Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 30

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< May 29 May 31 >

Purge server cache

May 30

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 Speedy delete, but not by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The GDT

edit

Oh my, the wonders of the internets! We are not voting on a website, or webforum, instead we're voting on a specific forum thread! I've not even bothered to Prod this, as I know someone will inevitably remove it, maybe one of the "near legendary GDT Crew". I wonder who it would have been, maybe "Oreo- A real life black person."? I am quite possibly breaking the first rule of GDT which is to "Respect the GDT", and for that I apologise. - Hahnchen 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete: Patent nonsense (TBC is right, its atleast barely understand) and unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. - Tutmosis 00:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


^Stop being a jerk. This is an important reference for those who are interested.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.213.212 (talk • contribs)

I used that article as a reference on one of my research papers at Yale.

lol thit is tutmosis, i was jk. i had something uncomfortable between my cheeks at the time, but it's been removed. - tutmosis 00:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.183.38 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Haha... thanks TBC, that imitation cracked me up. I'll make sure to preserve that. - Tutmosis 00:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - This page provides much information to those new to PBN/GDT. If you dont understand the topic, then simply move on

  • Speedy delete Useless. Of all the users of that forum, I doubt more than 1 in 30 care. And an even smaller fraction would ever find the wiki page. (An article on General Discucssion threads in general might actually be useful, but I'm to lazy to make one right now.) --Flyne 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually you'll see that General discussion thread is protected, as it had been deleted before. It was made by the same user who made this article, I'm guessing it was about the same thing. But I doubt a CSD tag would have stayed on the article long enough. And anyway, I like to stir up the nest every now and then. - Hahnchen 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dignity? And I thought Wikipedia lost all of its dignity after it kept the GNAA article. :P I'm joking of course... or am I?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article should be dunked in industrial bleach until dissolved. Bwithh 01:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

`

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Pinnacle (ship)

edit

Crystal ball speculation at this time. Carnival's most recent press release on the matter of new vessels (that I can find) indicates only three, Carnival Freedom, Carnival Splendor, and a 130,000 ton Un-Named Carnival Ship, none of which come remotely close to the size of the predicted vessel mentioned here. I also doubt they'd name this vessel 'before' naming the 130,000 tn ship.

An anon user removed my prodtag and added an article from Florida Today, which in my opinion says "its all speculation" The CEOs of Carnival and Fincantieri (Carnival's preferred shipbuilder) say that the "Pinnacle Project" (as dubbed by the paper) is at the discussion stage, with "nothing on the table". -- saberwyn 00:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - great work by BigDT. FCYTravis 07:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual warfare

edit

This article is an absolutely unorganized, unwikified, uncited mess. POV issues abound, there is no objective or critical analysis within the article. Suggest deletion or, failing that, complete overhaul. AscendedAnathema 00:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article in its current state, it seems that much of the POV material has been removed.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overhaul completely. The article was indeed terrible when it was nominated, but spiritual warfare is a fairly widely accepted Christian concept that I've heard of. Stubbing it was the right decision. flowersofnight (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revert - take a look at this version of the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&oldid=54698032 . There was a very good article there, then in this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spiritual_warfare&diff=55170246&oldid=54698032 , User:Guillen completely replaced the article with his own original research. Can some admin wipe the history since that diff and replace it with the good version of the article? It looks like the old version was a sourced article with a long bibliography. It was replaced without comment. BigDT 03:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - actually, someone needs to go over all of User:Guillen's contributions - [3] - this topic Sankta lusse has zero google hits. This diff - [4] has some POV pushing. I assume good faith and this certainly is not overt vandalism ... but it looks like an issue that needs to be addressed in some fashion. But at any rate, as far as this AFD goes, my strong recommendation is that it be reverted to a good version of the article.
  • Comment - I'm going to go ahead and be WP:BOLD and revert to the pre-Guillen version of the article. Is there anyone who would have an objection to a speedy keep since the trashy version of the article is no longer really an issue? BigDT 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone over a few of Guillen's other edits to other articles, none seem nearly as bad as his edits to this article so I think the good-faith assumption is a good one. I wish I had bothered to check out pre-Guillen versions of this article before nominating it for deletion, reverting it to the good article it used to be was the correct thing to do. AscendedAnathema 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid encyclopaedic topic, cleanup. --Terence Ong 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After revert, Endorse Speedy Close per BigDT. Fan1967 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tend to object to WP:NOR... because it means that only stuff that has been said by someone else can be said on wikipedia - defeating the whole purpose of the project which is that anyone can edit it. WP:NOR turns the project into a repository of things that the mainstream media has said, and one of the reasons i joined (b4 everyone was so fussed about NOR) wikipedia was to get away from the bias and POV of the mainstream media. I tend to think, along the same lines as the early wikipedians, that a large group of editors will produce a better article through collaboration, than a few people regurgitating what the media says. Anyway the articles good now with sources anyway. THE KING 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Since the consensus was split between I Am Woman and Burger King, a soft redirect will remain on the page until another discussion has intervened. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manthem

edit

Do we really need a new article for every new commercial? Wickethewok 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the public reaction to the commercial. For example, something like the The Subservient Chicken commercial is considered notable.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mostly Rainy 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcade

edit

I am not sure about this nomination. However, it looks like it is a dictionnary article. It could be redirected to some appropriate page (which page?). Short of this, it's a delete Tony Bruguier 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roll number

edit

Glossary definition with insufficient scope to warrant encyclopedic article. Lack of content precludes merging, so delete. Girolamo Savonarola 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, moved to TfD. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Pan-blue

edit

This Userbox is polemic and should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bmxboard

edit

Speedy Delete per WP:WEB & WP:NOT. Aeon 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

while I would understand completely, deletion of this article, the entry itself should exist within wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.173.182 (talk • contribs)

BMXboard is a well known resource through out the bmx community, like Google is to the general public. It shouldn't be deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.166.115 (talk • contribs)

As I've mentioned above in the GDT AfD, you must take into consideration, that out of a world of over 6.5 billion people, who cares about the subject? After all, Wikipedia can't just have an article on everything, as it isn't like Wikipedia has an infinite amount of servers at its disposal.---☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there are 1000s of web pages out there. We don't need a stub article about a non notible forum. Aeon 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why can't there be an article on bmxboard? This is an encyclopedia, right? Well, Merriam-Webster reads that "... an encyclopedia is: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." Bmxboard is no different than the Romans. They were a particular group of people, and so is bmxboard. Bmxboard is a niche of BMX riders. I have to ask how bmxboard is different than having Star Trek on this website. Star Trek is definitely a niche. At least bmxboard is real, you can participate in it, you can meet people from it. I have driven to both Miami, Florida and Binghamon, NY, just to meet people that participate on bmxboard. And as far as not having an infinite amount of server space, hard drives are so cheap right now, along with bandwidth, do you really think that the agrument of servers is jusifiable, with this article currently taking up a mere 525 bytes of space (This discussion takes up more than that). Regardless of whether this article makes it or not, bmxboard is definitely a part of the bmx community' it has even been written about in nationly published magazines that anyone can pick up at even a local Wal*Mart (Ride BMX, Ride UK, Dig BMX, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmxky (talk • contribs)

The difference: Star Trek and Rome are known by billions of people, Bmxboard is known by a small, group of people. If we allow everyone to post their website on Wikipedia as long as the website is "real", regardless of notability, Wikipedia would be flooded with thousands of spam articles each day. Please remember the cost of mantaining wikipedia (not only including servers) is defaintly not cheap. Look at Wikipedia's current budget. I don't know about you, but $321,200 is a lot of money, especially since Wikipedia doesn't have advertisements and relies only on donations. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Women's Opression

edit

As can be guessed from the title, hopelessly POV and OR JChap 01:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of women's oppression

edit

Duplicate page; duplicate page is being considered for deletion as per JChap2007 (talk · contribs) Hobbeslover 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page seems to be very well researched, unbiased and an accurate representation. I would highly recommend it remain on wikipedia as I found it very interesting and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.193.180 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Its not bad, it's just not what we do --JChap 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above AfD. I also suggest merging this AfD with above one, as they essentially cover the same material--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for undergraduate essays of dubious value Bwithh 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nor should it be a dumping ground for undergraduate essays of obvious value. Bejnar 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed reading this article and I found it very well written and informative. I hope that this article is not deleted from Wikipedia. It is rare to find such an unbiased and well represented article on such a controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.22.204 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Discussion in an AfD is not really about the quality of the article. "Neutral point of view" is not the same thing as unbiased. Original research has a different meaning than it does in an academic context. Most of the editors seem to have liked the essay, including me. But it is precisely those qualities that make for a good term paper (arguing a point effectively, contributing something new to the discipline) that disqualify a piece from being an encyclopedia article. --JChap 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Garcia

edit

Entry on non notable person as far as I can tell Equendil 02:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was RENAME -- 9cds(talk) 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDC and LOC

edit

This article has been superceded by the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification articles. As for now, it's just a target for maintenance bots and community fix efforts; it hasn't had a real updated in months. The topic name isn't something anyone would search for, and as a result there's no organic links to the topic. The humane thing to do is to put it down. --Mikeblas 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Expanded to demonstrate notability. More coming soon. A note of reproach to user:Vald (the stub creator): leaving just a line without any reference is really bad and costed many people lots of trouble. `'mikka (t) 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gradsky

edit

Short vanity article, don't know this person. Mostly Rainy 02:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, but the course of action most of us take when we come across a short bio article about somoene we don't know is tag it for speedy or nominate it for AFD. See WP:HOLE. Mostly Rainy 03:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us actually can and do use google to augment one's own ignorance. Believe me, it often helps a lot. `'mikka (t) 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Bluver

edit

NN musician. Google doesn't return anything, and Prospect Marching Band seems to be a high school marching band. Maybe this guy is notable for having been in high school for 24 years? Previous PROD notice was deleted. N. Harmon 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete keep. Mailer Diablo 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New American Empire

edit

Title is inherently POV, and the article does not provide useful information beyond what is already in other articles. Delete. If kept, should be divided into multiple articles. --Nlu (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Keep If Vizjim's edits stick. Not yet withdrawing nomination in case edit war erupts over this. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)In light of return of editor and attempt to restore the deleted junk, Delete (because it's not worth it, in my opinion, to maintain the page which she will surely try to reinsert and reinsert the POV content). --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil of the Future Movie

edit

Hoax/speculation. There is no entry for the movie at IMDB, and a search of Disney's website turns up no results. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12-21-12

edit

I had {{prod}}ed this unsourced and badly title article before with the reason "unreferenced speculation about the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball, also opninion/original research WP:NOR" but the prod was removed with the comment "Mayan apocalypse theories are a liegitimate phenomenon, see article on 2012". As the only verifiable non-speculative content of this article is "December 21st 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calender." I suggest we just delete it. Kusma (討諭) 02:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Nothing wrong"? You mean aside from the use of first person pronoun and general OR essay tone to it? Irrespective of the relevance of the subject to WP, the article content itself is completely unencyclopaedic. Seb Patrick 08:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional deaths

edit

Disputed prod. The very definition of an unmaintainable list. It could include everything from Medea knifing her children right up to Mufasa in The Lion King and beyond. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly List of deaths the way we're going. SM247 05:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mole (Particle)

edit

Delete, as it sounds like nonsense and is nonverifiable (sounds like a play on Mole (unit)). I don't think it's speedyable, however, as it doesn't meet any of the criteria. The text itself is very readable, even if the concept sounds crazy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Angelina Jolie. --Ezeu 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt

edit

No reason to believe this child (distinct from the parents) will be notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Yamla 03:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because the information is true does not imply that it should be on the Wikipedia. Now, if the subject of the article is notable, that's another story. I don't think the subject is but this is a matter for debate. --Yamla 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. As Angelina Jolie is reputedly a Liverpool fan, it pains me to make such a vote on a prospective Reds supporter. Meh ;-) SoLando (Talk) 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course she is notable on her own, just like Jolie's two other children. Why do people think these articles keep popping up, because nobody can notice them? It's not really the point, whether this child is of any particular importance either, the mere fact that people keep creating this article (after it has been deleted before) shows the apparent relevance this subject has to a lot of people. Wikipedia shouldn't act as an elitist group trying to impose its own intellectual standards, but remain true to its origin by being a encyclopedia of the people. (138.246.7.73 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep What other child's birth led to 4.1 million dollars being donated to charity?

  • Well, but that information could easily be incorporated into either of the parents' articles. After all, it was one or both of them who decided the money should go to charity. And in fact, that's where I would expect to find such information. --Yamla 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - it's down to Jolie and Pitt that all this money is going to charity, not the baby. Likewise all the "public interest" in the child: it is not the child that's interesting, but the parents - why is this so hard to understand? If this child merits her own article, then surely all the children of notable people should get their own articles. Bretonbanquet 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete--Ezeu 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HaMaayan

edit

This organisation is real but probably very small. See Google UK [8] and also [9] Article may be mockery of the "local Jewish family [who] act as the public face of HaMaayan" and/or the ambitions of the organisation. (I gave this a category without reading it carefully - newly-added joke tag makes me see my mistake.) HJMG 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a history of IP addresses adding and removing NPOV, joke and deletion notices. (Please note - I didn't put on the joke tag - but it made me read the article more carefully than I had before.)
Some editing has come from a Cambridge University IP, including an edit summary saying, "remove - it's a spoof page, as demonstrated by the bizarre humour and mockery behind its composition". The charity appears to be led by one particular couple. Their advertising for a nanny probably led to these remarks being added:"HaMaayan also employs a nanny who is responsible for the needs of HaMaayan's under-5 population." ......liberating women from having to endure pregnancy, is theologically important for HaMaayan." I guess this is a private joke: HaMaayan prides itself as one of the most litigious organisations in the UK. In general, it seems to poke fun at the charity's stated aims, which seem surprisingly ambitious for the Cambridge area: "It is believed that if several thousand Jews can be persuaded to buy properties in Cambridge, and several hundred thousand pounds can be raised then the project could be extremely viable." "There is also a proposal to build a Talmud Torah and an eruv in nearby Newmarket which, after extensive market research is believed to be a location which many Jews may be interested in moving to." (Also, I couldn't find any reference to HaMaayan on Lexis-Nexis UK)--HJMG 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would urge a little bit of caution before rushing to delete this page - there are two google references to the organisation as cited above (one from the cambridge evening news which is a proper newspaper)and I tried the links at the bottom of the page and they worked, one being to the website of the charity commission, which is a government site. It could be that someone has added a joke into the article at our expense (that's not exactly infrequent here!) but that doesnt mean we should get rid of the whole thing. If we did that there'd be no profile for George Bush, Tony Blair.... Perhaps someone knows of some way to get in touch with the organisation to ask them directly. )--Camuvan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigreps (talk • contribs)
Just to clarify, these are Camuvan's contributions.--HJMG 11:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually the CEN with gilinsky that talks about how her faith is centred around the law of the land might actually support their claim to attribute holiness to the court system - not such a strange idea to believe that judges do the work of God etc etc - i wil actually add that to the article to see if it makes things any more useful to us. WIKIGREPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigreps (talk • contribs)
  • Comment A reference to HaMaayan on the Cambridge page was removed with an edit summary saying "remove link to HaMaayan which is a spoof page - not the mainstream synagogue existing since the 1930's".--HJMG 11:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but as far as I can see the organisation is real, as shown from the google search and the charity commission website. If it is small, it was nevertheless big enough for its trustee to be interviewed by the Cambridge Evening News as a representative of the Cambridge Jewish community so it can't be that small. In any event, wikipedia has hundreds of pages on individual churches, synagogues, temples or cults with only a few hundred members (i've certainly read quite a few here!). HJMG - would you not agree with me that we should maybe be concentrating on making the page better and not removing it based on current knowledge. look forward to hearing your thoughts - i am new round here so apologies if i have something wrong. Camuvan --Camuvan

