Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 33: Line 33:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorgo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorgo}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Death}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Death}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert_S._Mendelsohn}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert_S._Mendelsohn}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durd}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durd}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver City Video Productions}}

Revision as of 01:45, 22 January 2006

< January 21 >

Purge server cache

January 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Babajobu 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Vincenzo Capone

non notable Al Capone brother Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard documentary evidence

dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey remixes

An article on this topic was originally created at Remixography of Mariah Carey, and was subsequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey). The content of this new article is different enough from the earlier article that it does not qualify for speedy deletion, but the reasons for why it was deleted still stand. All of the articles on Carey's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, however, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Carey's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artist Steven Friedland formerly os Apple Records. Hit single banned in the world....King of Fuh.

I'm not sure I even can decipher what the page says, but it seems to be about a non-notable musical group. See WP:Music Liamdaly620 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge Comics

Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. Has no Alexa rank and a forum with only 20 members. -- Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erhard D. Hahn

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions

Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions

Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedied, G4. If it comes back again it might need protecting. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In-Depth Battlepedia

Totally Non-notable web page. A small webpage, with less hits and members than PinkPT, which got deleted for non-Notability MatthewF 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL

dicdef Melaen 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodequin

band un-notability Melaen 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Jackson

DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMantalk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. [4] PJM 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears to be a debate at the Lost television series forums and blogs (where its current claim of notability is allegedly asserted) whether or not this band ever existed. Nearly all online sources appear to agree that it actually never did, and that in fact the production mistook a certain band named Geronimo Black for some reason. Thus there is no real reason to keep an article that seems to assume otherwise. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Hurricanehink 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-verifiable fancruft. Rillian 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Sunray 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The Lost cruft battle continues. Baryonyx 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, I agree, not verifiable. 209.177.232.139 almabes
  • Strong keep As article says, mentioned in an episode of the television show Lost -- & information about this band (even verification whether it existed or was invented by the show's writers) is badly desired by every viewer of Lost. Sheesh, take a peak at any Lost discussion site on the Internet. (Want examples? I can furnish examples.) I believe so firmly that we should keep this article that I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it, but am quite willing to discuss the matter first. -- llywrch 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC) After a discussion with LeFlyman yesterday, I still say Keep, but will accept the determination of the Admin who closes this discussion. -- llywrch 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. I was considering changing my vote until I read your last sentence. What do you mean "I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it"? Are you saying you would not abide by the consensus decision made here? Sunray 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saying that to delete this article would be a grave mistake, & am emphasing just how fiercely I believe this. Part of my zeal for this article is out of surprise that no one else until this moment has spoken up in defense of it -- even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence. (However, this morning I discovered a web page about this group & added it to the article, so I'd say that either it did exist or is a noteable hoax by the creators of Lost.) In short, had I a "save this article" chit as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia (or any credibility), I would spend it on this article. -- llywrch 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence -- that's where you and most everyone else here disagrees. As for that link you added, there's no there there. As I noted on the article's talk page, domain registrant information suggests that this is just another hoax website set up by ABC or some enterprising fan. If that's what it is, it deserves a brief mention in a couple of the Lost articles, just like the rest of the hoax sites. android79 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not every Lost fan wants this page up on Wikipedia. I sure don't, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Go hog wild about this on The Fuselage or some other fan forum, but Wikipedia is not a fansite, not a place for OR, unverifiable content, or speculation. As someone who's both a dedicated fan of Lost and someone who's worked very hard to get and keep the Lost articles in encyclopedic shape, I find your assertions inaccurate distortions of the truth and potentially harmful to the work so many others have dedicated their time to. Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baronyx, I assume you'd rather delete this article instead of trying to rewrite it into acceptible form? If this article is deleted, & later events prove that either the group did exist, or it was important to the plot of Lost, it will be more difficult to recreate this article than you may think. According to current practice, deleting this article means it goes away with little or no chance of recreation. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also incorrect. If this band suddenly becomes an important plot point in the show or otherwise notable, there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating it. If it's deleted, you can even request that someone undelete the old content through deletion review. android79 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no acceptable form for an article like this, with virtually no verifiable content and non-notability besides a less than 20s scene on Lost. What can it be reduced to? One unexpandable line. That's like saying we should have left the page 540 when its sole contents were (4+8+15+16+23+42)*5. It won't be difficult to recreate the article... notice the page 4 8 15 16 23 42 which was resurrected recently, and instead of being deleted this time, is headed to a redirect. I'm most certainly not opposed to having this page resurrected should the band one day prove pivotal. But, the situation with Lost cruft has gotten beyond reasonable limits, and I'm of the opinion that these types of pages are an embarrassment and discouragement to those who diligently work on the Lost articles. As editors, it is our responsibility to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard of quality in the information we present. We've just deleted the article on the "security system", for example, because of its hefty OR and unverifiability. Will there possibly be a page on the "security system" when the show is done? Sure thing. But just because the "security system" may one day have its own page does not mean that we have to have any old poor quality page that gets made now. There's just not enough on the "security system" to merit an encyclopedic article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The same applies to this "band": it may very well be that this is critical to the future of the show (which, note is speculation)... but what may one day be is not an excuse for retaining a substandard article that lowers the quality of Wikipedia. Baryonyx 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article isn't being advocated for deletion merely because its a fictional band. It is advocated for deletion as non-notable, unverifiable, originally researched cruft material, mentioned for a few seconds in a single episode. There's a rather obvious difference between being a factual, accurate article on a recurring fictional character and a made-up article of a very minor fictional reference, IMHO. As for DriveShaft, I don't think it should be an article, either, even if it is Charlie's band. However, it has more accurate content derived from the show itself, and a more central role to a main character, so the argument for that band's inclusion has stronger footing than this one's.Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo sort

non encyclopedic algorithm Melaen 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Welmet

non notable camp Melaen 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Curps. — TheKMantalk 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father mcginnisburg

