and see purple, put it back in the hat, shake it up, and try it again until you see green. Then guess your color (it doesn't matter, since now it is even odds). --C S (Talk) 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't a mathematician I would just give up right now, but perhaps there is hope. Forget about the host. We draw from the hat a large number of times. True or false: of the draws when we see red, 2/3 of the time, the other side is red. Melchoir 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you mean green or purple, right? Your true false question shows that you're not getting the point of my comments - that it's important to state the host's intentions. This is quite standard fare. --C S (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am intentionally asking a different question. Melchoir 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. In my previous response, I somehow assumed that when drawing a green/purple card, you would draaw it showing green. So your point is that when the host only offers the bet when green is shown, 2/3 of the time the other side is green. Well, ok. I withdraw my previous responses. --C S (Talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... something like that, yes. Sure! Melchoir 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 01:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuntonovich

[edit]

neologism which even the profanaty-mad web only has eight times accrding to google. and seven of them are on the same webforum. BL kiss the lizard 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Deals on Wheels

[edit]

not what you think it is. no, this is a used car lot. does that make it notable, hmm? BL kiss the lizard 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podfomercial

[edit]

Spammy neologism. Look it up and you'll know what I mean. -- Perfecto 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever

[edit]

Delete - Possible hoax. No pages link to it, and a Google search for "Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever" yields three results, all related to this Wikipedia article. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. "Winona Ryder as Tails", "Freddie Prinze Jr. as Heathcliff", and "Jean Claude Van Damme as Captain Planet"? Obvious hoax. Wisco 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natch

[edit]

This is just a dictionary definition, and the word "natch" already has a Wiktionary entry. The article previously came up on Articles for deletion and was speedily deleted, although apparently not with the same content. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REMAGINE

[edit]

In my opinion this Company Article does NOT meet the standards of the WP:CORP and therefore should be deleted. Onthost 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, be nice to newcomers, and, please, no personal attacks --Perfecto

  • I think that this page originally did not, follow the terms, but has since fixed the errors. I don't think this page should be removed. It no longer looks like an add. Stargate007 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off this AfD does not care if it reads like and AD or not. Secondly user Stargate007 is a possibly sockpuppet of user:Remagine. Note how they misspell "AD" as "ADD": From REMAGINE's Talk Page: "Note This article was updated to avoid conflict with it looking to much like an add. It should now correspond with wikipedias rules and regulations. Remagine 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)" and the above comment of Stargate007: "It no longer looks like an add.".Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a developer at Remagine, certaintly not a sock puppet of user Remagine, although he is my good friend Ian. We would like to list our company history and clients here. I believe there is some informational value and we will make sure it conforms to wikipedia guidlines for corporate listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.d.stone (talk • contribs)
    • Please first read the WP:CORP then explain to us how your company meets this requirement. Also sign your posts with with ~s. Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide a link to WP:CORP please? I cannot find it, sorry. matthew.d.stone
        • WP:CORP is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP Onthost 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to also note that Stargate007, matthew.d.stone and Remagine are either one of the same person or work together for this Remagine comapny and therefore contain a large bias in the comments. Onthost 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, that was very helpful. I see your concerns, but I believe that Remagine meets the requirements of WP:CORP specifically because articles have been written about Remagine authored by entities other then Remagine itself. For example, the westner new england college wrote an article about the enterpreneurialship of the founders, and can be viewed here: [1]. I can also assure you that I am a completely different person then user Remagine, as you can tell by my other wikipedia entries. I'm not sure who Stargate007 is. Thank you, matthew.d.stone
              • One University Newspaper article does not fullfill the nobility requirements, sorry! You need to show more proof, as in actual articles not just naming news papers and magazines. Onthost 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • There was also an article in the Springfield Republican which is not available online, unfortunately. I believe the above is a subjective call on Onthost's part. Can anyone explain exactly how WP:CORP is not satisfied by multiple articles written about Remagine?
                  • This was not taking from a university paper. It came from the Springfield Republican, the hard copy resides at that link. As I stated in the discussion page, the site has under gone a face lift as of Friday, it will take the next 3 days to complete at the same time I figured to make a wiki entry. If you want figures, I will post all of the data. Please read the discussion page, this has been going on all day.Remagine 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • First off you have shown no proof of these articles existing, and the only article you posted was from a university and was 3 pictures. You need to show that your company"has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." and as of yet you've not shown this. Onthost 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without any mention of revenue figures, number of employees or customers, it's difficult to assert notability. The fact that most of the links on their website don't work leads me to believe it's a rather small operation. Owen× ☎ 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, getting a university award for existing makes this company less notable in my mind. More importantly, without any independent coverage, all the details in the article are utterly unverifiable. Delete. Melchoir 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: Did I mention that the company has a trademark with the US trade mark office ( Number 78690611)? Remagine 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bio list has been updated, I have done everything asked. Remagine 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SaveWow, this article has really changed. Stargate007 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oops forgot to sign rodii 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this article indicates anything notable or tangible. They can't even spell Massachusetts correctly. If they need Wikipedia so desperately to promote their company, that alone might be proof of the lack of a legitimate entity. Their "web presence," if you haven't checked it out, consists of all non-functioning links, a stock photo of the Springfield, Massachusetts City Hall, and contact information that consists of two phone numbers and a PO Box. Googling the companies in the client lists seems to indicate that most of these are Web sites they have designed for themselve or their friends. Some of them I can't find at all. Crunch 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our offices do have a physical location at: 428 Belmont Ave Springfield, MA 01108.We prefer the P.O Box as a main mailing address. As for the google result, certain personal have been known to assist friends or family members with a web site, this is no surprise to me. I can assure you that our client listing is not made up of personal friends.Client Showcase Kenpo0110 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like you to stop making edits to Wikipedia until you have nominated for deletion every article about a company or organization with a misspelled word, since that is obviously one of your criteria for notability. "Their web presence"...I don't know where to begin. Let's start with reading the previous discussion about it. Then show me where in WP:CORP it says that a web site is required for notability. Do not tell me that I am being incivil as I have called into question only your statements, not you. Unlike you, I made no ad hominem attacks against another, see your second sentence. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Crunch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks like User:Remagine has created Neohorizon which I've since listed for deleted and redirected here, since this is simply the prior company (an IRC chat network). I don't consider Neohorizon a particularly notable IRC network as well, so I'd vote to delete that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company. A check of their website (www.remagine.net) reveals a shell with no content. To paraphrase the website intro: "Lao-Tzu, a wise man, once said... 'A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.'" If they ever take more than a single step they may approach notability. Atrian 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the company seems totally non-notable to me. Incidentally, i think Remagine (the album) should also be deleted. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per norm, also delete neohorizon.Onthost 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We aren't voting on neohorizon here.
    2. You were the one who normed this for deletion in the first place. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person behind the user name Remagine is a college student. As a fellow college student I can understand how he might not have a ton of time to juggle his business, his studies, his website, and the fact that the entire Wikipedia community has been biting him from the first minute he came here. The nomination by Onthost is, IMO, highly incivil. The fact that the nominator felt it necessary to back up the nomination with personal attacks on the article's creator for a typo makes me think that it was in bad faith, however much I agree that the article doesn't currently meet the requirements. The continued attacks regarding the state of their website disgust me. It has been explained in multiple places on site and to various concerned editors through email. What part of "working on it" don't you understand. It has no bearing on their notability. The fact that you all continue to harangue it shows me that you feel that the other arguments aren't strong enough. Argue the nomination on its own merits, not on totally unrelated facts. I currently agree with the words of the nomination if not the spirit. This article doesn't currently meet the requirements. However, I'm abstaining currently to give the article's creator time to add that which is missing. The conduct of some parties led the article's creator to email me, saying, "Everyone is ganging up on me." Remagine felt attacked and I believe that he was. I would like to remind everyone to be CIVIL. To paraphrase a Wikipedia policy: "Wikipede, a wise Wikipedia mascot, once said...'WP:DICK'WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly what personal attacks did I leave for him? All Ive ever said is his article is still an advertisement and quoted the sections I felt were advertisement material, said it was still not NPOV since a company insider is the one writing the article, and said that the company does not meet the nobility requirements stated in WP:CORP. Onthost 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I misread your comment regarding add. I found the capitalization choices in your nomination to be questionable. I will also note that not being NPOV is not a criterion for deletion. Nor do I feel that it is impossible for someone to write an article which is NPOV on a subject they are deeply familiar with. You also seem to be on a personal crusade against this article given your high level of involvement. Not that I find anything wrong with sticking to your beliefs and continued watching of articles you have nominated for AFD, but fully 25% of your edits, at the time of my writing, are about the article in question, starting with it's nomination, or to related articles. You also placed a sock tag on User:Stargate007. I removed this as you provided no evidence. Please replace it using the EVIDENCE link (emphasis not mine) to link to your evidence. You have just over 100 edits, so I expect that this was an honest mistake. I will take OwenX's advice, as you have done, and chill out. This discussion no longer seems as vitriolic as it once did. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons stated above Ashibaka tock 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, OwenX - everyone here, including WAvegetarian, needs to chill out. WP:CORP has been cited, and the company doesn't measure up. End of discussion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no malice. I have some empathy for the guy who created the page, and he's done a reasonably good job of cleaning it up, I just don't think it conforms to WP:CORP. I hope he does well and earns a place, but until then... - Dharmabum420 11:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. That said perhaps a transwiki to Yellowikis is in order. Movementarian 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find any evidence of public listing, no evidence of media coverage outside of Springfield, Mass., no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohorizon to have its own AfD, rather than a redirect to here. Anyone who voted here on Neohorizon, please re-enter your vote there. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, WP is not the Yellow Pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My comments about the content and quality of the company's web site are important, I think, because the web site is presented as evidence for the significance of the company. If there is no substance on the site, it's difficult to judge whether the company is notable. Regarding the poor quality of the article, I think that's also relevant, because if it is indeed a notable company based in Massachusetts, I would expect they would be able to spell the name of the state corrrectly. Particularly since they claim to be in the communications field. Crunch 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the recent addition of citations to the article. Please view them. From WP:CORP "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." The article includes multiple citations from mulitple newspapers. "Non-trivial published work" refers to the article, not the newspaper, as noted by the sentence quoted above. That means that this company meets the minimum criterion established in WP:CORP. Any delete nominations that do not address this, or simply reference the nom, must be called into question as they do not take into account that information meeting the criteria of WP:CORP has been added. There are only two ways around this: claim that WP:CORP is merelly proposed and therefore not worthy of citation (in which case the nomination is invalid), or that WP:CORP should be changed to keep what are non-notable companies (I feel that this is one) from getting in. Whether you like it or not, these four newspaper articles establish notability per WP:CORP. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as full citations weren't given before the creator was chased away thereby eliminating any hope of getting the full citations. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think it would have met notability guidelines. Of course, we'll never know now, will we?
  • Where are these multiple non-trivial published works? All I see are non-verifiable references to possible stories in the Springfield Republican which seem to be stories related to student-run businesses. The Grinspoon award was/is an award given to high school and undergrad college students across Western Massachusetts participating in business classes and/or undertaking entrepreneurial ventures. Wikipedia is not a place where we show off about our college extra-curriculur accomplishments, even if they do make a profit, and Remagine has yet to show financials, another way to meet the criteria of WP:CORP. Crunch 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, to all, give me a break with the whole spelling of Massachusetts. Are you telling me you never overlooked typos when typing an article really quickly? I also had to spend all my time defending myself in the discussion which caused me overlook items in the article. As you can see, Mass is in more than one location on the page. As for the website, I explained its situation numerous times in other posts, can you drop it?! If you want to see the web site prior to Friday’s new upgrade use a cache system or web archive site. Thanks Remagine 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That misspelling was just one indication of the lack of viability of the article. Yes, everyone makes typos, of course (the article was, and still is, full of them). The point was that the combination of a poorly-written article, lack of evidence of anything particularly notable and nothing to meet the demands of WP:CORP were clear indications for my Delete vote. The point of this discussion is to determine whether to keep or delete the Remagine article and it's the article that's in question. I did not intend to make it personal. I was commenting solely on my viewing of the article, its substance and the claims it makes and trying to compare those to WP policy. Crunch 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found one of the articles the user was referring too; it’s the 8th item down on this link. News Page It looks like you can’t read the whole article unless you pay for it. TwilightCat 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. As I pointed out above, they received an award along with a bunch of other students for entrepreneurship. It went in the newspaper. Many things are printed in newspapers. I don't believe this fits the definition of non-trivial. It's an award given to college students for work done in a college class or activity. Again, see WP:CORP. This is the last I'm going to say here on this. I'll put other comments, if any, on the article's Talk page. Crunch 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : That article emphasized on the name REMAGINE and who it was made up of. At the time, we were the only established business that was making a profit to win this award. The CEO of monster.com was at the event to discus the award. You can see another reference to the News Letter here. News Letter. Take care. Remagine 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No more notable than any of a number of non-notable companies. Paul 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is to be removed, then so should remagine. An AFD should be applied to that as well. Remagine 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Ifnord 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG; Movementarian's transwiki suggestion has merit. VT hawkeyetalk to me 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.Yellowikis.org welcomes REMAGINE.--Yellowikis Admin 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remagine and User:Kenpo0110 have just left the project. One more newbie chased away. Kenpo was even a CVU member. Nice job. While it is possible that no one here violated policy or guidelines in their dealings with this issue, the combined effect was one that created a "hostile environment" so strong as to make him leave. He was excited about how Wikipedia worked. He had wanted to understand more about the project but got pulled into this ugly business about his adverticle. (Huh, I kinda like that neologism.) Back on point, it is instances like this where we need to step back and think about the public perception that we are giving. I was told a number of times to chill out, that no abuse or biting was occurring, and that I was overreacting. I guess I shouldn't have backed down so easily. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a constant problem. A lot of people start by creating articles on themselves or their companies; AfDing them is the correct thing to do in terms of policy, but still looks like biting the newbies. This is sad. I have recently started to userfy such things and leave a nice note ont he user page, but even this is taken amiss by some. You can't win. In the end, my delete vote stands, and I support the statements of others even if they could have been more tactfully put. Lesson to learn: explain in detail on the Userpage of a new user who creates an article on themselevs, their firm, their club, whatever, why this is a bad idea. All of which takes time. Does anyone know of a nice tactful template? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A template would be extremely helpful IMO, I will voulanteer to start one if there isn't one already. Mike 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding at User Talk:Onthost - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Template Proposal. Melchoir 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add here that I agree with JzG. I just get really pissed off when people leave the project over disputes and hostility, be it Essjay or a newbie. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kenpo0110 may have put a CVU template on his user page, but his user contributions page shows no evidence of him ever reverting a single instance of vandalism. Indeed, it shows no evidence of him ever showing any concern about any article whatsoever except for REMAGINE. --Aaron 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wasn't going to say it, but it's true! Melchoir 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasen't going to mention it either, plus Kenpo and Remagine were the same person. Mike 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note "One more newbie..." Also note that said person was busy trying to defend himself and this article and didn't really have a bunch of time to work on other things. The inlcusion of that on his userpage shows an interest in the project. I feel that the particulars of this case are not really the issue here anyway. I think that we should stop discussing this article or its contributors as it is going to be deleted and the user has left. What's more important is looking more broadly at what first impressions we give to new users. There is a very relevant story on the talk page of WP:BITE. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micropatrology