We have to wait and see what decision is made about "notability". (A couple of internet mentions isn't very much for a current organisation.) If the article stays, yes, I hope someone will be able to sort it out and separate verifiable fact from fiction. --HJMG 07:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikihalas says - i know the organisation of hamaayan a bit although i am not a member -- i was in cam for a bit and they are definitely there! i know some of their beliefs are considered a bit bizarre by mainstream judaism FROM WIKIHALAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.187.89 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2006

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 03:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor and highly localized new religious sect with views considered bizarre (they going to support out-of-the-womb pregnancy technologies to be developed hundreds of years in the future by getting Jewish people to move to Cambridge and suing people a lot?) by mainstream Judaism. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Bwithh 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seals it for me: "HaMaayan has applied several times to be affilated to the Federation of Synagogues". If this communal body of UK Judaism doesn't see it as a bona fide synagogue, neither should we. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having an article about an organization does not imply that Wikipedia "endorses" it as a "bona fide synagogue". Many organizations we have articles about are not affiliated to the Federation of Synagogues. What does count is that they are not notable. What is worse (as far as I can see) is that most of the information here is unverifiable. For all we know, HaMa'ayan could be fiercely opposed to all forms of extrauterine gestation, and traditional litigation. By the way, the name just means "well" or "spring" in Hebrew, and there are more organizations that have this name. --LambiamTalk 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article seems to be generally quite accurate. they may be a small organisation but they definitely exist as there is information about them on several locations on the internet. we must help improve the article though --Camuvan
  • Keep the page is clearly about a real organisation, so let's keep it wikigreps
  • Delete. Doesn't it bother anyone that the information is unverifiable? --LambiamTalk 03:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not sufficiently asserted either in the article or in the preceding arguments, IMO. Colonel Tom 12:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I'd removed most of the text and was about to add my 'strong delete' but what the heck? There's absolutely zero chance of this being Kept, so I'm closing now citing WP:SNOW. kingboyk 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2006

edit

The whole thing sounds like an advertisment for Slayer. Additionally, the article's content is not widely regarded as factual. There are also highly undesirable suggestions, like "Kill the neighbor's dog and blame it on Slayer." Regalion 03:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Scholarship

edit

Article concerns small scholarship program serving thirty students a year. Article is totally unsourced except for link to scholarship program itself and reads like a press release. Source of assertion that this is "widely recognized as one of the most innovative collegiate merit scholarships in the U.S." appears to be UNC press release [10]. Subject is not notable, particularly when compared with other scholarships in this category serving thousands of students. Lastexit 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While this does have a small number of students, and I agree we could get thousands of similar articles, is there any consensus about how large a scholarship needs to be to get an article? (Certainly I think that independent articles for every elementary school in America is insane, but that's how consensus fell) RGTraynor 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my nom. Article has been revised since nomination to remove the unsubstantiated puffery, which only underlines the notability issue. UNC-Chapel has 16,700 undergrads, which makes size of program even less consequential. Despite revision, article remains essentially a glorified press release, written from information provided by the scholarship, contrary to WP:NOR and WP:V. --Lastexit 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – although it did read like a press release (as noted above), the article is fixed now. IMHO the subject is notable enough; it is a link between two colleges that are traditionally rivals, and it seems to be fairly prestigious. (Full disclosure: I wrote the first version of this article, though I don't have any ties to the scholarship, the benefactors, or the colleges.) --bdesham ★ 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article isn't a press release any more. I added a very little bit more. I found independent, reliable sources for the existence and basic terms of the program. I also found a couple undergraduate level research papers acknowledging the program as the funding for it. But I didn't find enough to make me sure the article should be kept. I also think that RGTraynor's comment above is cogent - is there any consensus on scholarships? GRBerry 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.--Ezeu 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Smith's salad dressing (2nd nomination)

edit

Last AfD resulted in no consensus (only four comments). Recipe in verse has now been sent to the cookbook. TheProject 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sankta lusse

edit

"Sankta lusse" has zero google hits ... the article is barely coherent ... see also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare BigDT 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a misspelling of Santa Lusse or Santa Lucia, but the article is too incoherent to tell what this is. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the event described (though poorly so) seems to exist and has no present mention. It appears to be an informal day of significance in Sweden. Needs clean-up and probably a new page title. But its hanging by a thread. SM247 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Lucia Day. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Lucia Day; that's where the event this article describes is discussed. --Metropolitan90 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I have no objection to a speedy redirect and close BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Swedish name is Sankta Lucia. Tearlach 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Santa Lucia day is a very famous holiday in Sweden, but this article reads like a joke or a POV fork. And "Sankta Lusse" is a joke name. JIP | Talk 09:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork, what a joke. --Terence Ong 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't redirect; this is a non-existent name for an existing festivity. The article has more errors, and it is better to start from scratch from a reliable source. An old purely Swedish name is Lussenatt, while Norwegian has Lussinatt. --LambiamTalk 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following comment was made by User:Guillen at the top of the page. It has been moved down in order to keep the flow of the AFD:
    • "Sankta Lusse appears in Google ! you no even know as searches for something in Google,and wants to comment in wikipedia?. Sankta Lusse is right name used by Canadians and Americans in North Carolina and Connecticut from Swedish/Danish Origins. Lussenat is Lusse night,there are no Norwegian name for it. Norwegians celebrates Kris Kringle instead,it see the commenter below no even know the issue discussed here. It is another example from abusive use from wikipedia by catholics,you are angry because an article proves Sicilian Saint Lucy is no same Lusse from Sweden Denmark Christmass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
      • This is the first time I've ever been accused of being an abusive Catholic. (Hint: I'm Southern Baptist and, more importantly, a born again Christian.) The problem with this article is NOT theology. The problems are threefold: (1) if you go to http://www.google.com and type in "Sankta Lusse", you get nothing whatsoever. (2) There is already an article called St. Lucia Day that discusses the holiday in Sweeden. This topic belongs in that article, not a new article. (3) The article is very difficult to understand. This has nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant - nothing whatsoever. BigDT 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a Catholic, but I do find the article in question to be completely nonsensical. This is no conspiracy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your threefold problems: Sankta Lusse exists,is no Catholic Saint,and last but no least it appears in Google. 1)Reads again my former letter. And learn to uses google. 2)Saint Lucy Day is a day devoted to a catholic saint. It hadn`t any relatuion to Sankata Lusse. Give me more time to write proofs,sources,it. By the way I works in a corporation,I`m no a lazy teenager writing articles in favor from pornography and catholicism as you. 3)Is very difficult to understand,because it is for inteligent people only?. Give me more time and I writes here enough sources and proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
          • Rather than being insulting, would it be possible for you to link to your google results? When I go here - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-37,GGLD:en&q=%22Sankta+Lusse%22 - I get nothing. Also, please remember the no personal attacks policy. Calling us lazy teenagers, saying your articles are written only for the "inteligent" (sic), and claiming that we are writing articles in favor of pornography are not acceptable behaviors. BigDT 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you talking about? The impetus is on the person adding content to the Wikipedia to prove its verifiability, not the other way around. You've done nothing to prove that it's verifiable, and have done little more than accuse people here of being biased/lazy/pornography-loving Catholics. It's only slightly amusing. And no, Google does not find anything on "Sankta lusse". It does find the two words seperated, but that's fairly useless. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh you are lazy teenagers,raised by too much indulgents "parents"-I imagine incest play a big role here-.
The problem here: Wikipedia was created thinking ONLY in mature adult and serious people,no crybabies who think to search in Google is to make a profound research!!!!. I DON`T WANT to discuss with you,on NOTHING. I`m interested only in scholars,academicians,Professors and similar people.
Go to masturbate. And last but no least,you are no any Southern Baptist,you are only a guy without a daywork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
  • Despite all of your blabbering, you've failed to provide a single source, or any form of verifiability for this article. As I said, according to the official policy on verifiability, the editor who is adding information must provide a reputable source, or the contribution can be deleted freely. Your poorly constructed insults have not accomplished that. If you were a scholar, surely you would understand how crucial it is to have reliable information in an encyclopedia such as this? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at a sample of the edits of this user. My goodness. He/she leaves behind a trail of wreckage and misery, like a 4-year old on steroids (or worse) who has gotten hold of his father's SUV keys. --LambiamTalk 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, in view of WP:V, and per Lambiam and JIP, on whom I repose (in the archaic sense of the word, and with great confidence) apropos, inter al., of Scandinavian issues. Joe 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Lambiam is defamtory and must to be deleted.
    You're right, I shouldn't have said that. I apologize to all 4-year olds. --LambiamTalk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Everson Hett Campbell

edit

I'm contesting a prod. Article states notability, but is unsourced, I can't find her using google, might be a hoax. No vote Eivindt@c 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was the article to go for deletion, do not merge, do not redirect., . Mailer Diablo 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Day of Slayer

edit

Keep this page. See related AfD. TheProject 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC). See below for details[reply]

Ron Sorensen

edit

Article is verbatim copy of marketing cruft for musician on commercial website (which by itself makes it either a vanity article or a copyvio); [16] the artist does not appear on allmusic.com or discogs.com; [17] [18] the article lists a single album with a record label that has precisely one Google hit, to this very Wikipedia article [19] – suggesting a vanity record publication, and not in compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) or Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines; entire history of article is from one anon username with no history on any other article, and one IP address with no contributions outside the three days in which the entire history of this article is listed. [20] [21] [22] - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 03:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWAB

edit

Non notable neologism, no Google hits, no source given. Crystallina 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Campbell

edit

Delete. This person appears non-notable, and claims of being well known are quite unverfiable and unsourced. Despite extensive Googling, the best I can come up on regarding this Joseph Campbell is his own website selling his own autobiography. That website also seems to make him out to be well known, or a "pioneering scientists", but nothing else seems to support it. I might turn my vote around if credible sources are given. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone probably at least cited him within the internet age or at least knows the name of one of his works. -Drdisque 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are we talking about the man who wrote about mythology and "The Hero With a Thousand Faces?" I heard of him. --Starionwolf 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, for now, but this really needs to be sourced. If this guy did all this stuff his webpage says he did, I'd call him notable. If. --UsaSatsui 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let it expand naturally, the sources will come sooner or later. --Terence Ong 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm somewhat confused right now. No published works have been cited, nor have any independent internet sites. I've found a total of 4 books by him, but they are at a total of one library worldwide each (the Canadian equivalent of the Library of Congress). What exactly is the claim for notability here? His own home institution doesn't even own his books. We have no particular reason to trust his own personal website. Mak (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (p.s. My father's book is in a total of 515 libraries worldwide, and I wouldn't write a Wikipedia article on him). Mak (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there are no articles by him in PubMed which is skewed towards US publications. I am working on verification of Canadian publications. Bejnar 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
  • Delete Aside from only slight claims of notability, the article is unsourced and unverifiable. If info can't be verified, it can't be on WP, plain and simple. -- Kicking222 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability is not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • verification I have verified his Nov. 2001 publication "Lifestyle, Minerals and Health" in Medical Hypotheses an Elsevier science publication. I have also verified a publication by his successor Dr. Lemke, listed under References. Bejnar 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More discussion needed?. This might require more talk. However, the first reference does not sound like a peer-reviewed publication, since it's labelled as "letter to the editor". That limits its scientific merit and its merit towards notability. The second reference is also not peer reviewed or independently confirmed, as their website says
The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.
So, neither of these sources can be taken too seriously. They may provide some verifiability (as in, proving that he has tried to get this ideas out there), but they don't make him notable. More input is needed from others though, my argument may be somehow flawed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Brighton Thornley

edit

NN, unverifiable. Ezeu 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/titledetailsframe.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=557766&disp=Brighton%2C+Thornley%2C+Timmins%2C+famil&first=undefined&last=undefined TruthbringerToronto 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but what is she notable for? For being one of a few hundred people who first settled a village?. --Ezeu 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Manifesto (album). --Ezeu 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Falls the Rain

edit

Individual song does not seem notable. I'd argue that Edith Sitwell's poem should have an article at this space. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.--Ezeu 03:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC) on the grounds of nonsense and as a hoax-attack page[reply]

Anti-Collegeboard League

edit

This one speaks for itself, I think. Crystallina 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC), due to lack of coherent assertion of notability, regardless of the truthfulness of the article.[reply]

Lorraine Cormican

edit

Google search (standard disclaimer applies) yields 12 hits, none of which substantiate the notion that Lorraine Cormican is a comedian, much less a notable comedian. Sole author User:JFKLBJRMN has not contributed to any other article. Smells like a fabrication. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

By consensus at DRV, this result is now a No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

edit

A non-notable supermarket. Fails WP:CORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heinen's stub is not intended to advertise the store whatsoever. It is merely providing information on a local community-based grocery store. Perhaps it could be placed within a larger group of articles that discusses community-based grocery stores and their importance in modern suburban areas. Notability need not be a concept of national concern. Grocery stores small and large contribute to the growth of cities alike. They equally bring about the ideas of economy, consumerism, and small business.