Nonsensical ramblings about a non-existant personage. Have listed for speedy delete twice but original (and only) contributer keeps removing tag. He has also now removed the afd tag twice and vandalised my user page. Liamdaly620 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Auberge de Bugnaux

not encyclopedic, may-be worth for wikitravel. Melaen 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2sec

google returns way to many results to check for relevance, although filmmaking style is not in the first 100 results, "2 second movie" returns no relevant hits, delete as neologism MNewnham 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rebuttle 2sec films - are a ligitimate style of filming, and has and is growing in various areas of the Southern United States of America, such as LSU Baton Rouge, University of Birmingham and the University of Alabama. There is also a film festival located in Shreveport, Louisiana that supports and encourages the 2 second film style. [MovieSauce.org] (Which has recieved entries from the entire world, and other festivals such as Slamdance, which is held in Park City, Utah during the Sundance Film Festival.) Also, the term 2 second Movie is not ligitimate because there are no "movies" that are 2 second style - only shorts.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ktulu's Kingdom

Vanity article. Content (e.g. Members list) mostly nonsense. Zen611 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Profiling

Not nonsense, but no context to explain what it is or what its for. Even following the link provides no help MNewnham 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erythuria

Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) erythuria have only played one show, and haven't released any songs yet. This, for me, warrants deletion. --Dangherous 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorgo

Originally created as autobiography, woefully misses the benchmarks of WP:BIO. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Death

Goth singer,pin-up < 250 relevant google hits, discography not on major label, not on amazon MNewnham 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Mendelsohn

This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.--Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change my vote to Keep. He appears to have been a notable critic upon further research, but the article needs to be greatly expanded, especially regarding his criticisms. Liamdaly620 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Just another dubious attempt at suppression, and clearly at odds with the Wiki's policies on articles regarding published authors. The quackpot site epitomizes the undercurrents of abysmal attacks on informed consent prevalent in Western medicine. This AfD appears to reveal a degree of contempt towards informed medical debate, a sentiment evidently embraced unabashedly by those editors who have proposed, in recent months, the several AfDs on articles about critics of medical orthodoxy. Ombudsman 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note above 'keep' vote was by a POV-pusher and is POV in itself. This person is not notable. Tokakeke 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least it's not a vanity article (quite the opposite in fact). Ruby 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Multiple issues here about Mendelsohn's credibility, credentials, and whether he was responsible & authoritative, but notable he is. His name gets 11,500 Google hits and he's the author of multiple published books. I think we should keep the page at least as a guide to the debate. --Lockley 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every quack needs to have written a couple of books to achieve sufficient notoriety. No specific indication that this man has made an impact within or outside the alternative medicine or criticism of medicine community. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per AdelaMay. The Dr. might or might not be bonkers, but is borderline notable just for publications and chair/president of this and that. The controversy around him tips him into the clearly notable category, IMHO. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i can't say it any better, so i'll just iterate: Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AndelaMae. --Terence Ong 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the fact that the google hits exceed 10,000, he has authored several books and has other various credentials; this decision should not even spark a contention. -- Salluste|talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC-5)
  • Comment: Looking at the first couple of pages of Google hits, he is mentioned quite a lot (perhaps because there are few MDs who provide similar quotes) but there isn't much substance to the actual mentions. Some of what there is is rather odd - a claim that Aspirin alters blood clotting factors for instance - that would be Warfarin, Aspirin alters platelet adhesion - and reduces vitamin C on a "nutritional" site.
I'm not American, and it is hard to judge what the National Health Federation is about. Is it more like the BMA than the National Front, to use an English example?
if kept, this article needs to be written, and shuold be written about the man, rather to multiply copies of ideas already covering elsewhere.Midgley 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was the most notable anti-vaccine medical man of the last century, and allopathic critic. Very obvious suppression of that as we can see every day here for vaccine critics-- eg Midgleys other attempts over the last day or so: Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Charles Creighton. Lily Loat (deleted), and attempted deletions by other allopaths like CDN 99--Charles Pearce, Neil Miller, Martin Walker for vaccine critics etc. This is what they want to suppress [[deprecated source?] Quackwatch is a well known pharma shill. Midgley is an allopath/vaccinator, bit obvious I would have thought. The wonder is how they can get away with it under everyones noses. Not to mention the deletion of links and text by them [7]. john 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durd

Dicdef and unsourced slang term. Andrew Levine 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver City Video Productions

Non-notable company/wedding videos, etc. Advertisement. —ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22&oldid=36159281"