[edit]

I believe this is a neologism based on the lack of Google hits it gets. The society which is mentioned in the article gets even fewer Google hits, many of which are from Wikipedia mirrors. While this is probably because the society became dormant in the 1980s, I don't think this is that notable. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malos Cantores

[edit]

Its hard for me to determine the notability of this group because I don't speak italian, but it looks like they don't meet WP:MUSIC. They have only one release, and only get 900 google hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dominguez

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Searching for subject in Google didn't bring up a hit in the first 50 entries at least. His iMDB entry is also largely self-created, and does not list any of the movies or television appearances mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The movies listed on iMDB are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The two entries on iMDB list are suspect, as it lists him as a writer at age 2 (of a small film) and a director at age 10 (of a film with no votes). In addition, birth year is different on iMDB. - Dharmabum420 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of North Korean websites

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Perfecto 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean websites banned in South Korea

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. The list of URLs is a direct copy from another site. -- Perfecto 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque metal

[edit]

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When the article gets a distinction in which the difference is explained between baroque metal on one hand, and power metal and symphonic metal on the other, I'll change my vote. But for now, I don't think that it's possible since the styles seem pretty much the same thing.SoothingR 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Symphonic metal. As much as it is fashionable to cull back on metal articles currently in the Wikipedia, the article is still well-written (bar the final paragraph in my opinion) and should not be totally overlooked either way. Hauser 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
  • Merge. I'm with Hauser on this one. Rhapsody (baroque) is the same as Stratovarius (symphonic) to my ears. It's just proving a point. Perhaps, merge, then redirect, change the first paragraph of Symphonic Metal to acknoledge Baroque Metal? - CorbinSimpson 10:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read both the Symphonic Metal and Power Metal articles. Also note that Stratovarius and Rhapsody are both commonly known as Symphonic Power Metal which is mentioned on the Symphonic Metal article. When suggesting to merge, it is normally a good idea to merge pages that have relevance to each other, and are not mostly void of each other. Leyasu 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hauser, and somebody take the entire metal fan community out and shake them until they can come up with a set of agreed objective genres instead of the endless stream of "Reformed flower power thrash death symphonic badly played metal" nonsense genres with one band each. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take from the Baroque Metal article:
Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.
It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwise

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splashtalk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dreambox

[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 if no claim to notability is given Werdna648T/C\@ 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect per WP:NMG: [[A band is notable if it] Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanandaria

[edit]

Delete - Article deals with a non-notable series of Daria fanfiction. Grimm 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, due to more deletes than keeps, and I'm not going to count them all Sceptre (Talk) 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Tendler

[edit]

A woman who "marries" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO. Rob 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, notable bizarre transpecies marriage/publicity stunt. 35,700 google hits and all kinds of press coverage. Kappa 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa Grimm 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are there any stories of this person, before the "marriage". I'm somewhat concerned, that while there are ample news stories, the info on this person doesn't seem that reliable. She's repeatedly referred to as a millionaire, and as a rock concert promoter in various stories. But, I haven't found any pre-dolphin verification of this. It seems what we know about this, is only what she told tabloid reporters, who then got picked up by other reporters, but there may not be truly reliable facts on this person. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this. But, I just don't think reporters covering dolphin marriages worry to much about fact checking. I think, any decent bio seems to require one know reliablely what the occupation of the subject is, or was. --Rob 04:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on logic from Rob. This is not an expandable stub, and has no biographical information. So although the stunt may have been notable for 15 minutes, the person is not notable. This is not an archieve of weird news stories.Obina 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's no reason that someone interested in unusual marriages or human-dolphin relations should be able to read about this? Kappa 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kappa, the catch here is that it's not real. Saying you're marrying a dolphin, is like saying you're married to your job. Neither are legal marriages. The dolphin relationship has even less legal signficance. She loves the dolphin, how nice. Good for her. There are *huge* numbers of people who make expressions of love for animals (usually, but not only their pets), that, tooken out of context, sound rather bizarre, and amazing. I know somebody who calls her cats her "fury babies". Now, if the Weekly World News runs the story "Woman from Canada has cats as babies!", shall we make an article for her? --Rob 06:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This story has been reported more far more widely than a single tabloid, enough to make it signficant in fields of interspecies relationships or unusual marriage. Anyone writing an essay or thesis on either of these topics would be likely to mention this event. Kappa 19:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's *printed* widely, but there's actually little reporting that's been done. It seems a local paper covered a human interest story, the tabloids caught wind, and a single AP story got picked up (one AP story counts as scores or hundreds in Google News). But almost nothing is reliable known about Tendler, beyond unverified statements she made after the ceremony. I find claims of her being a rock concert promoter, clothing maker, and millionaire, rather dubious (but a bio article is void without such details). Also, how could this be used for researching "interspecies relationships". This woman lives in London, and visits Israel 2 or 3 times a year. She doesn't live with the Dolphin, and won't live with the Dolphin. Despite some puriant speculation, there's no likely "marital relations" (at least not in the "biblical" sense). She concedes there's no legal signficance to this. A basic problem here is that the same news agencies (like AP) that would srutinize bio facts for an election candidate, don't much care for fact-checking on a Dolphin story. The fact people think any knowledge of "interspecies" relationships can be gained, shows the potential harm of this article. Gossip always has many sources, but few good ones. --Rob 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how anyone could be harmed by an article which explains everything you have done. Her biography is irrevelant to the event, if she isn't notable for anything else the information should be merged somewhere else. Kappa 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A woman marrying a dolphin is pretty notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with you if she had a legal marriage. As that would be the first in world in history (that I know of). But, this is as "real" as two five year olds playing marriage. Also, as a bio article (not an event article) we need verifiable biographical information on this person. I suggest, despite the huge number of stories, we don't reliably know if she's a milliionaire, rock promoter, or what she is. We really only know what she told a couple tabloids (who's stories were repeated world wide). --Rob 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob and Obina. There is no encyclopaedic value of an article based on what is at best a skewed publicity stunt. Movementarian 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm SURE this has been up for AfD recently....dont have time to look into it at the moment, but if someone does that'd be great. If not I'll do it later today. Jcuk 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Send to Wikinews, maybe merge into Wacky publicity stunts involving beastiality or something, but doesn't need its own article. (Here I go to copy-paste this into another AfD, which is not a good sign.) - brenneman(t)(c) 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm hoping Wikinews has enough standards to skip this. It seems many other news outlets don't seem to care if they have their facts straight on what actually happened. This is an interesting case, which shows that sometimes the the factual information about a subject can oddly be inversly proportional to the number of Google hits. --Rob 10:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as tabloid ephemera. The marriage has no legal status. (See also Cindy the Dolphin's AfD). Sliggy 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot imagine why we would want to delete the neutral, verifiable information in this article. If a billionnaire "marrying" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO, we should instead delete WP:BIO because it's completely useless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In two weeks no-one will be interested in who she was. The information might be relevant for a page about stupid publicity stunts or one about Inter-species marriage if that gets written. And if I see that link go blue when I click on save page, I will have to go for a short walk. David | Talk 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People should realize that something mentioned on a slow news day does not necessarily mean (and probably never means) that it is encyclopedic. Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia? Anyone? No? Adam Bishop 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Grue  19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have redirected Cindy the Dolphin to Sharon Tendler. The two articles are esentially duplicates (I was unaware of the duplication at the time of the nomination). The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus". --Rob 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, returns over 35k hits on google. Also, a sign of the times as it shows that the defintion of marriage is changing and goes alongside events such as gay marriage. Englishrose 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the other AFD you argued:
      It’s irrelevant whether the dolphin agreed to the marriage because the marriage is legal in Israel. It is the first marriage to be legal between a human and a dolphin anywhere in the world, that itself makes it notable enough for wikipedia regardless of the morals of it and the human’s stupidity.
    • Well, it's now verifiably proven that the marriage is not legal. The so-called "bride" herself conceded that point. She doesn't live with Dolphin, and simply visits as a tourist 2-3 times a year, and that won't change. There's no official marriage. There's a source confirming the legal issue in the article (and *many* more available). So, the whole basis for retention is now gone. --Rob 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm basing it on what my original argument was, which was it gained loads of media attention blah blah which makes it notable. Regardless of whether it is legal, it is still a sign of the times and a notable event which makes it an article that should be included in wikipedia. On top of that, the story is quite famous. Still keep. Englishrose 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn person. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kappa and others are conflating news content with encyclopedic content. Write it up at wikinews if anything, but this is not relevant to an encyclopedic project, which must aspire to more than a web-chronicle of events that end up in the papers. News mention helps measure, but does not in and of itself confer, notability. Eusebeus 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought this encyclopedia aspired to be a reference for people interested in notable events in the fields of animal-human relations and bizarre marriages. Kappa 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the persuasive arguments here - we can't just write an encyclopedia article about every event that happens in the tabliods. One could always write a short writeup in the dolphin article if someone so desires as I bet the people there would be far more interested... WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So people typing "Sharon Tendler" into the search box should be invited to start a new article about her? Kappa 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've noticed that you'v easked this question in a few AfDs recently. I can only reply {{deletedpage}}. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Kappa - in terms of your question I'll say that it goes in the same vain as other stuff here - for example we don't insert the insane speculation about the hollywood divorces in the pop star articles here every time it happens or every boyfriend they ever had. Some of those events might be verifiable but they are crufty in that they don't really have any real impact on anything. This is the same thing - yet another person who "married" an animal... it would have an actual claim to notability here if the marriage had actually taken place - but it didn't and it's variafiable that it did NOT take place and/or was not legal so the only other claim to notability is the reach of the event rather then the event itself, which as other people mentioned didn't even last for long at all since it was disproven early so it hardly had a lasting effect on society and isn't really historical in any concievable way. The reason "Sharon Tendler" doesn't need an article is precisely because there's really nothing to write about other then this minor dolphin blurb. If there was a list like "People who have claimed to marry animals" it might go there, for example. If and when she has something else to write about to write a real article THEN someone should start an article about her, but not at the moment. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tabloid speculation about divorces is all the same. Show me another incident of someone performing a marriage ceremony with a dolphin - or indeed any other species of marine mammal. Kappa 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The result of Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus", which automatically reverts to a "Keep". Cindy the Dolphin has now been altered to a redirect to Sharon Tendler. If this article gets deleted, then Cindy is going to redirect to nowhere. I'd suggest restoring it and putting this article in as a "See Also", then if this article survives AfD, merging the two. If this article does not survive, Cindy should not be deleted by the back door. Jcuk 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • People seeking the Dolphin should see this article, so they know there is an AFD, and can participate. If this is deleted, the dolphin article (unfortunately) would survive, but would be subject to yet another AFD if somebody wishes (due to lack of prior consensus and new information coming to light). But, I do agree, no backdoor deletion should occur. Without a dolphin-specific AFD consensus delete, the dolphin lives, even if his bride perishes here. Anyway, it's all moot if this article is kept. Also note, there's really no more merging left to do. The dolphin article has no verifiable facts that this one doesn't. --Rob 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sham marriage, dolphin recently proved not of legal age. Monicasdude 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I voted "keep pending verification" on Cindy the Dolphin, but as Rob points out, this is not a legal marriage at all. Thus, it's equivalent to a farmer "marrying" his cow. Funny story, but of no real significance. If this results in a deletion, I'll renominate Cindy the Dolphin too. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a biography of a notable person. Hell, it's not even a biography: it's the record of a publicity stunt. Ha ha, you had your 15 minutes of fame, now go away. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TechPhile