Heinen's is comparable to many other grocery stores such as Giant Eagle, and it can furthermore be identified as a competing force against these stores. It should not be considered non-notable simply because it is a local chain in its infancy.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heinen%27s"

I plan on and intend to add additional information that will help make the subject matter more applicable and more notable to the general public. Bluebul1989 04:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

I don't understand why WP:CORP must be the basis for acceptance. Small and growing businesses have little or no chance against it and should be judged using other criteria. Heinen's is a well-known grocery competitor in Ohio and the greater Cleveland area. For information about Heinen's, view [24]. Additionally, Heinen's is a grocer partner of Continental Airlines. [25]. Bluebul1989 01:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

Here is a site listing financial information and rankings of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004. Heinen's is ranked within the top 100 on this list. Its sales volume was calculated to be between 100 and 499 million dollars. Heinen's had 2,200 employees at this time and its ranking had increased 42.7% in a one year period. [26]. Bluebul1989 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

  • Comment Companies like this are precisely why WP:CORP is in place. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. The intent is to only document companies that are newsworthy and notable. A small local grocery chain with 2,200 employees is neither. Fan1967 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though the chain is small, upon further research I have discovered that it passes 2 out of 3 of the criteria required to be considered notable listed in WP:CORP. A company known as Wyse Advertising has decided to work for Heinen's and to conduct research for the business. Wyse Advertising. Moreover, as I stated before, Heinen's is listed as a top 100 private Ohio business (it was ranked 51 in 2004) and continues to grow in size and volume. Please consider that Heinen's, although not newsworthy, is indeed notable and competes with many large businesses within its operating area, including Giant Eagle and Tops to name a few. Bluebul1989 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

  • You know, I think the standards laid out in WP:CORP are too high (that doesn't change my vote), but I'm wondering something. Why, exactly, are you so intent upon getting this store an article? Do you work for them? Are you an owner? Friends of yours? If you really think that people are interested in learning about this small chain because it's interesting or notable, then fine, but it doesn't seem to me you're very objective here (WP:VAIN). I'm sure it plays a huge role in your local community, much like any grocery store does. I'll bet it's a wonderful store, and may very well be notable someday. Right now, though, it simply doesn't meet the standards for an article. --UsaSatsui 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or does s/he work for Wyse Advertising? Wouldn't be the first time a PR firm tried to use WP to show a quick hit accomplishment to the client. Fan1967 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to assume bad faith... ---J.S (t|c) 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia... Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." (WP:VAIN) Bluebul1989 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

As I said before, I am not trying to advertise the store. Yes, I am from Ohio and I in fact live near a Heinen's. Yet I have no bias towards Heinen's and consider it as one of many grocery stores in the Ohio region (these other businesses being recognized in Wikipedia). I feel the chain is an important and influential business in Ohio, and should additionally be recognized as a business competitor. I do not work for Wyse Advertising as I am a 16-year-old junior in highschool. Please consider everything that I have discussed in my posts above. If you still do not believe that Heinen's should be submitted as an entry in Wikipedia, at the very least perhaps it could be grouped with other small, less nationally known businesses (or regional businesses), in a "small and notable businesses" article. This would give an opportunity to many smaller businesses that are important but are left in the dust only because they are not nationally recognized. It would also expand Wikipedia without giving too much attention to each individual business. I know that Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages and I agree that not any ordinary or local business deserves a place in an enyclopedia. My only intent is to enter Heinen's as a rather notable and competitive supermarket chain in Ohio, and to eventually bring light to other small and growing businesses in the United States that deserve to be known and recognized as important parts of the economy. -Author of Heinen's Article Bluebul1989 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

  • Keep - I think if a business has 2200 employees and is a chain it should be kept. I Think the idea behind WP:CORP is to keep the random hot-dog stands off of WP... not the company who owns 400. Seems to pass WP:CORP in any case. No need to automatically assume bad faith... this is the author of the article. I'd fight for an article I created just as much. ---J.S (t|c) 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT Heinen's is located on the Supermarkets in the United States page under the "Smaller Chains" section. It was already on this page before I even created the Heinen's article, signifying that the creator intended to eventually link this to a Wikipedia article specifically about Heinen's. Having a spot on this page, it is obviously a notable small business, and the Heinen's stub should therefore be permitted. View the page here: [27]. I would also like to note the permittance of other smaller, regional chains in this section that are comparable to Heinen's. Many of these chains are as small as Heinen's. Here are some examples: Woodman's Food Market, Westborn Market, Ukrop's Super Market. There are many chains that are smaller and have a lower sales volume than Heinen's that are located on the Supermarkets in the United States page and that have been granted Wikipedia pages. I find it absolutely ridiculous that there is an obvious inconsistency and discrepancy in Wikipedia policy and ruling that I got trapped in the middle of. My article was not judged in the same manner that these other articles were and was immediately proposed for deletion without any consideration. The fact that I had to fight so hard to support something that should not have been debated in the first place is even more upsetting. I urge that this issue be settled immediately and that all "smaller chains" located in the Supermarkets in the United States article be granted a Wikipedia page, as they are certainly important grocery chains. I hope that all future additions of smaller, notable businesses are overlooked with a fairness and consistency that is expected from Wikipedia. A business does not have to be a large, nationally recognized chain, to be considered notable. -Author of Heinen's stub Bluebul1989 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)bluebul1989[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroLogic

edit

Non-notable "e-sports team" (clan). -- Longhair 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The team is a pillar of the American Call of Duty competetive scene, which is 2nd only to Counter Strike in size. Also, when it's a publicly run resource, what is the limit to information? None.

  • Delete Classic example of teenage gamers thinking they're far more notable than they are. Would be different if they were significantly recognised and famous professionals (there's a justifiable place on WP for people like Thresh, say), but they describe themselves as "professional" despite playing in an amateur league. Seems therefore to completely fail notability guidelines. Seb Patrick 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete burninate this crap. Danny Lilithborne 10:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So, that's what those vanity pages look like... --UsaSatsui 11:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loath as I am to spoil young persons' fun, this is a clear delete. Vizjim 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave I think with the amount of work that has gone to this, the article should be left. There are other pages like this from other "clans" from this same CAL league the article describes. I don't see why an inter-connected network of relevant material should be shunned. textymann 10:59, 30 May 2006
  • Leave -- The team is a very noted group of individuals from a community that has thousands of members. The team currently competes for cash prizes making them by definition a professional team. Kaybee55 30 May 2006
  • Delete doesnt meet notability requriement for electronic sports team i.e. hasnt won any major tournament. Zzzzz 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Is there like a max space for wikipedia articles or something?? Why do you people really care so much? How is it affecting you in any sort of negative way besides perhaps being a little on the irelevant side to YOUR life. It's about building a massive network of information that people may at some point want to access. If it helps 1 or 2 people then hasn't it done its job??? CHILL PILL sambramann 05:10, 30 May 2006
    • Not quite...WP:NOT makes for some good reading. WP:VAIN and WP:WEB also apply here too. "How is it affecting anyone?" isn't really a relevant argument. Wikipedia is a specific project with specific goals, and this page does not fit within the criteria. --UsaSatsui 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another clan was undeleted today, but apparently they were among the best ever in their field (as evidenced by a ton of international awards they'd won that were listed.) I see no such assertion here. If someone wants this info, we can userfy it. Grandmasterka 01:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnel Cloud (album)

edit

Future album with no set release date, and minimal information provided. fuzzy510 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 09:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, album is on the docket, verified, the whole 9 yards. [28] Crystal ballism is for future information that cannot be verified, not for things like this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is information on the page that is verifiable, and there will soon be more information. The album is notable. It is not predicting anything, and that is the reason it is so short, yet it will no doubt be updated when anything is confirmed. J Milburn 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but was it really necessary to create an article when this little is known about it? Should have just put a note on the band's article. Aguerriero (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I was a tad hasty, but I'm also responsible for the band's other albums, so I've just kind of taken it on myself to do the new ones as they come along. Regardless, a note in the article would just get moved here anyway eventually, so may as well save a step was the logic. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwili to wikibooks and delete . --Ezeu 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website development

edit

Transwiki and delete — No encyclopaedic content, all belongs on Wikibooks. (Suggest moving the interwiki links to Website.) ~ Booya Bazooka 05:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Phi

edit

Chapter of a fraternity which makes no verifiable claim to notability. Further, the cited primary source is Self-published by the subject and, accordingly, borders on vanity. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the orginal prodder on this and think it does little to nothing to assert any notability. Individual chapters of fraternities don't get covered unless they're notable. Things like alumni gets mentioned in the national organization's article if one exists. Metros232 00:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Do not delete. The chapter has figured into the lives of several significant individuals, not the least of which are Sam Walton, Edgar Snow, and Kenneth Lay. To cultivate an understanding about these figures I think their college experience is worth noting. I must concede the article is at points vain, but it shall be edited to meet wikipedia standards. This particular chapter started out as a literary society and became affiliated with a fraternity years after its inception. I must respectfully challenge the idea that a fraternity's alumni do not lend notability. There are entries on prep schools in wikipedia that have far less significance. Perhaps the entry falls short in conveying how unique the chapter is. If so, it's worth mentioning the million dollar study facilities in-house and the chapter's four Rhode Scholars. Have you run across fraternities that can make similar boasts? This is no animal house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.204.40 (talk • contribs)
  • Either keep, delete as copyvio or userfy to wait for author to work on it. (Yeah, I can say that, this is not a vote...) The important thing is that I think this does assert notability. Having been around for 135 years is pretty good for a student society in Missouri, I think. It would be a respectable age even in Europe. I hope the author can work on improving the tone of this and adding some better references than that website from which the text was taken. I am assuming there is a permission to use that text here. If not, this has to go to WP:CP. up+land 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's part of the sticky wicket with this article. The original editor claims that it is not copyright violation since he is a member of the fraternity and on behalf of the chapter controls the original text and licenses it GFDL by placing it here. However, that makes it a vanity article—or at best original research—since the original editor merely repeated comments made at their university web page. Hence, even if we clear the notability hurdle, we still have verifiability to deal with. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vanity. Roodog2k 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Why not leave the article? Almost every article about a person on wikipedia is a "vanity" article. Most are positive anyway. It is still interesting and I ended up reading it after reading that Ken Lay was a Beta at Missouri from a bio I read on the web. I think it is amazing that the Betas at Mizzou have had men like Sam Walton and Ken Lay (even though he was convicted and that takes the luster away from the association) as members. Shoot, most articles about cities, colleges, etc are postive and sya good things about the places. What else are they going to say? "Smith, Montana...the crappiest little town in the world where all the women are ugly and all the children are stupid." No, they are going to be positive. Big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.104.148.171 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.--Ezeu 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and do not merge. Agree that its not worth having an entry for every fraternity chapter, however, judging by the alumni and (relatively) long history this association appears to be anything but pedestrian. To merge this chapter into the main Beta Theta Pi article would wash away the significance of the local history, which appears to be considerable. Would you merge the Yankees into an article on major league baseball if there was something interesting to tell about the franchise? Of course not. So it is with this chapter. I'm guessing it was the prominence of the Zeta Phi chapter that drew those individuals to become members, not the main fraternity of Beta Theta Pi. Seems like the standard for notability has been met. Keep the article if it will be further cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.64.241 (talk • contribs) User's two contributions are on this discussion.
  • Delete as a local chapter of a fraternity...or merge to Beta Theta Pi if the originator(s) desire.--Isotope23 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a cleanup, but it's salvagable, and notable enough. Dylan 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as fratcruft. I believe that no fraternity deserves any encyclopedia article unless it's nationally notable and important for major activities. A chapter of such a fraternity certainly doesn't. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Hard to see why there is still debate about notabilty. If there is concern that other fraternity chapters will want their own wikipedia pages, make them meet this high standard. If they have a 135 year history and alumni on the level of Sam Walton and Ken Lay, let their pages stay too. There seems to be some bizarre agenda against fraternities in some if these evaluations. What's the big deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.179.83 (talk • contribs) User's first 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Morton and Away(A)wake

edit

A non-notable director and one of his movies. A future project of his, Lounge Ghost, is already up for deletion; a user there suggested that these two also be nominated, as "Away(A)wake" gets 45 ghits, and the DVD has an Amazon sales ranking of above 54,000. None of the actors or other people involved appear notable either. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Longhair 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Love

edit

Non-notable album. Album name with artist's name registers 7 Ghits. fuzzy510 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - time to get working on the cleanup, guys! -- 9cds(talk) 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean_Spanish

edit

Inaccurate/false content, consensus in discussion page

  • Delete per nom --Guinnog 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep and improve after reading arguments below. --Guinnog 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Certainly seems like a valid topic. Accuracy disputes are not normally grounds for deletion, which would render the article's extensive edit history invisible. The talk page editors need to be bolder in editing out inaccuracies and substituting more valid content. I have no grounds to pass judgment on the accuracy of what's there now. Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvageable, but massive editing required -- This article has some useful information and much information that is patently incorrect. Chilean Spanish is not so different as the article contends. What the author calls Chilean Spanish should instead be called Chilean colloquialisms, or "modismos" in Spanish. I've spent considerable time in central and southern Chile (though not northern), and my wife is Chilean. I have not encountered the second-person plural in Chile, except in the case of "Como estás?" In southern Chile, you will sometimes hear "Como estai?" (notice no 's'). The vocabulary section could be retained, and the page could be renamed Chilean Idioms or something similar. Glenn R. Harshman 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article is wrong, don't delete it, fix it. Spacepotato 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spacepotato. --Alsayid 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spacepotato. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the form "vo" is used throughout Chile (informally), not just in the South. In "symmetric" conversations between people of all ages, but especially youth, this form is used, most of all the phrase "Como estai?" Though this difference is not literary (as is the Argentine "vos" form, see Rayuela by Cortazar for one example) it is nonetheless real and should definitely be noted. I have lived in Chile for nearly a year and traveled to north, central, south. (Sean 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - The current article is not very encyclopedic. This topic is important and interesting, but it deserves a better article. (from the scratch better). baloo_rch 15:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - The article is very messy and unencyclopaedic but those are not valid reasons to delete. Chilean Spanish does differ from forms of Spanish spoken in other countries so this is a legitimate article (just wrong on many points). Needs major overhaul, not deletion.--WilliamThweatt 15:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start from Scratch - Starting from scratch won't be so hard. People from chile use this kind of speak in their everyday lives, so they don't need to research too extensively. Explanations for the origins of MANY chilean terms can be found (probably part-hidden) in the webpage of the chilean newspaper La Cuarta http://www.lacuarta.cl, because it has a section about chilean speak ("la ficha pop") and is published daily since years ago. I'm sorry I don't have time or motivation to do it myself. My opinion is that it's just a moderately distorted spanish with many colloquialisms. -- ANONYMOUS CHILEAN
  • Keep. Seems to be an informative article. I don't see any reason why this subject shouldn't be covered by WP. --Document 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Re-Imagined 2005

edit

Non-notable album. Total of 50 Ghits, and I can't seem to find anything anywhere outside of Wikipedia that indicates that this album actually exists. fuzzy510 07:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ak-Afro-Acid-Rap

edit

No offense to the creator of this article, but this is a very non-notable neologism made up by someone. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a place to post one's own made-up words. Prod removed. Delete. Grandmasterka 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Sahag

edit

Tagged with importance. Has been tagged with CSD but declined. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7 - not at all notable - Peripitus 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy a nobody --DV8 2XL
  • Speedy Delete Per A7 and nom. ILovePlankton ( L) 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It wasn't me that removed the speedy delete notice and declined to delete it, although I think I will decline. "Hairdresser to the stars" and has his name on a range of products is enough of an assertion of notability for me. His name comes up on Google too, and I've heard of him off wiki I'm sure. I'm not taking a stance either way on this right now (which is why I nom'd for AFD rather than speedying it myself). --kingboyk 11:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by MONGO. — TheKMantalk 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhlah

edit

I'm sad about nominating any geographical article for afd but in this case this is probably speediable. I can find no evidence of anywhere called "Nakhlah", and the article gives no information at all as to where it is. There are some 30,000 ghits for Nakhlah, because it's commonly used as part of place names, such as `Izbat Hanna Nakhlah, `Uwaynat Umm an Nakhlah, and Kafr Nakhlah. Nothing that seems to tie in with this stub, though. Grutness...wha? 07:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog sound vs. digital sound

edit

Unencyclopedic content and writing, delete--Peta 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although it requires some major cleanup, more scientific/sourcable facts and a clearer definition of what is compared to what. The sound you hear is entirely analog of course, the medium and reproduction methods may be analog or digital, and the article should focus mainly on whether one is really better than the other at conveying information, or , in this case, sound, and mention all traceable/objective pros and cons of each medium e.g. most analog media tend to be subject to playback wear, while most digital ones do not. EpiVictor 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MSTCrow 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BRAG

edit

Small community group with no notability demonstrated, delete--Peta 08:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (album)

edit

The article itself asserts why it should be deleted - recently-announced album for which nothing is known, including a release date. fuzzy510 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although there will no doubt soon be enough information to warrant an article. J Milburn 12:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John N. Montgomery

edit

President of redlink companies. Doesn't appear to be notable. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 08:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Ruth The Biblical Ghana

edit

Review of a non notable POV essay Nuttah68 08:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

per nom. --TorriTorri 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (album)

edit

Album was never released, and apparently there are no plans to ever do so. All information in the article is in Smile Empty Soul's article already, making a merge unnecessary. fuzzy510 08:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Martin Luther. -- 9cds(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ernest Luther

edit

Martin Luther = the essence of notability. His last descendant? Seems nn to me. Delete. kingboyk 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Melody

edit

Article about a future album which has no set release date at this time. fuzzy510 08:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. kingboyk 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Simmer

edit

Claimed notability as a model but I am unable to find any evidence that she even exists. I think that is she had "appeared on such magazines as playboy and Ralph, and also modelled for such brands as ralph lauren" there would be some note of her somewhere. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete By my count, being born in August 1989 would make her 16, so the Playboy comment is a little weird. Seems like a complete vanity article for a NN person, if it's even true, which I doubt. Not a single hit on Google. Seb Patrick 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep who cares if your want your name on her let it be i mean if it was really important it would be knowen but i mean who cheaks on on this stuff anyway it doesn't matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalindsay (talk • contribs)

"if it was really important it would be known", OK, which it isn't. "who cheaks on on this stuff anyway". I do. --kingboyk 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp Voices Still Lives - Birmingham Photography in the 1980's

edit

Exhibition by mostly redlink artists. 2nd nom, janitorial action. kingboyk 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Disregarding from comments such as "how is being a professional wrestler notable" and the like.--Ezeu 02:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gaylord

edit

Person does not meet notability requirements
↪Lakes (Talk) 08:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't know much about wrestling, but the fact that all the others mentioned are blue links is a good sign. Seems to be reasonably notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - how is being a professional wrestler notable? Sandstein 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. How is being someone with a two bit opinion on Wikipedia notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.77.80 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. I'd like to add that the above unsigned comment really won't assist in the retention of this article, as it's the only edit from the anonymous IP. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, 4.131.77.80, a good way to do so is to create an account, make contributions and then establish a track record as an editor. I'm assuming you're not an established editor who forgot to log in, as you also forgot to sign with ~~~~. Further to that ... umm ... don't be rude. Colonel Tom 13:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since his most major claim to fame, being the Black Knight, doesn't seem to be verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visions (atreyu album)

edit

Duplicate of Visions (album), which is the more complete of the two articles. fuzzy510 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by RasputinAXP. — TheKMantalk 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Froggy

edit

Was tagged for speedy with the reason vanity and not notable. No hits on Google. Conscious 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Cultural Development

edit

This article was prodded by two different anons. User:68.193.96.236 listed the afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 30, but, obviously, could not create this page. I have replaced the prod with an afd tag and made the afd page as a public service. I have no vote. BigDT 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a vanity article and original research. The main contributor is User:Codestream, who according to my quick google search is the same person as Marcus Tremble (which I'm about to AfD), see [30]. More importantly, this is original research; the sources it cites do not back up any of the content, but rather are supportive of some part of the ideas involved, as sources cited in an original paper would be. Also, frankly, I have no idea what this article is supposed to be about, but it sounds like marketing buzz more than anything else. Mangojuicetalk 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Response

edit

I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. The term "Vanity" seems very innapropriate, in that the motivation for posting the Maximum Cultural Development (MCD) article is rooted in an appreciation for mankinds ability to adapt to his/her environment.

Premises: All things enduring move through (4) progressive phases... These four (4) phases are: development, establishment, maintenance, and refinement...

Almost everything we see around us is at different stages in this process. Understanding this basic, universal concept empowers the knower with the ability to successfully architect positive change. This process also includes ourselves as people. What phase are we oriented towards as individuals, and/or as a group of people? What phase does your personal every day life reflect?

Though we as individuals come and go, we have the blessed opportunity of leaving behind us things that endure for those to come after us, our children... For our young ones to survive and thrive with dignity, it is up to each and every one of us to contribute in some way to the heritage, legacy, and culture that will be looked upon by those of us to come.

The concept of Culture, when fully understood is a very powerful one... It should be noted that even an elaborate inventory of the parts and traits of a culture cannot adequately characterize it. Cultures have organization as well as content. Emphasis on some features as opposed others and the total interrelation of the isolable parts has much to do with the distinctive properties of a culture, in addition to the way they work together as a system. Many definitions have been submitted by scholars from many countries, from all fields of social and biological science and the humanities and in aggregate form the foundational basis for this article. Those herein are contemporary since this is the focus of the topic.

Culture: is the complex system of meaning and behavior that defines the way of life for a given group or society. It includes beliefs, values, knowledge, art, morals, laws, habits, language, and dress. Culture includes ways of thinking as well as patterns of behavior. Observing culture involves studying what people think, how they interact, and the objects they make and use.

The second emphasizes culture as a comprehensive totality and enumerates aspects of culture content. Franz Boas: “Culture embraces all the manifestations of social habits of a community, the reactions of the individual as affected by the habits of the group in which he/she lives, and the products of human activities as determined by these habits.” The third is built on the feature of social inheritance. Ralph Linton: “As a general term, culture means the total social heredity of man-kind, while as a specific term, a culture means a particular strain of social heredity.”

The fourth emphasizes culture as a way of life, a design for living. Paul Sears: “The way in which the people in any group do things, make and use tools, get along with one another and with other groups, the words they use and the way they use them to express thoughts, and the thoughts they think...”

The fifth is psychological in the sense that processes such as adjustment, learning, and habit are single out. Culture as a problem-solving device is stressed. Ralph Piddington: “The culture of a people may be defined as the sum total of the material and intellectual equipment whereby they satisfy their biological and social needs and adapt themselves to their environment.”

The sixth identifies as central the patterning or organization of culture, and its systemic quality. John Gillin: “Culture consists of patterned and functionally interrelated customs common to specifiable human beings composing specifiable social groups or categories.” The seventh and final definition used here focuses on culture as an accumulated product of group life. Kimball Young: “A precipitate of man’s social life.”

Wikipedia itself comfortably falls within the MCD framework with a stated mission of providing free and open access to knowledge resources (assets) for all... Its also reflects adherence to the above stated four phase process.

Wikipedia strays from the process, however, through its rampant merging of vaild, free-standing, concepts (articles) which represent Reusable Learning Assets (RLAs). A classic manifestation of european hegemony...

Maximum Cultural Development warrants that: "We must be producers of culture, not passive consumers of it. Cultural development must be intentional and proactive, focused on clear and valid goals with a concrete vision of how to attain them. We are inundated by language, symbols, ideas, and technology, none of which is neutral. We must therefore define where we stand with regard to them and adopt appropriate intellectual and behavioral responses, if we are to be champions and not victims."

May we all be blessed with deeper understanding. Thank you for allowing me to share... Marcus William Tremble--Codestream 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jørn Are Vigestad Berge

edit

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. kingboyk 09:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer J. Tom

edit

Vanity, questionable notability. kingboyk 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I note that Googling "Jennifer Tom" rather than "Jennifer J. Tom" turns up rather more hits, although still less than a thousand, and many of these are lists of names that happen to go "Jennifer, Tom". There are references made to her CD release, but I would still argue that she fails WP:MUSIC. Seb Patrick 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Yanksox 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cash

edit

One co-writing credit on a moderately successful film. I think not notable. kingboyk 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by DaGizza. Metros232 13:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's List of 40 Greatest Metal Songs - Criticisms

edit

Original research, personal opinion, essay... Whatever you want to call it, it's not encyclopedic content. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Obviously now it's a completely irrelevant speedy, but looking at the pre-AfD revision, I'd almost suggest putting it in BJAODN purely for what might be the longest capitalised header I've ever seen - "INCLUSIONS OF SONGS BY ARTISTS WHO MADE OTHER SONGS THAT WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST BUT WHICH WERE OF EVEN HIGHER QUALITY AND/OR HAD EVEN MORE INFLUENCE ON THE METAL GENRE THAN THE SONGS ACTUALLY INCLUDED". Marvellous. Seb Patrick 11:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Records artists

edit

I found this lying around, and it's just an incomplete list of people "...who have recorded for Columbia Records" - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Abstain from voting. — FireFox 10:10, 30 May '06 10:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be in a category. --kingboyk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was going to suggest that but I forgot, heh. ...terrible memory... — FireFox 10:28, 30 May '06
Merge it with the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cavalli

edit

Doesn't appear to be any more notable than the average professor. Another janitorial nom as I plough through the "importance"-tagged articles. kingboyk 10:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per A7 by User:DaGizza. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Granger

edit

Delete Blatant vanity. Forbsey 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pextip forums

edit

Non-notable rather small chat site. No claim per WP:WEB. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Words (2008 film)

edit

Film is only in development. Many films are but never make it to screen Pally01 11:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Tremble

edit

Contested prod. WP:AUTO, non-notable entrepreneur. Note that User:Codestream, the main editor of this page, is likely Marcus Tremble himself: [31]. Note that this article also has no content apart from the external link to the DEMRI Portal project, a project at opencourse.org, not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia... other than that link, this is just a "list of interests." Also, note that User:Codestream points here. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 12:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fry

edit

Possible vanity page in the manspace. Mostly Rainy 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to House (TV series). Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia for House (TV Series)

edit

WP:NOT, this article is a list of random facts, which would be better served on the [[House (TV series}]] page

It makes the article too long and unencyclopedic.NeoThe1 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazynas 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Nominator Withdraws Computerjoe's talk 17:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Dial-a-Ride

edit

Non-notable part of London Transport Computerjoe's talk 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a notable service (especially for its users), providing door-to-door public transport in London for those with difficulties with mobility. For example, in the period 2003 - 2004 61,000 people completed 1,325,000 journeys using 316 buses and 397 drivers. The latest statistics, for April 2006, showed 66,000 passengers made 107,000 trips.Markb 13:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the obvious exception of the Tube and the buses, I'd say it's just as notable as the other arms of TfL. It's a well-used and well-publicised service. Seb Patrick 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above. Without this many Londoners would find it almost impossible to get around. Try telling them its not notable! Jcuk 15:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all above --Guinnog 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Wright

edit

Delete minor league player. U.S. Basketballers are generally notable if they've played in the NBA or had a notable college career. This one had neither. He plays for the Newark Express, a minor league team. Lots of teams are listed here American Basketball Association (21st century) but far as I could tell none of them have player bios, unless, of course, they had previously played in the NBA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Krystal

edit

Delete. This article was previously deleted by PROD (I was the deleting admin, but not the tagging editor). This is a verbatim reappearance. I cannot verify the existence of this genetically-impossible porn performer from IMDb (the top find isn't him), or from Google. This makes the so-called facts in the article probably unverifiable, apart from the fact that they admit to being impossible. The article also appears to imply original research. It seems likely that this person either does not exist, or is a teenager with an inflated sense of importance, or is so non-notable he is off the bottom of everyone's charts or that this is actually a veiled attack page. In any case, it should go. -Splashtalk 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lift Auntie

edit

I don't see the value in listing an individual online video unless it has particular global interest dvc214 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article provide factual basis for an incident which is off interest to netizen, it collates with the increasing trend of Singaporean seeking alternative source of information from the internet, instead of relying on a government controlled mainstream media, which is often biased and selective in its reporting. Hence it should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SixSigma (talk • contribs)

What about the hong kong bus uncle then? Why is it ok to have it online but not this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.80.34 (talk • contribs)

Whoops, my mistake. It was nominated and kept. - Fan1967 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally vote to delete Bus Uncle, but its more notable than Lift Auntie due to the discussion in the media and its impact on HK popular culture Bwithh 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please do not delete it. It is a very interesting analysis of the effect of stress in Singapore. I am going to write a thesis about this incident in my project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)
  • We should not turn our backs on this. Perhaps even reclassify them under "Stressed out Singaporeans". Singapore can't be as clean and white as what the world thinks it to be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.62.160 (talk • contribs)
  • But this might be also become part of the news in the future. give it some time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.116.153 (talk • contribs)

There are many of such cases (cat fights, verbal abuses, vandalism) in Singapore since independence. What's different now is that these incidence can now be filmed and publish by anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark limkk (talk • contribs)

  • Delete We can't have a situation where every viral video clip gets it's own entry in Wikipedia, unless you can you please suggest a wider category to merge this into, and perhaps Bus Uncle as well? dvc214 08:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lift Auntie and Bus Uncle are stranger to each other. One is in Hong Kong one is in Singapore. I suggest they both falls under the title: "Human Rage"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark limkk (talk • contribs)

I think this can be filed under Citizen journalism or Internet Vigilantism— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.116.153 (talk • contribs)