[edit]

non-notable podcast self promotion; Alexa traffic ranking of 1,788,717; 15.7k Google hits (none in Google news) Hosterweis 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DeleteSceptre (Talk) 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punn

[edit]

Hoax/nn slang term. Probably someone who invented a word, and tries to establish it. Search on google for punn greekfest returns one unrelated result with a typo. Bjelleklang - talk 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crude humor cartoon

[edit]

Neologism, only 100 google quote search hits TxRx 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairtunes

[edit]

Nn website. No alexa data. 439 "link:" results. Apart from PCWorld "review", fails WP:WEB. No incoming wikilinks as of yesterday. neglected article since July 2005. -- Perfecto 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elc(chat)

[edit]

Non-notable unreleased software program

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE - this was painfully obvious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Warnock

[edit]

non-notable Kingturtle 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Creative Productions

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but companies aren't speediable. Bringing it to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for deletion. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but cleanup. This stub desperately needs some TLC, but the basic article is correct: Jam is one of the two biggest jingle creators in the world, and is a household name to anyone in the radio industry. I'm surprised it never had an article before now. I could try to bring it up to standards, if it survives the AfD. --Aaron 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. Notable company, needs some sourcing and a good list of radio stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This company is a part of American pop culture. Probably every person in the Western world has heard their radio jingles at some time. I orginally posted this article and I was really surprised that no one had written about JAM prior to this. They are an icon in the radio industry. I would request that this be taken off the Deletion list. I am interest as to why it was put on it in the first place.Bkirby 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once an article has been nominated for deletion, I don't think there's any procedure to just de-nominate it. If there's an overwhelming consensus in one way or the other, the discussion can be declared over, but we don't have a clear consensus here, if for no other reason than not that many people have voted at all. Hopefully once the latest five-day voting period is up, an admin will declare the vote as "keep but cleanup" and I and others can work on rewriting it. I'd start rewriting it now, but I'm not going to waste my time as long as there's even a 1% chance that it's going to get deleted. --Aaron 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder Thrust

[edit]

Non-notable topic, a single move in a video game. —ERcheck @ 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gunn

[edit]

Seems to be a fictional character, but no context is given. Probaly some obscure fancruft. jmd 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY NONSENSE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diogradroalisis

[edit]

Hoax. "...THIS HAS BEEN TESTED MULTIPLE TIMES other than this site and my laptop computer are the only things that hold this data and a few other things that the military would have a feild day with..." Prashanthns 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus at a URIE

[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriber Savings Account

[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Directors at a URIE

[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenatarian

[edit]

Neologism - a dozen hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer park trash

[edit]

Delete Why do we have an article on a slangword that is commonly known and used? This is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotShell (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment_(social)

[edit]

I'm skeptical that this article can be expanded beyond the rather dicdeffy stub that currently exists. Opinions? Psychonaut 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewarneb

[edit]

Delete. This is a neologism that gets no Google hits outside of Wikipedia articles and copies thereof. N Shar 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moving it to Actinomorphous flower. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomorphous

[edit]

This is nothing more than an attempt to define the word Actinomorphous. It is not a candidate to be included at Wiktionary, however, because the definition is, in fact, incorrect.

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartServ Solutions

[edit]

WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, not a business directory. As usual, I highly doubt the notability of any company that does this. Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium Plato

[edit]

The complete text. It is a public domain version, so I went ahead and (clumsily) transwiki'd it to Wikisource--I hope they're not mad at me over there. But it shouldn't be here. Chick Bowen 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. – ugen64 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willomy

[edit]

Delete - created months ago by anonymous editor; links to nothing and from nothing and possibly may violate copyright. ddlamb 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Vo

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was merged into Strapping Young Lad. jnothman talk 07:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenet (band)

[edit]

Delete Non-notable Canadian music group. Hasn't released any music. No record of having played as a group. Atrian 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Strobe

[edit]

Only one EP album and not really notable Eeee 06:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Rebotini

[edit]

Non-notable music artist, does not need own page. Eeee 06:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa: Source

[edit]

Yet another non-notable, non-released, Half-Life 2 mod. Could be vaporware. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fanmods for games need to show some pretty fancy evidence of widespread notablilty to survive a deletion discussion. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not a fan of posting stats about games that don't have any form of playable game even in beta nor any backing by any major commercial entity. Should definitely be added later if they release even a private beta (which would put it light years ahead of a ton of other Mods) --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm okay with mods having articles. Unreleased mods, however, are not very article-worthy (but may be footnote-worthy in some other article). Welcome back when there's an actual playable release and people went a-playing screamingly! Too many mods die in an eternal development limbo. (Just noted today that Ultima VIII: Exile has died. I'm cranky. Sorry. Doesn't make my point less valid, just stronger, I hope.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because the link to the site doesn't work correctly. But I should point out that there are other mods (a Apocolypse Mod for BattleField 2 for example) that are on Wiki, but not slated for deletion. If there was evidence that this mod was further along, perhaps in some sort of beta release, I would be against deletion. However, there is really no available evidence that it is anywhere. Headrattle 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the site is currently down but the mod is moving along quite nicly....they wont be releasing a beta because it would be crappy and unfinished so....there you go.


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

The result of the debate was merge into United States Marine Corps. - ulayiti (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Marine

[edit]

Unencyclopedic; transferred here after another editor marked it as a CSD. – ugen64 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vifican

[edit]

Vanity, made-up word methinks. Previously listed as a CSD. – ugen64 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fads

[edit]

Anglocentric and pointless, but of course that's not a reason to delete. "Fad" being POV (see talk page where "grunge" is considered a fad) so any element indluded here will involve a value judgment is a reason to delete. brenneman(t)(c) 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not POV. It might have systemic bias; if so, please encourage readers with knowledge of other cultures to add information about fads in those cultures. But systemic bias is different from POV. Systemic bias is not reason to delete one article; it's reason to add to it or to create balancing articles. Fg2 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and POV. KramarDanIkabu 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Technically all fads are POVs, but the list is very resourceful, where else could you find a list of fads from the 1960s to today. The problem is that people see things they don't like in this article, then they believe that it is inaccurate, which is intirelly false (All fads are POVs). I personally didn't like the Furby or Snap Bracelet fad, but I cannot deny that it was a fad. The list for me also makes me feel nostalgic and brings back personal memories too. I would bet the person that posted the deletion saw the 2000s fads only and said "Oh My God! This must be deleted!!!" he or she probrably also didn't like the fads because they are to loyal to their own, so the deletion for this article is also a POV miss conseption. (Tigerghost 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Unsupported POV, no sources, no references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Statement Jossi said is Not True: I posted my references in the discussion section, they include VH1: I Love The... Series as well as several other sites including Crazy Fads.com, www.angelfire.com/fl/JackCraig/FADS.html, inthe90s.com, as well as others. (Tigerghost 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment This edit was removed when an editor removed their own comments. My "question" above was poorly worded, and when this was brought to my attention I offered the following revision:
  • Aye, that could have been phrased better, so how about this: We require that items in this encyclopedia meet certain requirements, chief among them being WP:NPOV which has its foundation in WP:V and WP:CITE. The very nature of lists means that it is frightfully easy to add items, the sheer number of which makes it difficult to ensure that they are all correct. Additionally, systemic bias means that, for a given population, we'll have a number of entries proportional to that population, making a list violate NPOV. Thus, if we moved this list to List of fads in the United States and were scrupulous about our definition of "fad" and removing things that could not be verifired as fad per Wikipedia:Reliable sources than there would be no problem. But let us make some small concession to pragmatism, that is not going to happen. Thus I re-iterate: why is it much more difficult to delete an NPOV, uncited list than it would be a prose article with the same problem? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glideway

[edit]

Totally unreadable. MIT Press apparently published a book about the concept/system/whatever the hell it is in 1996, but it was authored by "MIT Students," so who knows. It might be article-worthy, I don't know, but it can't be kept like this. --zenohockey 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research

[edit]

Uninformative, speculative and full of loose talk. Does not even specify where this 'office' which conducts "..research on physics, zoology.." and whole lot of other subjects is situated. Finally ties it to Men in Black. Delete as fictitious and hoasx Prashanthns 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akiyama International

[edit]

Blatant advertising. Questionable notability Prashanthns 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. - ulayiti (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus juice

[edit]
Jesus Juice was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-13. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Juice.
  • Note - The contents of Jesus juice are not the same as the deleted one, which consisted of patent nonsense, so this is not a G4 speedy.