It is being tommorrowed http://tomorrow.sg/trackback/url/4626

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripter

edit

Advertisement masquerading as article. Link to website contains what looks like a tracking ID. Fails WP:WEB - no google hits. Mr Stephen 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grody

edit

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Deprodded by anonymous contributor. Accurizer 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- 9cds(talk) 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Prasad Singh

edit

Vanity, NPOV, all-but orphanned, borders on prophecy... you can throw the book at it! Happy-melon 13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Yanksox 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Veronica Ruiz de Velasco

edit

Probably a hoax or an unknown amateur artist; there are only two wiki-independent hits in Google ([32]); links in the article mostly lead nowhere or to general art sites without mentions about Velasco; therefore AfD per WP:BIO Ioannes Pragensis 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts.Tyrenius 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I came across this article a few weeks ago and thought it might be an AfD, but there's too much substantiaton. The references section of the article has sufficient press mentions and there are also shows in public buildings. As the magazine articles have been scanned for her site here, here and here, there's no reason to doubt the genuineness of the "Newspapers in Mexico" section (NB all 1986–89). The shows are also supported by photos. There's a large show of work "Gallery of the Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico". There's one "Museo de Arte Moderno, México", where you can see her name displayed outside the building. There's an official opening "ABC (American British Cowdray) Hospital, México". It's undoubtedly not a hoax and the evidence shows she's not an "unknown amateur" artist. However, most of the activity is mid 1980s – mid 1990s and the mentions in print form, both of which would explain the current lack of web hits. The links in the article need pruning certainly. Tyrenius 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side, a few exhibitions in mostly small, privately owned galleries + some mentions in life-style magazines (written perhaps by people without art education) + one mural painting given to a hospital (the celebrities were of course present not because of the mural, not because of the painter, but because of the inauguration of the hospital) + one or two artefacts presented as a part of collective exhibitions in serious galleries - this does not constitute notability in the world of artists. Now she seems to be completely forgotten outside of Wikipedia, in the phase of life, when most artists are at the heights of their activity. In WP:BIO, the criteria for inclusion are much more strict: "Painters ... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field."--Ioannes Pragensis 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree she's not a "hoax or an unknown amateur artist", which was why you made the AfD in the first place. Now it's a matter of judgement as to how notable or otherwise. Obviously not top rank, but probably has as much presence in the art world as, for example, many bands do in the music world for whom articles are retained. She has had shows in private and public spaces, and she has been covered in the press including the New York Times (Shown, John; “Veronica Put Theater on Canvas”, New York Times, October, 1986). Check out the Newspapers section of the article. This seems to me to be sufficient verifiable coverage in the public domain to merit retaining this article. Tyrenius 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that it is both: A hoax because it depicts her as an important artist (which is clearly not the case); and perhaps an amateur artist who was a member of the Mexican high society 15 years ago but earned few critical acclaim and is forgotten today. - The nawspapers cited in the article are not independent critical studes but just normal newspapers. Wikipedia should reflect importance of its subjects, not generate it.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She had a solo show at the Museo de Arte Moderno, Mexico City. This is the Mexican national museum with "the best permanent exhibition of painters and sculptors from the modern Mexican art movement. It also features some of the most important temporary exhibitions of national and international modern art in the world."[33] — hardly a "small, privately owned gallery" The article makes no claim of any "importance" specifically. It just states the facts of where she has had exhibitions and where she has been mentioned in print. A "hoax" is when something is fictitious, which this is clearly not. An "amateur" artist is not someone who has a solo show in a national museum or who exhibits in professional (i.e. by definition "private") galleries. Normal newspapers, as you put it, are acceptable sources to verify the notability of a person. It is not our job to evaluate whether she is a good, bad or indifferent artist quality-wise. Tyrenius 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote much of this article based on her information on her website. The article has a neutral view and based on facts presented from several articles/photographs from her official website. Tyrenius has been really helpful in making sure this article is wikipedia formatted correctly and factful. With Veronica being in the National Museum of Mexico in 1986 and her teacher was Rufino Tamayo (one of the most famous painters of Mexico) and Jean Dubuffet, one cannot simply forget Ms. Ruiz de Velasco. Also, the Director of Mexico Art has confirmed this in a letter. Check out Letter from Bellas Artes Director and Director of the Modern Art Museum In terms of importance, I concluded from her website that if the owner of two professional hockey team has bought her art for a substantial price, then she might be notable. Also, in the 80's she had a show at the Museum of Modern Art in Mexico. In the late 90's she had a show at the Irving Art Center. [34] The Irving Art Center is a Museum for Contemporary Artist. This was also a solo exhibition and cannot be forgotten. Also, she was chosen by the Dallas Museum of Art for art charity. This is also a notable National institution. They do not ask anyone for art charity. I am all for deleted this if someone could simply remove the fact that Veronica has been in several National Museums. Also her teachers were Rufino Tamayo and Jean Dubuffet, and she has sold paintings at a notable price. Also, in terms of her mural at the ABC Hospital. It seems that the ABC Hospital in Mexico City is a world class private hospital built in 1954. Therefore, Prince Charles and the US Ambassador did not show up to this hospital to inaugurate the hospital, but most likely to inaugurate her mural. There are pictures on her website. Please check out this website [35] for more information on the hospital. Also, she completed a mural for the Hamon Building at Southwest Medical Center which is a world renowned facility. Nancy Hamon is a very notable individual. It would seem that if Mrs. Hamon had issues with the notability of Veronica, why did she ask her to create a mural for her building? [36][37] Kmowery11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep. Not a hoax, but perhaps somewhat a vanity article. Does not meet this notability criterion: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. --LambiamTalk 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Not quite convinced, but giving the article the benefit of the doubt. (And – I know this is not an argument – I like the paintings.) --LambiamTalk 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that with a solo show at the The Museo de Arte Moderno and being included in the museum's twenty-five year celebration book, she is already part of the enduring historical record.Tyrenius 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this is that the only source for all this seems to be Kmowery, whose links in the Ruiz de Velasco article are generally not reliable, to put it mildly. Moreover, he/she tries to advertise Ruiz de Velasco with all possible means - study the list of his/her contributions. - The mentioned Ruiz de Velasco exhibition should have been 20 years ago, when Ruiz de Velasco allegedly studied painting - so perhaps a student exhibition. --Ioannes Pragensis 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually try to review her website with scanned articles and photographs. I have tried to list her on other pages according to her categories and wikipedia guidelines. Tyrenius has been helping make sure that the listings are factual. He has edited several articles. If you see something that she should not be listed under let me know. Kmowery
Kmowery isn't the only source. Kmowery is the only author (of the article). There are plenty of sources given, and backed up by scans/photos if you follow the links in my first statement above. Her name is prominently shown in a photo of the Museo de Arte Moderno for example. The (external) links are reliable—they all link to what they state and are relevant to items mentioned in the text e.g. a particular museum. I think what you mean is that they don't necessarily show an artist mention at that museum, so they don't all need to be there. I have transformed some into a "see also" section. Re. "advertising", there is an explanation on User talk:Kmowery: Veronica Ruiz de Velasco was my first article. However, I tried to base it on fact and her information she provides on her website. I did not know that it is not good to put her in many different locations in Wikipedia. My bad. I thought you were suppose to add her to all the categories listed in her article. Let us AGF. Anyway, that's not a reason to delete the article—it's a reason to remove the mentions from excessive other pages. Also, artists do sometimes get prominent shows while they're still studying, so that's not problematic.Tyrenius 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB I have edited this article but only in a technical sense to cleanup and wikify, not with contributing material. Tyrenius 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was. already deleted. Userfied to User:Kshitizsaxena. --Ezeu 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kshitiz

edit

spam, advertising, no useful content, not even the suggestion of notability, maybe even a dash of vanity - that's for others to decide. Get rid of it! Happy-melon 14:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 delete. -Ezeu 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CineMasters Studios

edit

Non notable "studios" and bordering on vanity. It "may grow in notability"[38] says the author of the article and founder of CM Studios. It *may* be an article to have in the future then. As for now, I don't think so -- Equendil 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit. Well, I thought they were good films... Perhaps we could hit Hollywood one day, if only you people would give us a chance. And about "it may grow in notability"- having it on Wikipedia is just another way to make it more notable.TheVortex

  • Comment Which is exactly the problem. Wikipedia is not to promote things and help them become notable. It is for things which are already notable. Fan1967 16:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, please recommend me another site where I can publish my so-called 'advertisements'. Thanks for your time, I'll just get my coat and go. TheVortex

  • There are any number of free hosting sites, from geocities to myspace to youtube. Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, and has criteria for inclusion. Fan1967 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex, take it easy. For starters, you are wrong about Wikipedia being a place to get known. This site's traffic isn't as good as MySpace. If you get a MySpace account in the "film" section I guarantee you about 200 hits a day and you get to add embeded video. It's the best promotion you could get besides getting to interact with other filmmakers than can help you in the future. This wikipedia BS gets only a quarter of the traffic you could achieve in MySpace. So don't sweat it.BrandNew21 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but there's more chance of being noticed by the public on a site like Wikipedia (as you have just proven) than there is on, say, geocities or myspace. TheVortex 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh forget it, I'll just go. There's no point in fighting the system. Allow me to copy and paste everything I've written in the article into another website, and I'll be off. Now, how do I delete my account...? TheVortex 16:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I am sure they are good films. The trick to breaking into the industry though is to continue to make films, continue to show them at festivals, and to continue to network with as many other people as possible. Posting advertisements on Wikipedia will not further your film career. User accounts are never deleted. That said, you do have the right to vanish. --Hetar 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess I'll vanish. I'd stick around to delete my article, but I'm a busy guy and I've got movies to make. Peace out. TheVortex 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: If i'm not mistaken. Isn't wikipedia the effort to sum all human knowledge? This guy is making films, he exists, he is human. Ok. So then why are we denying him the right to exist in wikipedia? because the wiki users are all so afraid that the guy could make a buck if people get to find him here and read about it?. People, wake up, you know what wikipedia is? wikipedia is what wikipedia is not. Exactly. Why you deny this guy the right to make an article about his production company? because its not important enough yet? wait a second, who has the authority to say this guy isn't important yet? If someone gets to see this guy's films and then wants to know a little bit more about him then they MIGHT turn to wikipedia and look for him.... but oh no... they won't because you guys THINK that you have the authority to get rid of him. Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source of information because of people like YOU. So stop trying to make it one, this is just a site to let people give definitions to things in the world, not to qualify you and him and them according if they are important enough. So get off his back and let him keep the freaking article.BrandNew21 03:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: if we delete this guy then we might as well delete any reference to Britney Spears music, Vanilla ice, the country Ecuador and some of those contries no one has ever heard of. No one is important and less important here. This is a site for definitions not importance meters.72.229.107.247 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google search on "CineMasters Studios" doesn't even return a single hit. Not a one. Obviously the group exists, since they've created this page, but this is about as non-notable and unverifiable as it gets. MikeWazowski 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started an argument? Cool.

Oh, and BrandNew21 and 72.229.107.247, thanks for agreeing to keep this article. You guys rule. As for Fan1967, your line about 'This looks a lot like a duplicate vote, in that the user page for72.229.107.247 was edited by BrandNew21, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect they're the same person' really doesn't seem neccessary. If you felt that my article really needed to be deleted that badly, you wouldn't need to say desperate stuff like 'Ooh, I think that's a duplicate vote'. No offence or anything. And about Google search- I can't work out how to get my website into Google. Should it get indexed automatically?TheVortex 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.google.fr/addurl/?continue=/addurl -- Equendil 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this and tell me you think it's "desperate" to believe that they're the same person. (BTW, it's routine in AfD discussions to identify suspect votes). - Fan1967 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well if it's routine in AfD discussions, then I guess you should point out duplicate voters. No problem. TheVortex 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Honestly no one is going to search for "cinemasters studios" in Wikipedia unless they really wanted to find something out about it, this article could hardly be considered "advertising"! Surely this is an Internet resource for people to expand and use happily?— Preceding unsigned comment added by XOdd Ladx (talk • contribs)

True, but he or she does make a valid argument. TheVortex 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable shopping malls in Sydney

edit

Delete as redundant article, since it's already listed here --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexentanz

edit

Probable original research essay on witches sabbat. Doesn't actually say what 'hexentanz' is. Delete ::Supergolden:: 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The initial entry was a single sentence: "Witches dance practiced in the Middle Ages as a way to profane the church." This has been replaced by a poorly written essay full of vague pontification with no citations. Delete. BuckRose 17:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This text is about witches' sabbaths generally; it does not relate to the title. "Hexentanz" is just German for "witches' dance," and names a fairly well known German band, as well as a number of "witches' dance" pieces of classical music by German composers from the Renaissance forward. Any of these might be worthy of an article, as would an English-titled article about dances allegedly performed at witches' sabbaths. This text will not help. Smerdis of Tlön 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Kicking222 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is original research and not particularly helpful. If the German band is notable, it could go here. Grandmasterka 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morris W. Offit

edit

Fails WP:BIO. 1,000 Ghits without middle initial, and 17,000 Ghits with. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I'll still vote to keep though. how do you use strikethrough? can someone who knows strike my prev vote. THE KING 18:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put a <s> in front and a </s> after whatever you want to strikethrough. Fan1967 18:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it for you. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Jcbarr. The rest should be looked at. Merely serving on a corporate board is insufficient, even for a major corporation, unless the people have other claims to notability. Fan1967 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. As important as Google hits are, more important from our point of view is reliable third party sources such as this Forbes profile see [39]. People appointed to Boards of Directors are normally notable in their won right. He founded Offitbank which merged with the Wachovia Bank in 1999. He was formerly Chairman of the Board of John Hopkins University see [40] He is a close friend and adviser to New York mayor Michael Bloomberg see [41]. Article is a mess though and needs to be rewritten. Capitalistroadster 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AfD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smokelahoma

edit

This article really tries to cover two subjects. One is the band which I don't think is notable (WP:MUSIC). The second is a reference to smoking ban laws in Oklahoma. I can't seem to find any reference to this term and I've never heard the term used (so it's also NN). Ash Lux (talk | Contribs) 14:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 (note: the article does not meet WP:CSD#A2). Kusma (討論) 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Miljkovic

edit

Delete pure vanity, user added self. 17 year old football player and author. already userfied. Article is in Serbo-Croatian, as best as myself and WP:PNT people could tell. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: my fluency in Russian makes me somewhat able to decipher Serbo-Croatian. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to properly determine for myself which way to fall on an afd, I need to be able to read the article, and be able to access resources in a language I am familiar in, and not rely second hand on another who speaks the language. I check myself on every afd and never just "per nom" without first doing my own due diligence. I am essentially precluded from doing so here as, I imagine, are most other editors. This article can be deleted based on that it is not English, and I have no basis for making a decision otherwise. I also imagine that collectively, editors on on the Serbian 'pedia are much better positioned to come to a measured debate than we are based on the same language/available resource problem. I am not saying we cannot do it here, just that there is no call for "nah"; in the absence of finding patent keep criteria, I cannot rely on my English resources for a reliable delete vote based on the merits of the subject article's notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. WP:PNT exists to determine the merits of non-english articles. This is almost certainly not notable, but I've salvaged a few non-english things from there myself (see my userpage!) Grandmasterka 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - already userfied. Subject may be notable, but article needs to be scraped clean and restarted. B.Wind 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy' the user added himself to the Manchester United article with text something like "Maybe new player is Milos Mikjkovic." He's also added himself to the article of a major a large soccer club: Radnički Niš. I did a google of the team: he does not appear on the roster of the team [42] ... those references should be removed as well. (My two semesters of Czech in Uni may not go provide for adequate translation of Serbo-Croatian, but from cognates... "Od sledece sezone je u potrazi za novim klubom,a njegovi omiljeni su" really seams that he wants to play on one of those teams "next season." ) --Kunzite 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heron Bay

edit

non-notable country club, golf course, etc. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes (TV Show)

edit

Future TV show. WP:NOT crystal ball. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what if the show comes out and absolutely flops and is quickly cancelled, causing barely a notable ripple, or is pulled before coming out (which happens all the time). Can you imagine voting to delete this article upon the unfolding of those future events? If the answer to that is other than an unqualified negative, isn't a prospective article about the show all the more unencyclopedic as ill-advised speculation? --Fuhghettaboutit 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why, yes, I can imagine voting to delete something which 20:20 hindsight has deemed non-notable; why not? For instance, I'm looking forward to the AfDs a year or two from now where a lot of pop culture fad articles become vulnerable, when people realize how desperately unencyclopedic many are. We're entitled to change our minds, and furthermore we shouldn't be afraid to do so as situations warrant. RGTraynor 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "pop culture fads" are annoying, but its the "internet memes" that'll be first against the wall. -- GWO
  • Since it doesn't mention a broadcast network or a definite starting broadcast time, delete for now. Once more tangible, specific information about broadcasting comes to light, the article can be recreated. If the broadcasting network is identified, redirect the article to the page for the network... at least until there are definite broadcasting plans for the series. B.Wind 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Furry fandom. --Ezeu 03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furry lifestyler

edit

Please read this carefully. At first glance, this seems valid, but I assure you the topic matter of furries and furry fans is not my motivation for this nomination. I have a few, please react to these arguments in your votes:

1.Unverifiable-- (Wikipedia policy requires all articles be verifiable) Furries are very verifiable and notable, and they have their own description at several wikipedia pages, such as Furry fandom and others. I argue that any information on the term furry lifestyler is unverifiable: Zero hits on LexisNexis and Google News (news search engines with archives of two years) for "furry lifestyler" Zero hits on Jstor search

Now, there is a cited "source" that I could go into the rules about using self published articles, but it turns out I don't need to, because this essay on furry fandom does not use the term "furry lifestyle" or "furry lifestyler" once. How can it be a source for an article on the term if it doesn't use the term once?

I have called for and argued for verifiable sources on this page since this January.

2.Original Research- (Wikipedia policy requires that pages not be original research) No original research states "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Since are no sources, I don't think I need to argue this point too much. There is the self published essay, but it isn't "adhered to" since it's info is used to define a term it doesn't ever use, "furry lifestyler" or even "lifestyle." Use of published primary sources is okay, use of unpublished primary sources, forums or newsgroups before a reputable news agency has made light of them, is against policy. People who call themselves furry lifestylers have edited this page, however"policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable." And I believe I have established that this article is unverifiable.

3.Non-notable(which I know is a suggestion, not a policy for deletion)-- 366 hits on google for "furry lifestyler" in quotes. This page is, on close inspection, an attempt to describe and define posters to the furry lifestyler newsgroup. People on the talk page have described it as a sort of "everything else" newsgroup where furry fans did not discuss furry art, but other things. I can only speculate, since I have found no documentation or reliable definition of furry lifestylers. Whether or not it is a clearly defined term in real life that could have a coherent and true article written about it is questionable, but somewhat irrelevant since I believe I have proven such an article would be in violation of wikipedia policy on several points.Articles such as this are welcome at places like wikiinfo, but are put here because of the trust and popularity of wikipedia, which is of course based in the policies that are against this article. Lotusduck 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, 7620 Ghits.--Jusjih 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a glance at Furry fandom (which in itself is a completely justifiable article), it seems to me that there are too many separate and disparate furry-related articles as it is. I don't think furries are a wide enough phenomenon (outside of a very particular subculture) to justify so many articles. This article seems to tell us little that the Furry fandom article doesn't, with the added point that the phrase "furry lifestyler" itself doesn't, based on a Google search, appear to be in particularly popular use (and according to the article it's just a synonym for the far simpler, far more widely-used "furry"). Ergo, I can't see a reason for this particular article to exist, and would suggest merging any original and useful content (if there is any) into Furry fandom. I wouldn't even suggest a redirect, though, since the phrase just doesn't seem common enough. Seb Patrick 16:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question is not a merge without a redirect a delete? If it isn't a redirect, it will either remain as it is or be deleted. It appears that all of the content is original research and unverifiable, so I am pressed to question what could be merged.Lotusduck 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that there's a fairly distinct difference between the fan covered in Furry fandom, who are those with an appreciation for furry (art, comics, etc) and the lifestylers covered in this article, who make furry into an everyday belief system and in some cases modify their bodies, etc. I feel that they're distinctive enough not to merge the two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comment as to the wikipedia policy violations I have outlined?Lotusduck 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. What would you like me to comment on? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a merge proposal, and that is how your justification is formatted. Lotusduck 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea if it were possible. The content from furry lifestyler would be removed as unverifiable according to policy, would it not? You could try adding the extra content about totemistic beliefs etcetera to Furry fandom and see if I'm wrong. Lotusduck 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There certainly are people calling themselves "furry lifestylers", everyone who's involved in the furry fandom can tell you that. I'm not sure if this is notable enough to warrant its own article, but it should be mentioned somewhere in furry fandom. Actually, you can't really verify most of what is in there, too. Unless you want to trust MTV and Vanity Fair. --Conti|✉ 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not the place for suggesting that wiki articles do not need verification. You can argue that at the policy page for verifiability. MTV is published, and usually reprints stuff from USA Today anyhow. Sources where furry fandom is relevant, like at E3 talk about it all the time. Lotusduck 21:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles need verification of course, but you'd had lots to do if you would nominate everything for deletion that has not been in a pubilshed source yet. I'm just not sure if that's the right way. --Conti|✉ 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy says it's the right way to go. If you don't like wikipedia policies you don't have to contribute here. "Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace" and one of those policies is verifiability. Also, your chronology is off, a page should not be created and wait until it has been in a published source that can back up that content. That's after the fact justified original research. Another "not" entry, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not meant to put up what we do not know is verifiable because we think some newspaper will back up our content or should, at some point in the future. So help me out here: What's your justification for a merge or keep? Lotusduck 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between mentioning something and having an article about something. And to be honest, I don't feel like removing everything that has no reference from any article I encounter. As per WP:V, I'm allowed to do just that. But there's also a thing called common sense (no references, by the way), I like to listen to that from time to time, too. --Conti|✉ 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid subset of furry fandom, and merging might start a lengthy discussion that could get messy. Fact is, "furry" gets lumped together so badly by major media that it's not surprising there are no distinct references to furry lifestyle. Here's some other links: [45] as an alternate source of information that does use 'furry lifestyle'. [46] refers to the 'furry' lifestyle in the title. How'bout a ref from entirely outside of the fandom citing the research mentioned in the article (Absolute Astronomy?! Huh.): [47] And [48], which mentions the furry lifestyle, as another. (I'd add them into the article, but it looks like it's got a team of editors shaping it - all yours, folks.) Tony Fox 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation from outside of fandom is a copy of an older version of this wikipedia article, as it says on the bottom. The rest are self published. Please read wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, and perhaps reconsider your judgement. Lotusduck 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to furry fandom, or even keep. (Disclaimer: I probably fit to the vague description of a "furry lifestyler", but since it's impossible to prove conclusively that I exist, please try to avoid the ontological quandry.) Let's shoot this interesting deletion motion down, shall we? 1) Unverifiability: The nom's argument hinges on news media's mentions. Contrary to that, there's actually people calling themselves "furry lifestylers". Yet, you don't hear the news organisations calling them that. It's almost like if RMS said something in public and the news media said "Yesterday, a famous open source evangelist opened his mouth again. There were no survivors." (emphasis mine.) I'd contest this is a highly "technical" term that the news media is simply not interested about. Look for "furry fans who believe they have some connection to the animals" and you may be start finding something.
    2) OR/Sources: I admit full well this is on much shakier ground. The article does cite the origin of the term (namely, discussions in Usenet) and the existence of an actual Usenet discussion group alt.lifestyle.furry. If you dig through the Google Groups archives, you'll probably found wealth of information on the particular culture - when I followed the group, they had FAQs posted periodically (actual copy of the FAQ), and had frequent user surveys. Some actual research to this phenomenon or media mentions would be extremely sweet, that I agree. But I'd like to say what verifiability policy said last I checked: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. We don't need extraordinary proof to establish the existence and even extent of furry lifestylers. Details may be a bit more different.
    3) Notability: I really wonder if Google is broken with these searches, I remember the lifestyler activity being fairly active =) I concur this may be a little bit of a fringey stuff to be mentioned in an article of its own, but it is a notable phenomenon within furry fandom. Thus, I'd be cool to have a merge at least; and hey, there's always WikiFur for this kind of stuff. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lack of Google News or LexisNexis articles does not mean a lack of significance, and I think the argument for deletion is artificially downplaying the significance. Wikipedia's benchmark for significance is Google, not Google News. A Google search on "furry lifestyler" brings up "about 8,390" hits (369 for exact phrase), and "furry lifestyle" has "about 619,000" (604 for exact phrase). So much for notability. Among them I have found citations that can be incorporated into the article (and I'll do so when I get the chance), such as [49] and [50] (which explains the difference between furry lifestylers and furry fandom). It appears to me that there's not so much a lack of citations as that no one got around to finding them or has been motivated to. You're not going to find them merely in Google News because it doesn't keep articles around indefinitely. You shouldn't base deletion proposals on looking only where the light is better.  Coyoty 19:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self published articles do not qualify as sources. Moreover, some of the links that y'all provided don't use the term furry lifestyler. The reason why furry lifestyle without quotes gets so many hits is because every day of the week a lifestyle column in a paper prints a story about "our furry friends the squirrels" or similar. Calling furry fandom a lifestyle is not evidence for the usage of the neologism "furry lifestyler". None of you have provided any suggestion that the article is not unverifiable through reputable sources, as I have said. Lotusduck 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Cleveland television news channel report is self-published? A Tennessee newspaper article is self-published? That's what those links are to, mainstream news articles. Either you didn't bother to read their provenance, or you are lying about accepting good citations. "The Tennessean" specifically uses the term "lifestyler", but you are trying to claim the articles don't say anything about them. "There is a distinction, they say, between the people who enjoy the costuming aspects of the culture and lifestylers, who incorporate their animals into their lives in a more spiritual way." I don't know how much clearer that can be. Or the Cleveland News 5 article title, "Group Celebrates 'Furry' Lifestyle". You are setting extraordinary criteria in order to dismiss the citations you asked for and probably did not expect to get. Despite your gymnastic denial that it's the furry lifestyle itself you're challenging, your resistance indicates otherwise. "The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)  Coyoty 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel that any source that does not use the word "furry lifestyler" directly next to one another, despite that last one in the Tennessean referring to "lifestyler" in the context of discussing "furry," as well as other similar references, is unqualified to be considered in this discussion? My apologies, but you're doing a very fine job of splitting hairs here. Editors have presented a large number of new references, including to mass media outlets, that quite obviously refer to the furry lifestyle. I'm certain the administrator who looks over this discussion when time comes to close it will consider those favourably. Tony Fox 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article nominated for deletion is not furry as a lifestyle choice(as is the article you mention), but the neologism "furry lifestyler" and some spurious definitions and qualifications on it. The article does not, as you say, refer to "lifestyler" but lifestyles. An article on womens' lifestyles would not justify a wikipedia entry on the term "Woman lifestyler." It happens to have some of the same words, or similar words to the article furry lifestyler, but does not validate any information therein. Your "large number of sources" is only that one article, and many self published websites, which are not allowed as sources as a matter of policy. See WP:V. But the article has not been deleted yet. If the claims in the article can be sourced, go to the article and source them. If there are mass media sources that differentiate a furry lifestyler from a furry fan, as the article purports, I'd like to see them. Lotusduck 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Tennesean, on their webspace, the article mentioned does not currently exist, nor do any of the links included. There's no date on it, either.Lotusduck
The article is about furry as a lifestyle choice! This is going beyond desperation, IMO. This is the point in the court drama where the plaintiff totally loses it and judge declares he's seen enough.  Coyoty 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article is about defining "furry lifestylers" as 25 different things, fans or fursuiters or people that don't want to be called fans or fursuiters. I'm hard pressed to think that the article is definitively, or clearly about anything at all. Nice personal attack on me though.Lotusduck 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the difference between furry fandom and furry lifestyler? DyslexicEditor 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's analogous to the difference between Trek fandom and devoting one's life to Vulcan or Klingon philosphy and traditions. Or better yet, lifestylers are the furry equivalent of the Society for Creative Anachronism. Those examples are inexact, though, as a lifestyler may point out. It's more of a zen thing.  Coyoty 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still blurs the line, too. I don't think there's a trekkie lifestyler article, but I didn't try every possible spelling. DyslexicEditor 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make Article Redirect to Furry Fandom and Move Content. Then revamp furry articles for verifiability and published sources - I thought furry lifestyler and furry fandom or at least one were up for deletion upon a time and I know there's been merger votes. I don't remember the results. Anyway, furry lifestyler and fandom seem about the same thing and the fandom has a lot of different types of furries--nobody can agree on which is which and there's tons of debates on it, such as sexual aspects are always a big debate. For my revamp thing, there's a good trend on controversial wikipedia articles for every bit of info has to have verifiable sources that can be found to state what the info is. Furry articles are full of debate about what is what and all info needs reliable sources (wikipedia says something like news media and puplished academic research? Well that sort of thing). Most of the sources are "in my experience, furries are like this and there's not like this." I personally think Wikifur does a much better job than the furry articles here because it is more inclusive. So basically I can't grasp a clear difference between fandom and lifestyler so I say merge, and furry articles are controversial so they need everything there supported by sources that meet wikipedia's standards for sources and not personal experience like the article is now. DyslexicEditor 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Toward the end of the archived article linked at the foot of this article, we read Sitting together around the table at the cafe, the furs say the one thing they want to convey to non-furs is that they're really no different than anyone else who is part of a group or has a special interest or hobby. Is this true? If it's true, should there be an article for every group and for the practitioners of every hobby? (Today I used an old Konica camera; should there be Users of old Konica cameras? [I'd say no of course not: I see no reason why use of an old Konica camera is encyclopedic or indeed even of interest to anybody else.]) -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true; the furry fandom is considerably more extensive a "hobby" than - for example - stamp collecting is. (A philatelist is unlikely to routinely dress up as their favorite stamp, for example.) In any case, the group is large and well-defined enough that it merits an encyclopedic treatment. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience, most likely. I recently ran into a bunch of articles (Sabot, Kinetic energy penetrator, and Sub-caliber round), all of which used the same image (Obus_501556_fh000022.jpg) in their opening. That particular image just happens to be readily available. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third question: no doubt this is all of tremendous interest to the participants, but is it of more than the slightest interest to anybody else? I read that the former have their own "WikiFur"; can't they just write it all up there? -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiFur is indeed designed for the cataloguing of furry-related topics which wouldn't be of particular interest to the general public. However, a general description of the furry fandom is definitely within the scope of Wikipedia. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiFur is a last recourse for furry articles that would otherwise be deleted (though in this case we have our own already, so it would be merged). However, its existance should not be an excuse to go around deleting such articles, otherwise we are likely to become Wikipedia's furry dumping ground, where everything gets sent because "there is a place for it now, and it's not here". Please decide whether or not to delete this article based on its merits, then if you decide to we may have a use for the content before you actually do so.
Speaking more generally, Wikipedia has around 40 articles in Category:Furry, while WikiFur has close to 4000. I don't see Wikipedia's current level of detail as unreasonable for items related to a fandom that has over 20 years of history behind it and fields three annual conventions with over 1000 attendees. Just because this has gone largely unnoticed by most "reputable sources" doesn't make it irrelevant to Wikipedia's readers. GreenReaper 11:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that three really big (1000+ attendee) annual conventions, with a lot of smaller ones (Conifur, Feral, Califur, Oklacon, FurFright...) Zetawoof(ζ) 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth question: if there is anything to this beyond the statistically unusual but non-pathological pleasure of dressing up in animal suits (without being paid by Disney, etc.), isn't this covered in otherkin? -- Hoary 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - very much no. The distinction is pretty obscure, but can be summarized thus: The otherkin community is more or less defined by a belief that one existed as some form of mythological creature in a previous life. The furry community is a bit more fuzzily defined, but can be generally lumped together as people who identify with animals to some degree or another. There's significant crossover between the two groups, but they are emphatically not identical. A person who believes they are the second coming of Dracula is probably not a furry, and a person who likes to draw anthropomorphic foxes isn't necessarily an otherkin. That all being said, though, I still find the distinction between the furry fandom as a whole and the concept of the furry lifestyler unnecessarily narrow; as such, my vote to merge stands. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, did you actually read any of the discourse above, where several of us have basically knocked off the 'verifiability' concerns expressed by the nominator, including a complete rebuild of the article? Tony Fox 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well first off not that i give a flying duck about furry stuff (I say this now to stop the stipid question of why am i here, i am at work and bord)the thing and wants to does cover things that are very different from the other articles. I dont believe the common furry has the whole spiritual and body mod thing going on, granted this is lacking in quantity of information, its simply a topic that realy does not have a lot of reaserch done on it. so lets say someone wants to learn about the whole furry lifestyler thing, its got enoff difference that it should be its own thing otherwise that person is going to have to sift through all the regular furry stuff just to find the info they need. i say keep it and work on improving the quality and quantity of info. also just because SOMEONE does not like the idea of this lifesyle does not mean it should be deleted. i bet you just dont want to incurr the wrath or any other alternitive lifestyles so you pick on an obscure one.-me-06/04/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.18.128.13 (talk • contribs) .
You're welcome. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... apparently I missed the bits about how lifestylers draw sexual furry art and dress in fursuits in the actual lifestyler article. Misconceptions! Yay! Tony Fox 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Beach: The Real S.T.