Michael Jackson trial-cruft - apparently there is such a thing. This is a non-notable neologism with no encyclopedic value, IMO. This could possibly be mentioned in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson, but if not, no loss. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (see above). CorbinSimpson could have done this himself. -- RHaworth 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(OSIR)

[edit]

This appears to be original research or possibly fancruft. OSIR is completely fictional according to List of fictional institutions, which certainly looks accurate. There is a UN OSIR, but the article's context appears to be implying OSIR is a US Government office or NGO, of which I cannot find any evidence. On top of that, there is absolutely no NPOV. Delete, unless someone has a better idea. - CorbinSimpson 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Maori Civilisations

[edit]

This article is nonsense. All archaeological evidence is against any European settlement of New Zealand prior to Polynesian settlement 1000-800 years ago. See any peer-reviewed literature. My source is K. R. Howe, The Quest for Origins, and I've attended a meeting of NZ Society of Archaeology discussing this question. There are people who put forward this theory, but it is completely discredited. Delete. -gadfium 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is blatant censorship. My source is M. Doutré, Ancient Celtic New Zealand. People who put foward this question are completely discredited and then attacked personally (as you can see below) because this does not align up with the already agreed history and people are worried they will have to rewrite the history books because it is all wrong. What is the difference between your source, and mine? --Nzhamstar 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archeologists don't take your source seriously. What makes something serious is that it's published in peer-reviewed journals. In answer to your suggestion below that the government is suppressing these theories, such journals are not controlled by the New Zealand government.-gadfium 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredible claims require credible references. Similarly poor grammar in article and the balls-to-the-wall-insane website it links to suggests same individual behind both. Sources also demonstrate ignorance of archaeological method on the part of the author(s). adamsan 10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: There have long been speculations and rumours that there may have been a pre-Maori colonisation of New Zealand, but the evidence ranks close to the Von Däniken levels for believability. An article on these theories should probably exist, as long as it is made clear that it is a theory viewed with extreme scepticism by the scientific community. I don't believe this article, as it currently stands, could easily be turned into an article that would fulfl that requirement. As it currently stands, it is heavily POV, and deals with just one of the people who has raised this theory (and not one of the main ones). I'd suggest deleting this one, and hopefully someone more in the know could write something better at a later date. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm… there’s already a paragraph at Moriori#The_debunked_myth_of_Moriori_in_New_Zealand Barefootguru 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's about the Moriori, surely - not about early Indo-European explorers. The theories mentioned on this page are unconnected with the Moriori (or the Waitaha, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered nominating this for speedy deletion on the grounds of patent nonsense, looking into this further I don't think it's quite that bad, but it does look like extremely dubious pseudoarchaeology. He baldly uses terms like Indo-European and Celtic to describe the alleged pre-Maori inhabitants, as these are linguistic terms we could not jump to this conclusion even if there was significant archaelogical evidence of pre-Maori inhabitants in New Zealand. PatGallacher 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly heavily edit to remove POV. This theory has been debunked though still persists as an urban legend (along the lines of ‘What are Maori complaining about, they wiped out the Moriori’.) Barefootguru 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find a credible reference and completely rewrite the article to remove the anti-Maori POV. Rhion 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Edit This article is not anti-Maori, it is simply trying to inform people of the previous history of New Zealand before the Maori arrived. It is unfair to suppress NZ's Pre-Maori history, labeling it racism. The New Zealand government has banned carbon dating on any artefacts found, and I thought that wikipedia would be a safe haven away from any cover ups or embargo's for all to find the truth. Although I am not the author of the site, I have contacted the author for help editing the wiki - though have had no reply. I agree that my grammar and wording is not so good - I should have planned it better, and will re-write asap, although I am not sure which parts are POV. Is there any external archaeologists that could comment on this? IE, scientists that have not studied the history of NZ? Because half the problem is that the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision and simple cannot accept any different theories. The other half is probly that all the Maori activism in NZ's history may become void or hypocritical. --Nzhamstar 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the improved rewrite, this is non verified speculation and original research. Obina 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article consists of original research. It is still NPOV, although less so than before. The article itself notes that it is NPOV and contains unverified information. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean POV… Barefootguru 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Encyclopedia articles should represent some kind of scholarly consensus, which is not the same thing as "tunnel vision." The claims here are deeply implausible on their face, and would need extraordinarily strong support to be encyclopedic. rodii 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical woo woo-ism at its finest. Don't you just love Nzhamstar's claim that "the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision"! Note that I have combined Nzhamstar's comments above to delete his second vote. Moriori 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random POV, and implausible. Stifle 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Claims on the page are not backed by any evidence apart from a couple of websites. Also problems with the actual name of the page (should have a Macro in Maori etc). I don't think it can really be saved - SimonLyall 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How come, after I left an incorrect piece of information on an automotive article for a while, no one complained at all. Suddenly when article that could imply racism everyone is all over it. I don't think this is very fair. Other articles have websites as their proof, why can't this one? There is hard evidence of pre-maori civilisation why are you trying to hide this from society? What is realy going on here? I believe the reason this article is being kept down because if it gets into mainstream, it will make the Maori activists, and stereotypically the race look hypocritical. However this is not fair, and should not even be a factor in keeping this down if we get to know more about the history of New Zealand. --Nzhamstar 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nzhamstar, I visited the celticnz website and couldn't find any convincing evidence for its claims. Martin Doutré has found some stones and thinks that they represented pre-Maori activity but he didn't have any finds or scientific dates from excavations to tell us about. How does he know these sites aren't from the post-Maori era? Some of them look natural rather than manmade, has he carried out excavation work to demonstrate his ideas? The saga of the embargoed documents from the Waipoua Forest which don't seem to actually contain any useful information and are freely-available for inspection anyway don't help his case nor do quotations from speculative nineteenth century antiquarians who had a lot of ideas about mass population movements that are now discounted. Mr Doutré appears to looking for evidence that supports his theory and ignoring other explanations- this technique is the hallmark of pseudoarchaeology and it is why the article being criticised. adamsan 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. But what of the carvings that surely do not look Maori or European? And why has the government banned carbon dating on the artefacts?--Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not fair to suppress this information. The only reason it hasn't been proved true is because reknowned scientists and archaeologists ignore the evidence because they are too busy believing in the fact that there is no Pre-Maori history, and/or are too scared (or complacent) for being labeled culturally insensitive or racist for studying such things. It hasn't been proved wrong. Why is the government banning open archaeological investigation and carbon dating on these artefacts? --Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what of this: "and supporting the Maori tradition that this island was inhabited before their arrival here" from here[8]??? --Nzhamstar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly some evidence that there was human contact with New Zealand before the permanent settlement by Maori. The kiore (rat) appears to have been here longer than permanant settlement, and could only have arrived with humans. This indicates that Polynesians arrived at New Zealand earlier than the accepted dates for Maori settlement, but did not stay (or did not survive). This is a very different hypothesis from suggesting Celtic peoples settled New Zealand.
By the way, you fail to quote any evidence of said "Maori tradition". You need to quote peer reviewed journals, not wild speculation. You say that scientists suppress the evidence, but scientists have no motive to suppress such items, and every motive to publish any evidence that would show such a radically different version of prehistory. If you could provide proof, you'd win the archeological equivalent of the Nobel Prize. In practice, archeologists don't pursue such theories for the same reasons as physicists don't pursue perpetual motion machines.-gadfium 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Governments suppress the findings - not scientists! Scientists and archaeologists want these restricted sites out in the open, rather than censored because of Maori superstition. The only way this can happen is to inform the public of what they are missing out on. And the way to do that is Wikipedia which is supposed to be a "big open encyclopedia" for everyone to access and add stuff to and now I'm being kicked to the curb for offering proof and evidence of an alternative, censored history of New Zealand. This is absolute BS, you people are the bullies of wikipedia! --Nzhamstar 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Lukas 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I think you've made your point and everyone here knows where you stand. Simply reiterating it over and over again does not make you any more persuasive. rodii 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to quote... "Although stories were published in a few periodicals, this article does not have a source of them." This rediculous article would be more at home on a conspiracy theory website then an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell the "evidence" consists of a stump, which may or may not exist, which doesn't confirm anything as it isn't carbon dated; and some bones, in a cave... Conspiracy Cruft, delete. Dragoonmac 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from other Authors.

  • Journeys Into the Mystery by Gary Cook. ISBN 095820408X[10]
  • The Secret Land - 1, The People Before by Gary Cook. ISBN 0-9582040-0-4[11]
  • The Tattooed Land by Barry Brailsford. ISBN 0-9583502-3-X[12]
  • Who was Here Before Us by Greenstone Pictures[13]

What do you closed minded people say to that?

I see that Gary Cook has an honorary doctorate from Open International University of Complementary Medicine. I understand the going price for such a doctorate is US$850.-gadfium 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was I saying about personal attacks?


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thayir sadam

[edit]

Made me hungry, yes, but not encyclopedic per WP:NOT. Send to wikibooks. brenneman(t)(c) 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Penney

[edit]

Very misleading assertion of notability in the article (based on list of credits). As IMDb indicates, most of the "credits" were actually as trainees and interns, and most were uncredited on screen. The assertions of upcoming films unconfirmed. Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Film by Julian Thome

[edit]

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Thome for background - he wants to make movies, I gather, or at least be credited in Wikipedia with having made movies. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.a. hatfield

[edit]

Does not appear to qualify per WP:BIO. Very low Google, no news. Although the article is not about his blog, I note that it is Unalexa-able. Unless evidence of notability is provided, I recomend deletion. brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe as nn-bio (A7). Stifle 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Louis Bolomey

[edit]

almost no information here, and why is the creator of a blog notable if we do not even have an article about the blog itself? Austrian 08:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic_selection

[edit]

Completely pointless; borderline incoherent Hbk314 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Skins and Punks

[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Low Google, no News. Delete unless evidence of notability provided per WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman(t)(c) 09:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sav-way

[edit]

Speedy deleted, reposted, retagged by me as repost, but really does deserve a wider audience as we shouldn't speedy companies. Abstain for this moment. brenneman(t)(c) 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find one Google hit for the store. Looks like a vanity page to me. If it is kept, needs to be flagged for NPOV and needs a considerable re-write. - Dharmabum420 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, I speedied this, it popped up for the nth time and I was about to AfD it unitl Aaron beat me to it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Lefler

[edit]

Delete It's an article about a minor fictional character. It would be suited for Memory Alpha or a list of minor Star Trek characters Centaurus 10:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Robin Lefler is a main character in the New Frontier novel series and a main character in the TNG episode "The Game."


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mochasuperman

[edit]

Non-notable webcomic - less than a dozen unigue google hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kangeiko

[edit]

Googling this pulls a ton of hits, as this seems to be a rather well known form of martial art. But the article is about Yoga practiced at a university, so it seems unrelated and not notable. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete content Keep page. Per nom, this page is about a non notable course at a particular college. But the term seems to be real - I think it is the Japanese word for Cold weather training. This could be turned into a stub, and easily expanded by someone who knows more (i.e. not me)Obina 14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we cannot delete content and keep page, that would result in a blank page. If someone rewrites the article while it is up for Afd, I will change my position - otherwise, delete and hopefully someone more knowledgable than myself or Obina will create an article on the MA form in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Stifle 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teheranization

[edit]

NN neologism - google pulls 16 unique hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is not a dictionary. Madman 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Stifle 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a bigoted attempt to equate the fundamentalist Shiite revolution in Iran with the fascism of Milosevic. One could just as easily say that "Americanization" means the same thing, i.e. a country where the extreme religious right has come to power.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. You don't have to start an AFD if you just want to merge an article into another one. - ulayiti (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Braidfute

[edit]

She is an unhistorical character, there is not enough to say about her to justify her own article rather than mentioning her in either William Wallace or Blind Harry PatGallacher 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn of creation

[edit]

This article contains the literal translation of a hymn. Transwiki to Wikisource Delete per below comment by UncleG.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necrololimechacon

[edit]

This article contains some sort of text which I was not able to understand. Can somebody please enlighten me? Seems to be nonsense. Definitely out of context. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I listed enough links for people to know what the hell is going on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. You guys do not think that wanting to have sex with dead, underage, robot girls count as newsworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

I speedied this once as nonsense already - it is quite clear I was justified in doing so, and am doing so again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 2005 (USA)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nganga

[edit]

This one's a little odd - I was notified about it by User:Kahuroa, who (as his username suggests) knows a few details about Māori culture. There seems to be no such god as Nganga, and no Māori god of sleet... googling on nganga + Māori leads to about 350 hits. take out Bible translations (in which it means "hailstorm"), and you're left with about 175. Only about 1/3 of these refer to Maori mythology, so we're down to only about 60 hits. Several - all identical to a stub on Encyclopedia Mythica - refer to Nganga being the Māori god of sleet. The rest all talk about Ua, the Māori god of rain, who is known by variants of that name depending on what type of rain is involved: Ua-Roa for long rain, Uanui for heavy rain, and Ua-Nganga for rainstorms. It looks like somewhere along the line some lines of communication have got crossed, and a new, fictional god may have been created... Grutness...wha? 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, nice bit of research. I wonder, now that you have learned some, if you should add the Maori gods you have identified as a list, perhaps to the Polynesian mythology page? A list seems better than a bunch of non expandedable stubs.Obina 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ua is just the word for rain. These 'gods' (seems to me) reflect the kind of expansions on a theme that you get in chants or songs in oral cultures - such repetitions are part of the structure of almost any oral traditional composition. Rhythm helps recall and transmission, and so a word in a chant, like ua, rain, might be followed by expanded variants, ua, ua roa, ua nui, ua nganga (rain, long rain, heavy rain, storming rain) etc. - it's a bit like deciding that la la la is the European god of rhythm and song. Please no list unless evidence of actual worship/ritual exists, not just a line in a song somewhere that has been misinterpreted. Kahuroa 19:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've since noticed that the Ua variants are listed on the article for Ua. I've modified the text of that article a little to reflect the comments above. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify. Stifle 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • me again...Delete On further thought there seem to be several related articles that are of dubious origin. Nganga and Ua are not genuine Maori gods - same prob goes for Polynesian. Ua and therefore also Nganga and Hau Marangi (Wind from the Sky) seem to be someone's attempt to combine the Biblical Flood story with Maori/Polynesian mythology. This combining could have happened in the 19th century - like the Great Fleet idea started by 19th century Europeans with a romantic view of us Polynesians. There must be some obscure source for Nganga and co, since I haven't come across them before. Maybe someone's found some old mouldy 19th century tome and is quoting from it to make these articles. The article Papa (mythology) is genuine - the earth mother was Papatuanuku, but the article has a detail about a flood that seems strange to me and may also be Biblical Flood-derived (It kinda conflicts with the Ruaumoko part of the story anyway). Anyhoo, if it is decided to list, they should not be described as gods without some pretty heavy qualification. Kahuroa 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some kind of verification can be found (although I doubt it). Nice researching, people! Ziggurat 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -Sean Curtin 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Mermelstein

[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello My Future Girlfriend

[edit]

Non-notable. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/싱하형 get's about 75,000 hits in Korea (about half-of what this gets in Google without Wikipedia (137,000)), and is voted delete for being non-notable, this should be as well. The only incoming link is from Internet phenomenon. By the way, past nomination is here. WB 12:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I was off-base there. But I don't understand what the connection is between these two articles. rodii 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that person is far more popular (known by actual people in the streets, t-shirts, etc.) in Korea than this website, but that is voted for deletion, while this one is far less notable; nonetheless voted kept by many. -- WB 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney in fact for a URIE

[edit]

Too narrow a scope regarding a specific occupation working at a specific organisation. I mean, we don't write something like programmers for Microsoft. And it seems to have neutrality problems and was created purely to attack the people in question. Delete. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing List of Accidents

[edit]

Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes an accident is so elastic as to encompass certainly millions and quite likely billions of events every single day. Notable accidents will already have articles; this is a job for CategoryMan! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing fancruft with listcruft. For my personal view on listcruft see User:JzG/AfD - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the events regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:

  1. Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
    • However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
    • The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

  1. The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
    • As a subset of this suggestion , the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
  2. Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
  3. Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • discussion resumes here
Responding at Disasters, since I think that is the place with the contentthat needs adressing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 13:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foster

[edit]

Vanity. Staecker 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neohorizon

[edit]

This page was previously set up as a redirect to another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REMAGINE. Listing properly now. Owen× ☎ 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Commodore DOS, has already been merged. - ulayiti (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOAD "*",8,1

[edit]

This article is about a specific BASIC language command on the Commodore 64. While the article contents are correct, I think the subject is far too narrowly defined to warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 14:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Local churches. - ulayiti (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local Church controversy

[edit]

Important disclaimer: This AfD isn't intended to imply, that no criticism of Lord's recovery should be in Wikipedia.

This is obviously a POV-fork. This seems to be the lamentable stale-mate found in many of articles about so called sects: The main articles Lord's recovery, Witness Lee, Recovery Version of the Bible are in gloomy colors, not even mentioning the critical POV. The POV-fork is only critcism, and needs better sourcing. NPOV policy strongly discourages separate pro and con articles.

Pjacobi 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot be verified MAZO 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS THIS PAGE NOT DELETED YET? Why is a page in such dispute allowed to exist. The idea of linking an offensive page with opinions masquerading as facts ... this list of controversial opinions (unproven, unsubstantiated, not referenced, and not verifiable), it would seem that some have a sheer glee in paralysis through analysis, they want this debate to drag on as long as they can hang their dirty laundry out each day to dry! Well I for one think integrity is not up for debate and think that this so-called debate is a strategy to let cheap shots masquerade as fact. It seems this page violates the basic tenant of posting in wikopedia, in that most of the controversy are opinions and not verifiable or certainly not unobjective view point. (RS)

I think that the controversy article is worth keeping as a subset of the main article, the Lord's Recovery, as there is information included in it that is not found in the main article. It might get pretty cumbersome to try to integrate it into the main article so keeping it separate is useful. However, there may be a few places where a NPOV approach is needed to clean it up, although I thought most sections did aim for a NPOV. 

  (colinlavergne)

For my two cents, please note that the Local_Church article has had a long history of being blanked, vandalized, and contested in attempts to - in the words of sysop DJ Clayworth - canonize the movement. The forked article, Local Church controversy, was originally created by ongoing efforts to present the article on the Local_Church in the most positive possible light while only grudgingly admitting that concerns existed by people outside the movement - the same sorts of concerns that have arisen with articles on Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses for instance.

Personally, I feel that this fork was created under false pretenses and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and didn't want to put too much effort into editing a page that I had hoped would simply be deleted. If this article is to be deleted, I wouldn't mind taking the effort to clean up the mess in the controversy article so that it can be folded into another article that meets the standards desired by the Wikipedia community.

I propose that the existing article be significantly revised and folded back into the article on the Local_Church as a section of the article. I also propose that this discussion be posted in the Talk:Local_Church article, with a notice that this section was intentionally folded back into the original article and should remain there rather than being forked again into a new article. TheLocalChurch 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As asked by Pjakobi, here some critical sources on the local church which I consider as reliable (though, of course, not neutral) - not complete, I'm in vacation away from my library. --Irmgard 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Aagaard, Neil Duddy and The Peculiar Teachings of The Local Church Aagaard is Professor for NRMs in Aarhus.
Local Church Fights for Evangelical ID Card Not neutral, but tells clearly who says what
ApologeticsIndex: The Local Church While Hein sure is not neutral, he presents lots of sources, usually on both sides.
Bautz on Watchman Nee German, neutral, reliable
  • merge Let us try it. I know that articles dealing with cults and controversial sects and new religious movements are problematic on Wikipedia, because they tend to degenerate into ugly and unencyclopedic battles between well-informed critics (mainly former members) and well-informed adherents, see e.g. Prem Rawat and Sathya Sai Baba. I do not know what to do about it. (I am myself an active critic in these two articles.) Andries 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to bubblegum pop. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy music

[edit]

DELETE not an actual genre of music; it is just your opinion. WillC 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be an actual genre, but many people will instantly know what is meant by 'cheesy music' and indeed many nightclubs, pubs and bars market themselves using the phrase to describe their music policy. Also, many articles refer to cheesy music, and so an article to explain what it is is entirely appropriate. eg Klute (Nightclub), Top Banana, Un Pingüino en mi Ascensor, 1449AM URB
Also, before being deleted, at least give someone the chance to expand the article - hence the stub tag.DMB 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bubblegum pop as per Dragonfiend. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folica

[edit]

DELETEif not fleshed out, just a shill page. WillC 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Blind Melon. Deleting and merging is not a valid procedure in most cases, especially in that order. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Kraus

[edit]

I vote that this page be deleted and merged with the band page- maybe under a trivia section

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Frogs

[edit]

DELETE....shilling a business, not notable. WillC 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political cleavage

[edit]

DELETE prove its use/notability. WillC 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Nerf, since someone has already been bold and merged the important content into that article. —Cleared as filed. 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Darts

[edit]

Delete. The topic is entirely non-notable, to the point of seeming more akin to a vanity page for the creator than an encyclopedic entry. Google found less than ten relevant hit. It already has it's own listing in the main nerf page, which seems indulgent enough. Noah Smith 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cape May Gazette

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hon. Justice Carmen Vassallo

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was This article is a fiction - there is no such Judge. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localdataplace

[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article, but appears to be a Freecycle-like project attempting to use wikipedia to create a homepage for themselves quercus robur 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not even advertising as there's no external link- they are actually trying to create a homepage for this project within the wikipedia as far as I can see quercus robur 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Keep This Page

Addressing the comments above, one at a time:

  1. Per the wikipedia defintion, an encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. This page is an attempt to give people knowledge, including the existance of the site, how it fits in with Freecycle (during its conflicts), etc. In this case, it is the same as linking to other commercial sources that serve the local areas, such as the television stations, radio stations and newspapers; they have the same local purpose.
  2. "... a Freecycle-like project...". As we wrote, Freecycle is a collection of Yahoo Groups. We have many important differentiators, which are listed on our own site. We specifically didn't list them on the wiki page so that it wouldn't look like an ad.
  3. "use wikipedia to create a homepage". We already have a homepage. We're attempting to tell people about a resource that other people in their communities are using.
  4. "just trying to advertise". Look at the links on the page for Charlotte, North Carolina. I see links to companies, which certainly help to reinforce their brand. I see links to other community services, like churches, newspapers, television and radio stations. Please explain why it's ok for someone interested in Charlotte to know about only one of the town's newspapers, but not to know about another place where they can interact with other locals?
  5. "...there's no external link..." The introduction gives the URL, which has now been made into a link.
  6. "...certainly isn't notable..." To try and keep the page from looking like an advertisement, we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites; these are listed on our home page(s). The vanity page lists several reasons why this page could exist, including: 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' Please explain how we can show the importance without coming across as an advertisement in your minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalDataPlace (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad

[edit]

This is another attempt (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Johnubiprasad) to sing the praises of this scientist/doctor. Please see Talk:Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad where I've attempted to discover the facts and uncovered a tale of fraud and wild exaggeration. The user 202.138.112.252 (Contributions, talk) has made many related contributions that are probably similarly suspect (no citations). If I have a doubt over deleting it is that the article could be rewritten to contain the information currently on the talk page (in an encyclopedic form). That would serve two purposes:

  1. If this guy's name reappears alongside some boast, then it can be corrected with reference to the page.
  2. The presense of accurate information on the web about this person's history may be beneficial – see Saskatchewan Party Caucus News Release May 19, 2005.