edit

nn high school student production, episodes available on YouTube. I deprodded and moved here, because the article is in quite good shape for this kind of article, and I feel we owe the creator a debate. Still, this doesn't seem to be important enough for wikipedia. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Branning

edit

Keep - she is not a "proposed" character, it has been confirmed that she will appear in the show. At WP:WPEE we take great pride in our articles relating to EastEnders, and have many articles for upcoming characters, who are related to current events. This character will be related to existing characters, which on it's own is a point of interest. The article is also linked to from 14 other articles, proving its notability. This should not be deleted, and, to be frank, I think the nominator is wasting their time, as I'm sure my fellow participants in WP:WPEE will also vote to keep this article going. Trampikey 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the point centres on the fact that not every single character in the history of a TV show deserves a WP article; and whether or not this particular character will go on to become a notable enough character surely cannot be established until they have been on the show for a certain amount of time. I don't really have a vote to make either way, though, although I would perhaps suggest an appropriate redirect (either to the main EE article or, if there is one, an article about minor characters) that can be made into a full article should the character later be deemed important enough. Seb Patrick 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and beyond that you appear to be overly-eager to bend (if not break) WP:NOT crystal-ball clause, then essentially claim "might makes right" based on the purported number of members of WP:WPEE. At the very least, include some verifiable information from reliable sources in this article about this supposed forthcoming character. You claim this is "confirmed", so source the article.--Isotope23 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and I strongly recommend WP:CHILL to the author; if this character is indeed to appear in the show and is going to be a notable character, what's the rush? I also admit I'm not charmed by the implication we're about to see a horde of meatpuppets. RGTraynor 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The meatpuppets are now arriving after the trolling by Trampikey --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to EastEnders until more specific information is released, namely date of debut and/or airing. Until it's specifically determined and announced, it is speculation as its been known to have proposed characters and/or actors dropped from the cast list just before a planned debut. B.Wind 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per RGTraynor. Y'all should listen to that dude. -- GWO
  • Keep per Trampikey. Sweetie Petie 09:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be fair, Trampikey is only bringing this AfD to the attention of those who have an interest in it. I'm going to abstain: but I fully endorse comments about needing references. The JPStalk to me 09:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a difference between alerting the locals to an AfD and statements like "Please go and vote to keep this article!" and suggesting the nom has a vendetta against them. RGTraynor 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISP Toolz

edit

Vanity, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samowar

edit

I can't tell if this is notable or not. It claims to be a satirical magazine published in Germany with a circulation of 12,000. I can't find a listing in Ulrich's or a web site. It has a listing on the german wikipedia [51] which seems to have the same info as here. Seems to fail verifiability and notability, at least on the English-speaking wikipedia, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Thatcher131 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons episodes in Australia

edit

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. We can't have information for every time an episode of The Simpsons has been aired in every country of the world. Another thing is that the user who created this article is probably not going to finish it being blocked indefinitely. --Maitch 16:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Matthews

edit

Apparent nn porn actress, 11 movies listed at iMDB. Doesn't meet the criteria set for notable pron actors/actresses Wildthing61476 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Curtiss (Love doctors)

edit

Non-notable radio personality. "Glenn Curtiss" "Love Doctors" turns up 14 Google hits [52] Very few of them are not wiki related. Metros232 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rival(Pokemon)

edit

These characters each have their own articles already, this would be better as a category. Also, the content of the article is rather FAQy. WikidSmaht (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup and/or Merge into existing Pokemon articles. If not merge, then a much shortened version of the article would be preferred, giving the gist of it and referring people to the pages of each individual game. Hobbeslover 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TD9

edit

superfluous areacruft... an entry for every postcode in the world would be absurd Usrnme h8er 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Forum

edit

Non-notable web site, notability not explained per WP:WEB (or should it be WP:CORP?). No alexa rank. Weregerbil 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 04:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter Frisbee, Guts frisbee, and Flutterguts

edit

This is some sort of variation on Frisbee. A google search [54] revealed only 31 hits, most of which were from sites that mirror our content in one way or another. I don't see any reliable sources or anything that establishes notability. --Hetar 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Their website seems to claim greater fame, but that doesn't count. If the claims about this sport are true, then it should at least have been published in alocal newspaper (and given how long it has been going, possibly a national one). I will change my vote to keep, if evidence (like newspaper reports) is provided of greater notability (and someone lets me know). Captainj 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Guts Frisbee, no comment on another 2). Actually, I think these links demonstrate some notability (for Guts Frisbee) [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] even if it is more local (if we accept high schools then we should probably accept Guts Frisbee. Captainj 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm an Ultimate player and I'm the one that merged all three articles into one about a month ago. Someone commented on the talk page saying that it was an incorrect merge and that Flutterguts and Guts frisbee were different games. I told them I had no experience with the games and they could recreate the articles if they wished. I guess they did. This is a mess and needs to be sorted out and sourced. But for now, I'm voting keep. --Liface 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got 112 searching for flutterguts with the same parameters. [60] The article merger as it was done incorrectly attempted to reconcile the games into one. When I undid it, acting upon Liface's suggestion, I didn't look up whether it was more well known as flutter frisbee or flutterguts, which was my error. The current [Flutter_Frisbee] article should probably either be moved as-is to [Flutterguts] and redirected, or become a subsection of [Guts_frisbee]. [Guts_frisbee], however, should not be a candidate for deletion under this proposal, even if flutterguts is eventually deleted. I suggest we move/merge flutter frisbee for now, look at sourcing it, and reconsider deleting it at a later date (preferrably a pre-determined timeframe) --Superflyguy 0:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


OK here... move Guts Frisbee to Team Guts, a more established name for the game discussed in the article; delete Flutterguts as a failed attempt at disambiguation; merge Flutter Frisbee into Team Guts under a subheading of "Variants of Team Guts". What does the Wham-O site say about these? That's how I learned about Team Guts decades ago: literature from Wham-O. B.Wind 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have never heard the name Team Guts, and can find no reference to that name on the World Flying Disk Federation website, or any other for that matter. It also fails to accurately describe it, as the WFDF rules for guts allow 1-5 players per side [61]. It would be better to alter the article to make note of the variable number of players than to create separate articles just to make a distinction based on the number of players. Also, Wham-O currently has no information on guts that I could find, and it's publications are not as authorative as the WFDF. --Superflyguy 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and fix the number of players in the Guts Frisbee article, then move Flutter Frisbee to Flutterguts and mark it as a possible merge to a subsection of Guts Frisbee, and we'll go frum there.--Superflyguy 1:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccines and fetal tissue

edit

Article is original research. No sources are given for majority of claims. Those which are mentioned are either non-neutral ("Right to Life Michigan") or hopelessly vague ("several prominent Catholic newspapers"). Whole quotation of vaccine package inserts at end of article may constitute copyright violation, and, itself, is unencyclopaedic. Severa (!!!) 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is not original research, but may need {{fact}} and {{cleanup}}. It is well-known and true that the cell lines WI-x and RA-x/y are all derived from fetal tissue cells.
  • Keep. The article is relevant. There is a modern controversy preventing the advancement of stem cell science. Meanwhile, the same people who oppose stem cell research funding benefit from fetal cell lines produced by medical abortions. Revealing the true information will educate the public over the truth of the fetal cell tissue issue. Heathhunnicutt 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a modern reference to what WI-38 is: http://www.abcam.com/index.html?datasheet=14911 You can get the price for your nation at that site (for ordering some WI-38). Heathhunnicutt 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statements are all verifiable, in the Popperian sense. Heathhunnicutt 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wombat Carnival

edit

Vanity page, very weak WP:MUSIC candidate. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Beaux-Arts architecture

edit

New Beaux-Arts is not an established architectural genre as far as I know, making this article break WP:NOR Equendil 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Make sure to check Talk:New Beaux-Arts architecture, where the author is explaining himself. Equendil 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Vysya

edit

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't appear to be Primary Source material, but as it isn't WP:V sourced, I can't be sure. Maybe it is from one of the Puranas? Without sourcing it is hard to say... If someone could put this into context (and clean it up a bit) I'd opine this should be transwiki'd to wikisource. Without any context though, I'm sticking with delete.--Isotope23 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm Indian & thus know that Arya Vysya is an important subcaste & deserves an article, but this block of text should certainly not be kept as its unreferenced & judging by the enormous amount of text, is probably a copyvio. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or transwiki to Wikisource if not a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation of the article as Arya Vysa is an important caste in India. Also, article appears to be a copyvio. --Gurubrahma 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever it is, i tisn't an encyclopaedia article.--Runcorn 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bixie

edit

This dicdef was transwikied, tagged for speedy deletion by me (incorrectly, I might add -- I now prod transwikied dicdefs), deleted, then recreated and retagged for transwikification. Since I was supposed to prod it and the article was recreated (constituting a contest of the prod, I suppose), I list it here, even though I strongly resent having to do it. TheProject 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deloping

edit

Reads like a dictionary entry and does not contain any information not already listed in the Code duello article. Ladlergo 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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;nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravy Train (Rock Group)

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Tofangsazan

edit

Prod disupted on talk page. This is a non-notable "meme" (I counted 12 Google hits) centered around a buyer's revenge story. While some of these stories achieve sufficient notability by virtue of their creativity and execution (i.e., "P-P-P-Powerbook" and "scam the 411 scammer" stories), there's nothing particularly notable about this one; in fact, it's little more than an attack of the seller via dissemination of personal information. It seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to further promote a short-lived blog subject that is losing steam. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the original author of the page, I obviously feel that the meme is of sufficient notability to have a place in Wikipedia. The internet meme is exceedingly difficult to assess regarding notability. However, according to the guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEME), the creativity involved is not a determiner in a meme's notability. Even so, if you look at the web page started by the buyer, there is a modicum of creativity involved anyway. The fact that it's an attack via the dissemination of information is not a determiner either - it may be wrong, it may be childish, but it's still notable. The main reasons I feel that it's notable are, however, the coverage it has received in the UK and Irish press (linked in the article), covered by national newspapers and on the radio. I don't understand the assertion that the blog is losing steam, stated on the very day it receives such coverage in the national papers. For this and the reasons above, I believe the item is of sufficient notability. Blaise Joshua 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The blog that outlines this has been mentioned on the BBC, by the newspapers both here in the UK and in other countries, and the blog has also clocked up over a million hits. This is not just about the google test(which, incidentally, since it's last algorithm update, seems, to me, to be returning a lot of junk links quite frequently, google is only indicative, it should not be the only criterion) --Cal 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name completely fails the Google test, bringing up just NINE total (not unique- total) hits. Notability for a newsmaker can be established by citing multiple reliable sources relating to separate events, and one article in a tabloid does not meet the criteria. -- Kicking222 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above digital_me(t/c) 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sorry - I think I should have added that earlier). Just a note guys - I just tried the Google test for myself. You're quite right - a search on "Amir Tofangsazan" returns hardly any hits, but a search on "Amir Moussoud Tofangsazan" (the poor guy's full name) got 145 hits on my count, and a search of Amir and eBay produces 245,000 hits, which are obviously not all related to this particular meme, but there were specific hits down as far as page 10 (after that I stopped checking). Therefore, depending on your search terms, I don't think it fails the Google test at all. Maybe I've named the article poorly. Blaise Joshua 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last point - I just tried entering the search words Amir, laptop and eBay. This got almost 25,000 hits, and from this entry you can see how well represented this story is on the internet. Blaise Joshua 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Whether the blog this meme satirizes is notable or not is irrelevant; I don't automatically become notable if I satirize George Bush. Beyond that, I don't know what Google methodology the author's using, but "Amir Massoud Tofangsazan" as an exact phrase gets 40 unique hits. [62] (Of course Googling and/ors on each name will get a pile of hits.) Ravenswing 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator I'm not against adjournment, given that the story appears to be receiving much more media attention than I initially thought. While I'm against this sort of thing in principle (we're only getting one side of the story, and the seller has been "convicted" without a trial), I can't deny the notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jamie - I agree that the article, as it stands, only presents one side of the story, but this is a problem that can be rectified and certainly doesn't warrant deletion on the grounds of being non-notable. There are bound to be press reports stating Amir's side of the story - we can put these in to make it more balanced. Unfortunately for Amir, however, from what I've been reading on blogs most people are sympathetic to the buyer of the laptop, probably ones who have been done on eBay! Blaise Joshua 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I've been screwed both ways on eBay; by unscrupulous sellers and surprisingly by a buyer (who filed bogus complaints against me to try to weasel out of paying for items that UPS tracking said were delivered; fortunately, I prevailed in that one, but it was a huge pain). On the other hand, I think the P-P-P-Powerbook story is great, though in that one it's undeniable that a scam was going on. This case is a little different because it's not entirely clear if there was a scam going on; it may be that the laptop was damaged (or just died) in transit, and the seller was slow to respond to the complaint. Brian Peppers is an example of a precedent where the subject was notable yet ultimately Jimbo kaboshed the article for other reasons (at least temporarily). OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's wait and see how this whole thing turns out. Might be a real precident case here, in the times we live in, scaming on eBay is a very serious internet problem. --HamstaHuey 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just appeared as part of a serious discussion of the legal implications of how 'Tougher libel laws may be needed to combat cyber vigilantes, lawyers warn' in The Times of 31 May.
  • Keep This is the true 'one man does good story'. Far too many of us have been scammed over the years by the faceless, nameless, untouchable individual....well frankly this story is one many of us can relate to in terms of 'appropriate' revenge. The victim of the fraud has never advocated violence, racism or any similar inappropriate behaviour. Instead given the information they had they very reasonably just asked the perp to reimburse them for the amount of the fraud and the matter would end there. Instead the perp mocked the victim, accused the victim of being a paedophile, threatened them with violence and called them a liar. The weight of evidence available shows the victim gave the perp every opportunity to 'make good' before they posted the story. The biggest reason to keep this entry is because it's now become a global story inside 2 weeks, and in my opinion the reason for that is because so many of us can relate to it as we've been the victim.