If the page is deleted, then the various links should be deleted/ammended too. Colin 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment If this is the same page about the same person with a differnt page name, when it was 8 Delete comments to nil Keep comments, it does not seem you need to follow same process. But I'm not clear - are you proposing delete or keep? It seems you have investigated deeply. From what you say, and with this history, my thought is to keep with carefully checked factual information only, including the info you have on the Discussion page.Obina 17:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment and time taken to consider. I'm really looking for advice from more experienced folk than me. Without the scandal, he's not notable enough IMO. If we delete then I think it is quite likely that the (mis)information will reappear, given Prasad's history. If we keep but with all the facts exposed then perhaps we will just end up with an edit war? --Colin 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a different person.There are several people with this name.I think we should clarify.I looked up the scholar google and fouund him having conducted the research.(A.J.Prasad).There are several people with this name.The one you hav in mind is a psychiatrist from Ranchi.who is different from A.J.Prasad.Kedar Agarawal.(Psychiatrist,Delhi)

Indeed it is a different person.The one in Ranchi is Ashoka Prasad practicing in Bariatu Colony.This man A.J.Prasad has been in UP for over 15 years..Kedar Agarwal

I have been able to look up.The book is there in the NIMHANS,Bangalore Libraray(Boloical Basis of Neuroses0.I think it is a case of mistaken identity. Kedar Agarwal I deed AJ Prasad is am member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences. it appears. Kedar Agarwal

  • Comment Thank you for trying to clarify things but I'm pretty certain that the two are the same. However, I can't read the deleted Johnubiprasad article so don't know what it says. The AfD page contains a plea from a John Connolly that links Johnubi Prasad with Sodium Valproate, Biological Basis and TOP 1000 SCIENTISTS. The same link to all these was made by user 202.138.112.252 with Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad. Please see Talk:Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad for more details, where I've been careful not to assume all the AJ Prasads are the same person (though I suspect they are). What we do know is that 202.138.112.252 stated that Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad is the great granson of Rajendra Prasad (1st president of India). The ABC radio program mentioned on the AJP talk page also says AJP is the great grandson of India's first president.
Reading the ABC program transcript and the BMJ news report, you get a picture of someone who likes to have others think he is more important than he really is (Anna Monika Medal, Nobel Prize) and this fits with the exaggerated importance given to him re: sodium valproate and the biological basis of neuroses. Correcting this misinformation is one reason why I think it might be useful to keep this article but totally rewritten with the (unpleasant) facts.
If you still think we've got two people confused, can you cite some sources and full names saying exactly who is who. --Colin 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it may be worthwhile contacting Dr.V.Radharishnan of the Indian Psychiatric Association(Deputy Secretary).He seems to believe that there are two psychiatrists with this name.One is in Ranchi who has just returned from abroad and the other in Maharajganj.The Indian Medical Association also states that there are 8 people with this name on their membership rolls.I am trying to ascertain from them the wherabouts.Dr Rajendra Prasad was from Bihar which is where Ranchi used to be until rcently(now capital of Jharkhand).By the way on googling I came across. another doctor with this name in Farmington Michigan but I do not think he is a psychiatrist.I am the charman of psychiatry at Sfdarjung Delhi, the largest hospital here and I seem to remember a lecture by Dr.Jahnavi-Prasad( not Jonnubirprasad) as you mention on valproate a few years ago at teh Delhi Medical Association a few years ago but I do get the feeling that he was well settled in Maharajganj and remains there.Kedar Mal Agarwal.11th Jan.
I shall try and contact Dr.Radhakrishnan (his emial by the way is venkatradhakrishanan2000@yahoo.com)and write back.Kedar Mal Agarwal. -- 59.94.115.5 (talk · contribs) 11th Jan.2006
  • Comment I have some information.The Indian Medical Association provided it.Ashoka Prasad is a graduate from Kanpur,1977.He trained in England.Ashok Jahnavi Kumar Prasad is a 1975 graduate from Patna.He spent some time in England then under Arvid Carlsson in Gothenberg and then some time at the NIH in Bethesda,MD USA before returning to India.There are therefore two psychiatrists with the same name.
My colleaugu looked at your comments and was interested to note the term Johnubiprasad.He pointed out that anyone ith any understanding of the Indian names would recognise this name to be phony.Jahnavi is a Sanskrit term meaning the Holy Ganges.It amy be spelt Janhavi but is never spelt Johnubi.On using the scholar google,I noticed a few articles by Ashoka Jahanavi Prasad but none by Johnubiprasad.The book(Biological Basis) is incidentally also in the All India Institute oif Medical Sciences Library just across the road and it is by Ashok Jahanavi Prasad and is dated 1988,much before the article on the ABC..The American Academy of Arts and Sciences also has a Foreign Honorary Member Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad.The article on the valproate appeared in Pharmatherepeutica as scholar google suggests and was by A.J.Prasad.I would tend to agree that it is an advance.All of us clinical psychiatrists had nothinmg but lithium for manic depression before that and it is toxic.We all use valproate now as a first choice.It may be worthwhile ascertaining from the Medical Council of England whteher there are two doctors with this name with these qualifications as they both worked in England.Also I have serious doubts about the charlaton's links with Dr.Rajendra.He in India is known as a thorough gentleman universally respected and next to Mahtma's family his is the family which has never to my knowledge abused their position,rare in India.It may be that someone is misusing the name. -- KMA -- 59.94.112.34 (talk · contribs) 12th January 2006.
  • Comment I just came across the developments.Firstly,let me clarify that I use an Institutional internet connection and have written only the following articles(in addition to this one):
  • Robert Evan Kendell:whose book Companion to Psychiatric Studies helped me enormously during my training
  • Ian Brockington: whose book Motherhood and Mental illness I had consulted
  • Ian Oswald:whose book Sleep I had again consulted during my training years.
  • Sula Wolff: again whose book I had consulted(Children under stress)
  • Solomon Halbert Snyder:whose work on endorp[hins formed the basis of mmy doctoral thesis.
Also your records would probably show that I had requested articles on Max Hamilton(whose scales are known to every psychiatric researcher),Sir Aubrey Lewis(doyen of British Psychiatry),Martin Roth and Felix Post(both eminent psychogeriatricians),Michael Rutter(father of child psychiatry) and Eliott Slater(father of psychiatric genetics)I believe that introduction of sodium valproate is a major advance as lithium was the only drug available for over twenty years.
I am certainly unaware oF Jounubbiprasad or whoever he is and apart from major chages in the Kendell artcle am unaware of any major corrections that have been instituted by your team.
Being a clinician of five years duration,I had included the entries of only those whose work I had relied upon in my research.I that makes me a "vanitarian",I am afraid my concept of vanity is slightly different.It may be prudent to suspend the right of people to write articles.But what I find hurtful is the sneering remark. -- Anil Kumar 202.138.112.252 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

I have just signed in. -- Anilkumar2006 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

  • I've made my mind up and my vote is now: Delete. There may be a name confusion here. However an anonymous user who signs as John Connolly linked these names: "Ashoka Prasad (also known as Ashoka JOHNUBIPRASAD)". Perhaps Johnubiprasad is some kind of pet-name. Regardless, I think all the A J Prasads in this world would appear to be not notable enough for Wikipedia. Whilst sodium valproate may well be "a major advance", the role of A.J. Prasad in this advance (with the evidence available) would appear to be extremely minor. I repeat from the (soon to be deleted?) talk page:
According to the The History of Valproate in Clinical Neuroscience, PA Lambert is the first to use valproate to treat mania and had done so for a decade before publishing a paper in 1975. The papers PMID 5128637, PMID 1132367, PMID 6778456, PMID 6779508 all predate the one by A.J. Prasad:
  • Prasad AJ (1984). "The role of sodium valproate as an anti-manic agent". Pharmatherapeutica. 4 (1): 6–8. PMID 6438650.
Prasad's article discusses just seven patients who were treated with sodium valproate and notes that five got better. This is not some large scale study, double-blind trial or even highly-cited paper. It is merely one of many small studies perfomed in the early 1980s (see "Psychiatry Update: Annual Review" by the American Psychiatric Association (ISBN 0880482427) page 138. This lists five other studies including another by Lambert in 1984 of 108 patients) Similarly, the comments regarding biological basis of neuroses are unsubstantiated. --Colin 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right.This was not the first study.But let me take you back to lithium.JohnCade is credited with the discovery and it is known that he got himself unsuccessfully nominated for a knighthood(once by himself!).He did the study on the flimsiest of evidence and the inferences he drew were not supported by his results(frogs not dying on consuming urine of manics having taken lithium!).The adulation showered on him obscures the important fact-that it was Mogens Schou who conducted the first real trial using tested psychometric scales.Schou was a very unassuming man (he does not even have an article in the Wikipedia-I could not find enough details on the google as I did for all others including this)who was not given his due- and he never complained.I would advise you to look at the Emrich and lambert studies and note the psychometric tests employed.While Ashok Sir(he was with our medical college until his retirement in June 2005) has fully acknowledged in his paper that lambert and Emrich should be credited with the discovery(in the paper itself),all of this medical school believed he underplayed his role given that his was the first supported and sponsored clinical trial(by Sanofi).As far as the book goes,one has to read the preface by Professor Merton ,the then President of British Association of Psychopharmacology-"This is the first known effort to weave all the existing evidence of biological origins of neuroses and draw a meningful conclusion."As I have written the article,my vote would naturally be to retain it.RetainAnilkumar


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monet Bandits

[edit]

Not notable band. Few web references, no critical reviews, not at AllMusic, one album that is not in print. Mikeblas 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrexophilia

[edit]

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autagonistophilia

[edit]

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabacho

[edit]

Dict def that has already been transwiki-ed (also, CV concerns, heavily exceprted from etymology dict.) RJFJR 17:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-Evolution

[edit]

Original research. Suspect Steven Dubis is also the person who uploaded this information. Francs2000 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to be merged that would be relevant. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hewish

[edit]

Non-notable vanity. 31 Google hits, only one that seems to be him is first one - which is his own website. Ifnord 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. SorryGuy 18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: have removed offending website link - i'm new to this!
  • keep: by my reckoning 9 of the 31 google hits belong to this Andrew Hewish. This entry was provided as background to the work of the Centre; if it is contrary to a Wikipedia fashion then of course it should be removed. C4RD hopes to provide a larger registry of those artists and 'creatives' whose core practice is drawing. It has a regular 'Time-Out' listing and a solid relationship with the drawing community not just in London but in Britain generally. I refer anyone with doubts to Phil Sawdon of the drawing journal 'Tracey'. [[Controller 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Merge Nanospace, Andrew Hewish and Centre for Recent Drawing into one article. Either Nanospace or Centre for Recent Drawing should be the article title. The rest can redirect there. Mrsteviec 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, but merge/redirect to Free Republic. —Cleared as filed. 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping list

[edit]

Minor technical term used on one forum only; can never be a perfect article; delete. The Land 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreation of article deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog -- Francs2000 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Blog

[edit]

"A poker blog is a blog about poker" - content-free dicdef. I don't see any evidence that this is a truly distinct genre that in itself merits an separate article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men From Maine

[edit]

not-notable comedy song from local radio morning show. Mikeblas 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article can stand alone because of it also referring to the album in addition to the radio segment. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The CD of rehashed songs for the show can easily be referred to in the Men From Maine section of the associated radio station's article, in it's own little subsection... unless you plan to do some pretty serious expansion of the information on the cd.Ð


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Townie Tunes

[edit]

Non-notable skit on local radio show. Mikeblas 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe. Stifle 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil kelly

[edit]

Delete. I placed a speedy tag on this article but a claim of notability was later added. Google did not help me in my attempt to verify notability of this 14 year old novelist and champion speller ! No Guru 18:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"whilst on potrol in the town on the 7th of december 1998 he was brutally set upon by a gang of antelopes." ?!?!?!? They dont have Antelopes in Bedford (unless theres been an escape from the local zoo) Complete Bollocks by the sound of it! Delete Jcuk 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kim Possible video games

[edit]

Crufty list that won't likely grow. Already exists in Kim Possible article, so no need to merge. Mikeblas 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes, nomination withdrawn by User:JzG. -- Francs2000 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley F.C.

[edit]

Stub article on non-league football team. No known connection with Wembley Stadium. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Butt

[edit]

Relisting; not enough discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Butt. Mt personal view is delete. The Land 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discoverity

[edit]

Protologism with 13 google hits, some of which appear to be typos for 'discovery.' [15] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's speedyable - sorry for the waste of time if it is. Vary | Talk 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates

[edit]

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates

[edit]

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefactor

[edit]

This started as original research ("A prefactor is a process that involves reworking or rewriting, oftentimes code for a computer program, where the solution ends up being the original, and oftentimes more elegant solution"), but Vegalabs replaced it with the meaning in mathematics. Now it is just a dictionary definition and I do not see any scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LX/LuelinX

[edit]

Relisting for AfD, too few votes last time at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX. No vote. The Land 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - provides useful links and is informative about the project. Keep - it is not affiliated with "LUElinks" at all. -Matt 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is pointless. The entire point of this AfD discussion is for people from LUElinks to come and troll (i.e. whine). Should be invalidated as biased. -Matt 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add on to the "not notable" argument: it is consistently at above the 97 percentile mark in SF.net activity, and a couple months ago reached the top 200 projects. -Matt 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hill

[edit]

Non-notable subject in article with barely any (so to speak) information Madman 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I realize it's porn, and the girl has been in only a few movies, but the Throat Gagger's scene did cause quite a stir in the porn community. In RAME (rec.arts.movies.erotica), there have been a few dozen posts about just this one scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. I'll be laughing crying all night at the thought of bursting a blood vessel in my eye during oral pseudo-rape as "rising to heights". - brenneman(t)(c) 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyLovingMemory.com

[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement of the first water. Starts with the site name intercapped as a web link (sets the old spam radar off straight away!) and finishes by asserting copyright incompatible with GFDL. What is between the link and the copyrigth statement is advertorial. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of that article and I don't know what the problem is. You don't like that I've introduced the site and what its trying to do? Would you like 3 paragaphs of garbage explanation? I am only quoting my source of those slogans by providing the link to the page I got them from.

As for the copyright of the slogans I was with the understanding that by sharing that I was allowed to share them here provided I credited the author?

If you dont like the article I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it. But I do wonder if I'll actually get any.

EDIT: I have looked at a few other articles and I think I see what you guys want it to be more like. I will rewrite it this evening. BUT DONT YOU DARE DELETE IT! Xanthor 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

A special thank you to --Bachrach44 for sharing with me the guidelines found at [WP:WEB]

Given these guidelines it would seem that any webpage that has not already achieved fame would not meet the criteria for inclusion.

My only problem with this, and I understand its about keeping the Wiki up to quality standards, is that in fact the mylovingmemory.com website is the first to allow the general public to upload photos to create a digital collage. Although it does share a similarity to the milliondollarhomepage in the way it offers pixels for photos - the two sites are nothing alike. The milliondollarhomepage does not offer any content, only links. The Mylovingmemory website is the first to approach digital art collages in this manner and in fact their efforts are a historic moment and should be recognized.

Addditionally, the guidelines do not speak to uniqueness of content or public interactivity. Most "collage art" is done by a single artist on a static canvas. This site is creating digital collages by allowing public interaction on a changing canvas.

In short, I did not come here to post about "yet another nuke site" and attempt to include something as common as that. This website is unique. It is the only one I know of that does it and it is doing it as a project in philanthrophy. Exceptions should be made. Xanthor 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]


Comment. I have reviewed the new page. The basis for my delete is unchanged. The issue is not the text. The Web site is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for promoting new things. I, too, wish this web site success so it may be here in several years time.Obina 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per Obina the page is still largely advertising. Delete Atrian 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it is not advertising. I sell advertising for a living - thats not it. Obina said its not the text .. so to point to advertising and then refer to what Obina said makes no sense. You are all very discouraging and I will spend no more time about this except to send an email to this websites founder.

The internets version of a time capsule wants accepted by the internets version of an encylopeida. Its that simple. Xanthor 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

It's not "The internets version of a time capsule". It's your version of a time capsule. It would have to be pretty noteworthy indeed to be the internet's version of anything. May sites over the years have offered people a place to put images, reflections, confessions...all kinds of things. I think you overestimate the uniqueness and the novelty of your project, but even if you are right, it has to make some kind of impact before it is notable enough to be treated here. Your site hasn't even launched yet. There are thousands and thousands of projects out there that are just getting started and looking for recognition. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your project. People have tried to explain this to you and point you toward Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of websites, but for some reason you don't want to listen. This isn't personal--several people have gone out of their way to wish you and your project well--but the fact is, you're trying to use this place as something it's not. There are all kinds of ways to promote a new site; Wikipedia is something else. Best of luck with your project; may it prosper and evolve into something worthy of inclusion. rodii 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rodii for taking the time to do more than vote. I do understand what people are saying and I freely admit that I dont like it :-) On that note I do want to say that _I HAVE_ noticed all the well wishes that I have recieved and I thank you all very much for them. I don't want to appear ungrateful. They were noticed.. and even encouraging! :-)

I do want to say that I have scoured the net to purposly try and find someone who is taking photos from real lives and making collages and neo-impressionistic art out of them ... and they're just arent any sites that I have found. Yes there are memorial sites and yes there are many many photo galleries... but they arent "creating" any new works from the photos that are shared. This is the uniqueness that I think I have with the site. I would love for anyone to show me a site that is already doing something similar... but only because I have spent a good amount of time trying to find one myself. It's a true internet first... and .... as time progresses it is getting harder and harder to be able to make that claim.

Thanks again to all my well wishers. Truth be told I realized yesterday after reading the guidelines that I probably wouldent change your policy and I accepted it then... but I had to try. I too wish everyone well even though I did not get the reception I had hoped for. Xanthor 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete; article not rewritten. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional development

[edit]

Original research. Or something. Either that or I want some of what this guy's been smoking... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garment industry

[edit]

Dictdef. Or simply so blindingly obvious that there is nothing much to add. We have articles on textiles and the like, after all. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPLS Myths

[edit]

This isn't an article but an essay, a polemic arguing a particular POV about a data protocol. It's way out on neutrality and tone, and skates on the edge of original research ("'Because of the marketing push there are many popular untruths about MPLS, this paper is here to show some of them"). Despite tagging since December 8th 2005, no-one has seemed inclined to mend it, so maybe deletion is more appropriate Tearlach 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry.net

[edit]

NN website. alexa rank is over 2 million Bachrach44 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like angry.net. Leave the article in place!


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rendezvous with Death

[edit]

Even two whole days after the first broadcast of this film it is still not possible for me to verify its importance from reliabel sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was content already at the band's article, so just redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlogiston Verdigris

[edit]

Extreme case of anoraksia nervosa. I had to read it twice before I could make any sense of it at all! I'd say delete it as a non-notable meme from a barely-notable band, but maybe merge with the band or somehting I guess. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found it useful. But, yes, it may do better merged with the band's page. MCS 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noobing

[edit]

isn't nonsense, but never heard of Sceptre (Talk) 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Audit

[edit]

NN blog run by NN person; approx. 300 google hits, many of which are unrelated Paul 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophase

[edit]

This page seems to be written almost entirely as an advertisement. Alexa tells us the website itself isn't notable enough, but Google tells a slightly different story. However, since I'm guessing a lot of those Google hits are forum-related to try to ask for the server address (or something..), I'm voting to delete this page. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It might just be me but it is informitive enough and has been mentioned one or two times on G4techtv to be notable but not signifigantly. MAZO 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-club/group. enochlau (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day (group)

[edit]

This page is not encyclopedic, just a bunch of people from a group trying to make a name for themselves. I frequent 4chan and even participated in "The Raid", yet I didn't even know this group existed until I saw this page. richjkl 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not touching my post. And sure, give them to me. And it's been over an hour since you first learned of this, according to you. I even have the exact time you were BANNED form the mIRC chat. IM me, ChrisDark008, on AIM.--ChrisDark 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loungevania

[edit]

Article about a non-existent repubic. Not qualifed as Micronation - with 16 unique google hits. Only posting is from some web forums. Hurricane111 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damn straight its nonsense! But it's entirely 100% fact about 100% fiction. The country is from a book, if you need to just add that in to the beginning. David Fuchs
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llama brew

[edit]

An alcoholic beverage that is most likely hoax - as it is manufactured from a non-existent country (see Loungevania). Hurricane111 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save per nom, just kidding delete it if you want, it's 100% truth about a fictional beer. In that way, it's completely encyclopaedic. P.S. Fixed a slight spelling error on this page. David 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Rap Albums

[edit]

listcruft/crystal balling Sceptre (Talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad cuisine

[edit]

The contents of this article have been moved to Wikibooks. This article is now redundant. Tim Pierce 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as non-notable, even for fancruft.DS 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compound 18

[edit]

Delete Not a real compound. (Try googling and excluding any of the following: Jagged Alliance 2 Arulco, and forcing inclusion of 'armor') Also, non notable as a fictional compound. Fangz 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a good solution. The item in the game itself is completely unimportant to the plot, and included simply as an item to duplicate a sort of 'enchant armour' effect. It is completely unmentioned by outside media, and indeed barely mentioned within the fan network.--Fangz 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hankwitz

[edit]

Vanity article for a CA congressional candidate. Google=129. Also appears to be autobiographical by proxy (probably PR firm or agent) as the author has created only three other articles, also orphans with no links to them, and also borderline (or less) notable. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Brendanconway. Stifle 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Petersburg2

[edit]

I do not think this suite of pornoimages is particulary notable, it is an OR and if it is true, the article would promote child pornography. Delete abakharev 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Saavedra

[edit]

Vanity - at best borderline notable, with no inbound links, but also appears to be autobiographical by proxy as it was created by a user who only a handful of other similar articles (probably agent or PR firm). Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Sedillo

[edit]

Vanity article, also appears to be autobiography by proxy as original author has created only a handful of other, also vanity/orphan, articles. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Saavedra

[edit]

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Saavedra

[edit]

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Chang

[edit]