keep it


  • remove I've only seen the 'blog' once. I think the concept of 'internet revenge' is a common theme on the net. I don't think this one incident pervades our culture enough to be condsidered a 'meme'. I'd consider it a meme when the Tshirts and spoof sites of it come out such as 'Amir sold me a photocopier that didn't work but it had an ass copy stuck in the mechanisms' I'd like to see a fake blog made about the 'revenge buyer' going My name is .... and I got suckered into buying a crappy laptop and instead of resorting to the eBay dispute resolution process, I had a hissy fit and scanned the drive for personal information. Don't these people know they're supposed to PGP their drives! AMATEURS! I guess I will never work again because by now my name has been googlebombed a million times and every HR person will think I'm a big fat loser who sits at computer day and night. At least Amir has some friends in his pictures, and is photogenic enough to pose semi nude, unlike myself."
  • Weak Keep - As a few people have already said, it is quite notable with all those media sites have posted it. - Ðra
  • Keep This whole thing has now been reached by media outside the internet (the Sun, the Daily Mail, the BBC, ITV (in the UK) and others) and is propogating all over the world on various news sites across multiple countries. The original blog site now has over 2 million hits. I think it has "sufficient notability" now. It's now just a case of making the article NPOV.Neilius 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and 'redirect' to Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, an earlier more complete article. Sfacets 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article needs updating, namely, by naming the disgruntled buyer, Thomas Sawyer, 23, Exeter. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=409510&in_page_id=2

This article should be kept. This has been an internet phenomenon. It would be a bit like removing an article about the launch of the Ipod. The subject matter is of less importance than the event itself in my opinion... Keep it.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dotcartoon

edit

This article appears to be about a small web community based on Invisionfree forums. Their claim to fame appears to be a mention on a website with an Alexa ranking of 6.2M. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to add as a chief administrator of the group, that we are not just a small web based comunity, we are a media group/cult. We do not charge money. More parts of DCUK are under construction, including www.swuk.org, www.dotcartoon.com(pending) so we are definatly not just based on invisionfree, i assume you didnt take proper care when visiting our community. Just a quick scan. Also this is a list about out cartoons, and other things. Our "small community" has been going over 5 years now.

Thankyou! Im going to assume you will revert this as you have everything else, if you are fair and just you will not revert this, and as for evidence i think its only fair ill screen shot this all. Swuk6 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuyvesant Track and Field

edit

It is my belief that high school track teams (all sports for that matter) are not notable and do not deserve their own articles. But I don't know if my belief reflects the rest of the community, so I'm bringing it here instead of a prod. Metros232 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Categorize (added to my todo list).--Ezeu 04:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-help authors

edit

Listcruft. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyashram

edit

This appears not only to be an advertisement, but a C&P CV as well. The accompanied image had no source. I place it here mainly becase it may be cleanup-worthy if notable. Abstain - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcultured

edit

This article describes a non-notable, non-existant band and includes various phrases of vanity such as, " Each member has their own magical musical powers, which they use to fight evil." and "They have been compared to a mixture of bands like Weezer, The Strokes, The Unicorns, and Van Halen." Overall, this article is poorly written and describes a non-notable fake band, with NO hits when performing a google or yahoo search. Thetruthbelow  (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noontide Filmworks

edit

Delete as previously deleted vanity article. 2nd nomination. Article is admittedly written by the company's owner (see previous AfD discussion below), and was deleted under AfD along with several other related articles by the same author (see here [74]) --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, NN, vanity. This "commercial feature film" outfit's been around six years and has 27 minutes of film to show for it? IMDB only has one of the two films which it claims, and oddly enough fails to mention the award for that film which the article claims. RGTraynor 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. The number of people who ever see short films is incredibly tiny, since there's no distribution for them. Per HBO, the film was a runner-up [75], not a winner. Fan1967 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Bones historical connections

edit

As per Kaldari's prod:

  1. The length of this article (approx. 250 kb) is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book.
  2. The quoted texts are much too long; as such, they may not fall under fair use. Only brief quotes from copyrighted sources may be used without permission.
  3. The writing style of the entire article is inappropriate. The whole thing is filled with innuendo, speculations, uncited accusations, and gossip.
  4. Finally, and most importantly, virtually nothing is cited. The article makes a number of extraordinary claims about the involvement of the Skull and Bones group in drug dealing, but there are only 20 citations in the entire article, most of which are for auxiliary points. To put that in perspective, that's about one citation for each 12 kilobytes of text.

I do believe that there may be some encyclopedic content which can be discussed here, if appropriate sources can be found, but this wall of text isn't it. Delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta remember to press that signature button!--Andeh 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom has it precisely right. This is a titanic (novel-length, damn near) heap of unsourced POV-ridden innuendo with relations to Skull and Bones that's tenuous at best -- for instance, I'm missing the connection that a long section on the ramifications of an ex-Taliban spokesman being an ex-Yalie has to S&B in specific. RGTraynor 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Holy crap, this is terrible. 250k! However, my answer to all four points brought up in the prod is that this is criteria for cleanup, not deletion. ScottW 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taken separately the four points above just indicate a need for cleanup, but taken together, I think they indicate deletion and starting this article over. The article title is also a problem - it should be Skull and Bones conspiracy theories involving opium running. --Joelmills 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joelmills is right -- I'm convinced this thing is beyond repair from looking at it and the nominator's statements. Large parts of it may be copyvio because of the inappropriate use of quotes. I can't imagine anyone wanting to take on this monster. Just delete it and begin anew, at a better title as well. Grandmasterka 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically uncleanable, and uninteresting. -- GWO
  • Keep but rewrite and shorten. The subject matter is very notable and would make for an interesting article. However the present article violates NPOV, probably NOR as well, and I'd also check closely to make sure it isn't copyvio, too. But the purpose of AFD is to vote on whether articles should be deleted due to worthiness of content, and IMO that isn't the case here. As ScottW indicated, the points noted by the nominator indicate an article in bad need of repair, but not necessarily deletion. 23skidoo 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and massively cleanup. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy crap is right. It appears that the vast majority of the article has been written by a single writer during several brief but intense periods of activity between January and March,[76][77] suggesting either some serious copyvio/plagiarism or something approaching logorrhea. Even the table of contents reads like the label on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Soap. Almost all of this article is wholly beyond repair, and what isn't should be merged back into Skull and Bones, from whence it was spawned on March 11. —phh (t/c) 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete massively long conspiracycruft. Wikipedia is not a book publisher. KleenupKrew 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too much valid content to delete. --JJay 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Wikipedia is not a publisher. Keep if trimmed to less than 30KB. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge or transwiki; an extreme case of WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, smells like copyvio, as well as unsalvageable POV. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mostly Rainy 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension Studios

edit

Contested prod. Prod reason was "blatant advertising." I agree, delete. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete Its not advertisement, theirs pleanty of information given
  • Don't delete. The studio is exceptional in the fact that it offers level design for video games upon requests from individual customers, not game companies as all other studios do. In doing so the studio is pioneering this area of video game market. No other studio takes requests from average players to provide them with what they desire. The article's purpose isn't to advertise the studio but to rather describe the new trend in video game development that the appearance of this studio shows. With the modern technology, level design becomes such an accessible tool that it can now be done on a smaller, individual scale rather than through mass-produced video games as it was before. From the previous suggestions on deletion I see that this idea wasn't expressed clearly enough in the article therefore it will be edited, NOT deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Connexion

edit

There is not enough information about this to have its own article, the little information that can be written about this is on the Counter-strike page. Andeh 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kingdom

edit

A "prod" was deleted without explanation. -- SGBailey 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be nonsense. I don't see how China and Australia has a shared myth of a missing island. Nuttah68 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Computerjoe's talk 09:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (Dragonball Z)

edit

Not sutable for Wikipedia because it is an in-universe description of obscure aspects of a comic. Gerry Ashton 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Fox-Dominguez

edit

Article describes a non-notable author with No web hits. Also, this article is full of fake, and and possibly offensive book titles and play titles such as "Yoohoo Shelia", "A Warm Lesbian Summer Night" and "Living With Herpes." Also, there is a sentence of pure vanity that goes, "She married true crime author Pier Dominguez on March 9, 2003. He is a student at NYU film school and this has caused stress to their relationship, but they are still hanging in there after 3 beautiful years!" Thetruthbelow  (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP--I know Bertha personally and she did write those plays and the self help book is a big hit locally, and also she is married to a famous author and is a feminist activist at Duke University and has been intimately involved with the rape scandal there. You might not like the way the article was written, yes, I agree, but modify.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenImaging

edit

Reads like a non-notable advert. TheProject 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, does not assert notability. Prodego talk 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (Lawyer)

edit

Extremly non-notable and vague, with no sources, external links, or citations. Thetruthbelow  (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalogica

edit

Autobiographical/Vanity Page


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Façon de parler

edit

Contested prod that was transwikied to wiktionary. Anti-deletion argument on article talk page. TheProject 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Ice Hockey

edit

This is a non-notable student club sport. UCLA's men's basketball team doesn't even have it's own stand-alone article and they have a very storied history. Also vanity, the author is one of the athletes mentioned in the article. Metros232 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zombie Attack Squad

edit

User:Spinolio started the process of the AFD - I noticed the redlink and am finishing it off as a public service. His comments were, "(Anti-Zombie Attack Squad - WP: Web, non-notable. Wikipedia probably isn't the place for a poorly-written description of a Myspace group.)" BigDT 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 As Cruel as School Children Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Cruel As School Children

edit

Duplicate entry and "as" is not capitalized -Myxomatosis 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jinxers

edit

Do we really need an entire page devoted to a cat character that had about three minutes of screen time in a spoof film? R.E. Freak 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

230 (number)

edit
non-notable number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating 240 (number) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both created by Jesterjester, {{prod}}'d by me, deprod'd by Cfred, speedy redirected to 200 (number) by me, and edited primarily by Anton Mravcek — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let the record show that Anton Mravcek has been an upstanding editor of the Slovenian Wikipedia for more than a year, receiving two awards. Jesterjester, on the other hand, has been with the English Wikipedia less than a month, and has not earned half as much as respect as Anton. Robert Happelberg 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I accept your analysis, and would defer to Anton in some respects. But I still think that these border on the limits of notability, if not below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think htis is a good idea. Numerao 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable what "non-trivial" is. Ramanujan would've probably been unmoved by the fact that (1 + 7 + 2 + 9)|1729, while Kaprekar might have not cared that 12^3 + 1^3 = 10^3 + 9^3 = 1729. Anton Mravcek 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted by Moriori. — TheKMantalk 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Wampach

edit

Not significant Leoniceno 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to suicide bombing. --Ezeu 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide bombing

edit

Neologism Homey 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. We've got Criticism of Wikipedia already, don't we? - Mailer Diablo 22:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiwikipedia

edit

Apparently nn website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. -- Karada 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Though they seem to be trying to knock at this site. (sarcastic hypothetical coming up) If we delete this, do they win? Yanksox 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Currently their URL redirects to http://www.antiwikipedia.com/antiwiki/. Do we have an article on that website that this might be mentioned under? As of right now the subject is hardly worthy of article - its way too new, has no reliable sources, the list goes on and on. It's very likely that at some point it will become notable just by nature of its association with Wikipedia (or someone with a little more vision will come along and do something significant with the domain name) but until then, it doesn't really belong here. --Hetar 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wrote the article since I expected wikipedia to have some info on it's anti site. User Yanksox is right, if you choose to delete the article, pretty much they win since they support in some of their own articles the non-sensical deletion and artwork in wikipedia. Go ahead, delete it, that's what they want. We should choose to at least have some information on them than rather nothing.BrandNew21 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'

[MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver][mysqld-4.0.27-max-log]MySQL client run out of memory

/antiwiki/incfile/log/log.asp, line 19
  • Here's a comment from a mirror of this article on their website:
Aparently someone did an article about us here, almost automatically some idiot proposed to delete it. I love it. It shows how authoritarian that fucking site is and how stupid all of them are by even debating if they should include us in their beloved articles. I'm for deletion of not only our article, but all articles.
So yeah, I guess the short answer is that they win. Cool. Delete without prejudice. The Disco King 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the comments coming every one, this will make for a hilarious article on the AW.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.27.93 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete By striking this down it will become more powerful than you can ever imagine. I voted for this if only to see it deleted to prove their point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.27.93 (talk • contribs)
Comment both of the above comments are from the "creator", as he claims in a previous votes, of Anti-wikipedia. Thetruthbelow (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eragon Live

edit

Another webpage for one of the thousands of text-based games available. This one claims to have an active player base of around 500, which is pretty small. Their website has an Alexa rank of 3,259,447 and a Google search [78] gives only 51 results. As of last week they were ranked 192 at Top Web Games (which means they had a total of 4 votes). Because of a complete lack of reliable sources and notability, I am recommending delete. --Hetar 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the parent company article, Build-A-Bear Workshop. — TheKMantalk 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear factory

edit

Link to small commercial venture, not notable, little more than an advertisement or directory listing. Marysunshine 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I should have hovered over the link. Yanksox 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:Fang Aili - see [79]. BigDT 04:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology and Slang of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

edit

A direct (although slightly reshuffled) word-for-word copy of Page 62 of the most recent Codex: Imperail Guard (Chambers, Andy (2003). Warhammer 40,000 Codex: Imperial Guard (4th Edition ed.). Nottingham: Games Workshop. ISBN 1841544108. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)). Also, a list of slang and terminology, which is inadvised per WP:NOT a dictionary. -- saberwyn 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology

edit

This is from sqrlaway. Really sorry for all the mess- i went in and deleted the article. I feel like a real jerk right now. Apologies all around, I should have thought about what I was doing. Sqrlaway 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Hannigans

edit

Not sure if this television show is actually happening. Disney's own site doesn't have any information of it. The little information that is on this article is a copy of the single line in the IMDB profile. Metros232 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashsomestuff.com!

edit

Non-notable website, seems to be a promotion. There is no solid information and extremly messy with vanity, Delete Yanksox 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well i just wanted to make a article about something insterting. but it seems that nothing cant get passed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.192.77.3 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was redirect, cheap and easy. Mailer Diablo 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POST error beep

edit

Delete. There is no need to split this topic from the Power-on self-test article, and there's nothing left to merge. Vossanova o< 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_30&oldid=1234118924"