Looks like a Vanity page. Non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give details?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.96.247 (talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Notability ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to provide some evidence, but I'd say having your art displayed internationally was pretty notable. Abstain for now but might change to keep if evidence is provided. Jcuk 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the refs? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is 100% evidence. Pygoya is a web historian who documents his life efforts online. Visit [23] for each and every detail. Also to be found in article. There are not many artists with so manyfold life achievements. Artingrid 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified outside of his own article, website, and friend. Stifle 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is simply false. There are dozens of links clearly providing third-party evidence. Of course they are often to be found on Dr. Chang's website! Where else and why not! He provides every visitor with evidence by giving the link to the documented third-party facts. If one scans a document she or he gets from a third party and links to this document on his website within his website it is nevertheless a third party document. I just want to make it clear that a third party document is a third party document not matter where it is shown. Artingrid 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Artingrid a friend of Rodney Chang? .Also, regarding your own article at [[Ingrid Kamerbeek also in WP:AfD, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is considered inappropriate to write your own article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit borderline whether User:Artingrid should be considered a sockpuppet. I think probably not, but this vote should not be fully counted either. The entire edit history of this user is the creation of the articles Ingrid Kamerbeek and Rodney Chang (who are profesessionally or personally acquainted/colleagues IRL), and voting on the subseqent AfD's. The former article is apparently the same person as the WP user. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that you are either friends or associates. See [24]. That is wonderful, but please note that wikipedia is not free web hosting or a place to promote your art or your business. Third party confirmations is just a small portion of what is needed. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability so that you can be informed about Wikipedia content policies. I have also placed a Welcome message in your talk page with further pointers about Wikipedia and how it all works. Hope you find these helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the helpful Welcome message, Jossi! You are welcome.
Pygoya and myself founded the Webism Group of Worldwide Artists after our 1st real life European art tour in 2003. Of course we work together. We work together for global culture, peace and understanding. We have reached quite notable results as you surely found out. We are more than 50 worldwide artists, some of them at Wikipedia already. I put the article "Pygoya" to Wikipedia because he simply should be in with his 10 degrees, including 2 doctorates, honorary professor, NBC Real People Show, inclusion in Ripley's, Who's Who, his art on show around the globe in museums and galleries, etc. etc. He's also a digital art pioneer, ask Laurence Gartel who's in Wikipedia. Everybody could have put him in with his acknowledged merits. So why not me. I just point to the facts. What about a broader audience for this entry so I do not need to give further explanations. To me it would be in no way understandable if you wouldn't let him in. And this not because we work together but because the facts speak its own language.Artingrid 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not about "letting him in". Please read the guidelines provided. The article as it stands will either be deleted, or it will need to be cleaned up as per Wikipedia guidelines. The article of Laurence Gartel id a good example of a simple and straight-forward biography, although it lacks references for some of the assertions made. Nevertheless, you can compare it with the article in question Rodney Chang. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. You know I am a newbie here. So please be of help with the clean-up to make "Rodney Chang" fitting to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Artingrid 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives the Votes for deletion, I will lend you a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Again added more links to valid sources outside Pygoya's website Artingrid 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suspicious keep This definitely seems to have started out as a vanity puff piece; and it still needs substantial cleanup to reach encyclopedic tone. It's pretty clear that Artingrid is closely associated IRL. And the number of anonymous votes here sure suggest sockpuppetry (poorly executed, since anon votes should/will not be counted here). However, there appears to be at least a claim of genuine notability in having displayed at a number of museums of worldwide reputation. Seems to get some mention in indexes of artists online, e.g. [25], [26], both of which appear to be independent sources rather than ones controlled by Chang or direct friends. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Followup: Unless or until someone else provides verifiable links to the museum exhibitions claimed, I'll trust Jossi's below judgement about the non-verifiability of theses shows. The scam awards push it to delete.[reply]
  • Thanks. Please note that anyone can sell their art online at artmajeur.com (your 1st source) [27] and hundreds of other on-line art communities and websites. Also note that any artist (notable or not) can post their bios at americanartists.org (your second source) [28]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Like I say, it's a pretty weak keep. But the several stated showings at known brick-and-morter museums and galleries seem to give Chang the nudge. Not to slam-dunk notability (a group show isn't that hard to get), but to the minimual standards I have in mind. But if his works really did appear at "Bronx Museum of Arts in New York (1987), Shanghai Art Museum (1988), Holter Museum of Art (1990), Tartu Art Museum in Estonia (1990), the Las Vegas Art Museum (1990), and the Vienna Museum Complex (2003)." that seems notable to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really trying hard, to see if indeed Mr. rtChang passes the notability test.... but the more I research these exibitions the ony thing I encounter are self-published accounts of these. I have yet to find a mention of this artist in any of the museums listed. All I find is self-published stuff at, his personal site, free art sites, friends and associates sites, or link farms. Just search on Google, for example: "Holter Museum of Art" "Rodney Chang"[29] or "Shanghai Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[30] or "Tartu Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[31] Very, very strange stuff, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This above announcement will not be counted as it states - where is the user name?
Thank you, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for now giving your identity after you have been asked. Artingrid 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did so initially too, but you separated the portion of my comment with the signature from the initial part. However, I'm sure that was an innocent editing error. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Read Wikipedia welcomes unsigned comments too if in good faith.
To make it totally clear who Artingrid is:
Ingrid Kamerbeek, Bahnhofstr. 7, D-87527 Sonthofen/Bavaria/Germany, artist.
Want to know more? Ok, look up my website.
Just search for Ingrid Kamerbeek in Google.
Pygoya lives on the other side of the world: Honolulu, Hawaii.
Working together on a worldwide scale with and for artists has nothing to do with the fact that Pygoya with his acknowledged merits belongs to Wikipedia.
Neutrality of the admin is a main question here. Jossi is a digital artist himself.
I thought of Wikipedia as a good idea. Thank you for giving me a better insight. Artingrid 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon "votes"

[edit]

Wrong: Below comments are not anon but with full name. Artingrid 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon refers to contributors that do not have a Wikipedia user name. Jossi 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if they let us know their names by writing it down after their comments they are nevertheless not anonymous. Artingrid 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever they might state their names to be in the outside world, if they do not have WP usernames, they do not have an established WP reputation. Specifically, such anon IPs are often used by "meatpuppets"... people recruited by interested parties solely for the purpose of a particular vote; and as such are not counted as votes among the Wikipedia community. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If 10 degrees including 2 doctorates besides many other worthy proven achievements are regarded as not notable what else is notable! For sure Pygoya is a computer art pioneer and distributor on the internet. His art is logically developed from the classical board image.

Enormously risen prices for participation in art fairs and exhibitions is doubtlessly one aspect of Pygoya's efforts to establish art soleyly created by changing pixels to art. This way global culture and exchange is made possible for any artist around the globe at low cost. Press reports give evidence of high interest in digital art. Pygoya on his website presents a great resource of third-party confirmation of his achievements and activities. Digital art is a medium which without the internet wouldn't have come true. And it might be destiny that this is a fact also with Wikipedia. arno signarowski 13.01.2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.170.158 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - Rodney Chang "Pygoya" has been displaying his artwork on absolutearts.com since 2002. Pygoya has been a regular contributor to the absolutearts.com blog forum since 2004. His efforts as an artist are matched also by his commitment to unify artists around the work for better promotion and creation of exhibitions regardless of an artist's physical location. absolutearts.com can verify that Rodney Chang "Pygoya" is a computer art pioneer. Jodi Melfi, Vice-President, absolutearts.com166.102.8.185 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the above anons, obviously friends and/or associates of Mr. Chang, and non-withstanding the fact that Mr. Chang is an artist, please note that the criteria for notability of a person for their inclusion in Wikipedia is quite specific. Please read Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Concerning absoluteart.com, that in itself is not a mark of notability, as there are hundreds of artists in this and many other art websites. There are hundreds of thousands of digital artists that may consider themselves pioneers, but that is not sufficient, I am afraid. Jossi 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So - if one of the largest, oldest online portals for fine art is not a creditable source to vouch for a computer artists notibility, who is? "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". Rodney Chang "Pygoya" falls in this catagory, in my opinion. ALSO - I think you may find that he also could be considered as one who has "A large fan base, fan listing or 'cult' following". Jodi Melfi166.102.8.185 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jodi for your comment. Our opinions are our opinions, but Wikipedia articles are not based on Wikipedia editors' opinions but in reporting the opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. Read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Jossi 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi: All you state above is before your very eyes: Opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines.

Sorry, Ingrid. I have yet to come across one such reputable source. All what I have seen so far is seems very much like self-promotion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this self-published book Jossi 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ISBN No. of this a. m. book:(ISBN 1-4196-2168-8). It is not to be seen at booksurge website right now due to changes Dr. Chang did. It will be online again asap.

According to Wikipedia guidelines the admin who votes for deletion of an entry should not be the same who decides. And especially not in your case because you do not look at this article from a neutral point of view. Artingrid 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear no more ... as the nominator of the AfD, I will not close it. Another admin will. And BTW, I am as neutral as it can be... I never heard of Mr. Chang until a few days ago when came across this article while doing RC patrol (recent changes patrol against vandalism of Wikipedia). Jossi 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just for clarification of the above said: it gives a false impression. Of course unintentionally, right? Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who closes this AfD will be someone uninvolved with the voting. That's how these things are done. Some neutral admin will look through AfD votes that are a week or so old, count up the votes (including discounting anons or brand new accounts), and decide what action is appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you both, Jossi and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for your explanations. I am totally sure that nobody who does research work on the internet as you surely do and moreover somebody who calls himself a digital artist who comes across digital artists and art sites all the time can "avoid" to know Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because he is everywhere on the web. There are also links to his website from the articles Jossi initiated at Wikipedia and carefully watches. Just some thoughts... I have many more...Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of something? That is indeed preposterous. I have never heard of Mr Chang, Webism or Artingrid until a few days ago when someone added a long piece of material to this article and it lit up on my RC patrol console as possible giberish addition by an anon IP. Now, you can believe that or, not. That is your prerrogative, of course. In Wikipedia we ask contributors to assume good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, during my attempt to verify some of the achievements awards listed d on Mr. Chang's website http://www.lastplace.com/page36.htm I found these:

  • "Man of the Year - 2005, American Biographical Institute, Raleigh, N.C."
... but then found scam reports about this "award": [32], [33], [34]
  • "America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals, 2003-2004"
.. but then read similar scam reports about this "registry": [35]
  • "The Contemporary Who's Who of Professionals"
... but could not find any such thing anywhere, besides mentions alongside of one of the scams above.

I stopped checking after these three. Jossi 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was if we follow the merge proposal by Mrsteviec, this article should be kept and the others merged into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Recent Drawing

[edit]

Non-notable organization (club?) with a total of two Google hits. First being the auther's website. Author's bio (Andrew Hewish) is also up for deletion as non-notable. Ifnord 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I agree with Mrsteviec. Entries should be merged under Centre for Recent Drawing as it is an established small museum space of service educationally, with the local community and will list the kind of information Wiki was made for (see []Canadian Artists]] for example. The other entries are as a result of lack of user experience within Wikiworld. Doubts about it's bonafides should be directed to Phil Sawdon, Editor of 'Tracey' drawing journal, Deanna Petheridge at the Arnolfini or Mark Lewis at the London Metropolitan University - m.lewis@londonmet.ac.uk 82.35.49.241 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new user, you may be unfamiliar with sockpuppets. I would advise reading it and pointing out that sockpuppet votes are discounted. Ifnord 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the clumsiness of a new user! please see above for independent referees.

Keep. I wrote the original article. All vanity reference has been edited out and the offending articles edited out and merged. The entry has now been expanded and will expand, on what is an important informational source and developing discussion in drawing in current art practice. Hopefully the article now is a valuable contribution to the Wiki ethos and respects the five plliars.Controller 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnophobia (web design)

[edit]

not-notable web design technique. I can't find any references to it (that aren't about a web design company with the same name; or in Wiki mirror sites.) The reference identifies a site that exemplifies this design type, but that site is down. Mikeblas 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baish

[edit]

I can find no reference to Baish as a dip on Google [36]. The remainder of the article is an unverifiable slang dictionary definition; appears to be a neologism coined by the editor. Muchness 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair wilson

[edit]

As a candidate for a parliamentary seat, this is not enough of a reason to be included in Wikipedia. In addition, the article reads like an advert. File Éireann 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe as copyvio (CSD: A8). Stifle 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Steady State Galaxy Theory

[edit]

Original Research. Mostly copied/slightly adapted from this website Batmanand 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlesir

[edit]

nn, probably vanity, Google Test hits 327, most are mis-spellings of "gentle sir". Certainly neologism - even acknowledged in article itself Batmanand 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpendicular Universe

[edit]

This smacks of WP:OR to me. The relationship to Everett is weak and a search turns up 1600 results. None of the early results lend support. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Brendanconway as nn-bio. Stifle 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalkerhub

[edit]

a creative idea, but still a nn website. Bachrach44 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: following deletion, I took the liberty of recreating this link as a redirect to New Trier High School. BD2412 T 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lagniappe/ Potpourri

[edit]

nn high school production. I know that several famous actors went to New Trier High School, if the article should indicate that some of them participated in this event, I would retract my nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete currently no notability demonstrated. Stifle 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it says at http://www.ann-margret.com/music.htm (on her website) that she can be heard singing on two recordings, from her freshman and senior year of Lagniappe. This can be found on the left side of the page toward the bottom under the heading of "LP's". I'm still working on finding others.
  • my mother went to New trier and in her yearbook it says that edward zwick was in Potpourri in 1970. I can scan and show it to you if you really want
  • Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Contributor could consider adding a short mention to the New Trier High School article if it's important in the history of that school; the editors of that article will be in a position to judge. Personally, I possess an LP of an original musical, entitled, Agh! Wilderness! [sic], produced by the Scarsdale High School class of 1962 and featuring Nina Totenberg singing. A clip from that LP recently aired on NPR's news quiz, Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Absolutely true. Really. Email me if you want a link to an .mp3. But I would not dream of submitting a Wikipedia article about this production. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_8&oldid=1234127730"