Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KsprayDad (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 9 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 8 >

Purge server cache

March 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczism

This article was speedied as "recreation of deleted content" but it isn't the case. The previous, speedily deleted version was:

Kaczism-a term connected with Lech Kaczynski who is a Polish politician and the president of the city of Warsaw,Poland; strongly Catholic and homofobic,didn`t let to organise a gay&lesbian parade in Warsaw saying it`d be a parade of perverts and saying that if his part takes control it`ll be a "dark night for gay people".
So the word Kaczism describes the typically Catholic Polish attitude towards gay people.

which doesn't have much in common with the current version. The slogan is really used in Poland.

  • Keep if what you say is true. Royboycrashfan 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recentism. Quip made up by a member of parliament doesn't generate encyclopedical term, fortunately. If the word will be still used after the current president leaves his office it will be notable. The Polish article suffers from constant political disputes and survived VfD cca 50:50, the Czech version is verbatim copy of the Polish one. Reaganism, Clintonism, etc articles do not exists and Kaczyński's brothers are even less likely to be a motive for seriously accepted politological term. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep that at least one reference is added where this slogan is used. If Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy merits an article, so does this if it is an actually famous political phrase. Staxringold 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know my vote won't count (myself being an anon), but if Bushism is a valid Wikipedia article, why shouldn't be Kaczism?
    • Don't Forget Poland -- GWO
Well, the bushism is IMHO quite questionable (will anyone remember it in 10 years?). If this approach is taken to extreme articles about -isms for every current president/prime minister/controversial politician would mushroom here, with associated wars and other fun. Instead of sopaboxing time should be spent on article improvement, e.g. Jarosław Kaczyński is low quality stub. Pavel Vozenilek 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Wall of Voodoo Cyde Weys 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of voodoo

Delete Page already exists at Wall of Voodoo -LichYoshi 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Change of venue to WP:RFD — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Zophiel

DELETE Zophiel page is a disambig page I created this page to link from their to a page to contain Zophiel the angel/demon. I then found that he is listed under Jophiel hence this page isn't needed anymore as Zophiel links directly to Jophiel now. Someone removed prod without checking who created the page etc so can only delete this way now. Sorry for my cock up, contact me on my talk page for more info cheers! Shimirel 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking this discussion over to RfD. Royboycrashfan 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been carried over to RfD. Please vote there. Royboycrashfan 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Bismarck Public Schools --Cyde Weys 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck public school system

Delete. This article merely recreates the already existing article Bismarck Public Schools. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicky satchmo

Neologism/slang from a small circle. FreplySpang (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet Avatar Chat

Appears to be advertising for a non-notable freeware program which has yet to be released. Delete. Fightindaman 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prerelease from yesterday linked [here]. Distribution page release later today after we take care of some bugs uncovered via the prerelease. BTW: 100 IRC client pages mostly 'nn' and you want to give us trouble about over our article? Gipper 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7

Bell work

Describes a practice of an individual teacher in a single elementary high school. FreplySpang (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mayne

minor English politician. His claim to fame seems to be that he's chairman of a local division of his party. The only thing offered up for verification is that he's listed here as a supporter of a national politician, along with tons of other people. I don't see that he comes close to meeting WP:BIO standards for inclusion. Friday (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I m Daniel Mayne, this page is completely untrue, the “claim to fame,” is rubbish. This is someone’s idea of a particle joke, I do have a keen interest in politics but it seems someone has taken it too far, I would be grateful if the page could be deleted as soon as possible (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.141.164 (talk • contribs) )

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Side Padawons

Delete. Non-notable. Google gives "about 55" hits. Hbackman 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gaetano Morales

Self promotion, non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) at 08:39 UTC (2006-03-14)

Salad Fingers theories

Alright, to put it simply, this page violates no less than three wikipedia policy, WP:NOT, Wikipedia:No original research and NPOV. This page is also Un-encyclopedic as, with no official "interpretation" from the creator, there is no basis other than a few peoples opinons. I would suggest cleanup, but I honestly doubt that cleanup would fix the problems inherent in this page. As nominator I vote Strong Delete -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy WP:CSD A7. mikka (t) 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poopoobutta

Delete. Vanity/Hoax. A whopping total of 4 google hits, and, get this, they're all from www.myspace.com. EdGl 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate: Beyond the Veil

This nomination really pains me, since I'm an avid Stargate fan. However, this is fancruft.JoshuaZ 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, you really shouldn't delete your own vote from this talk page. If you have had a change of heart you should list it here. As far as objection, read the guidelines linked above (WP:WEB, WP:CRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:VAIN, and WP:VSCA). Thatcher131 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that anyone has anything against you or Stargate, and its a shame that this is your first article. Wikipedia is sort of a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, with guidelines for inclusion that are broader than a paper encyclopedia but narrower than '{the whole internet}'.Thatcher131 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can throw in my two cents, basically what it comes down to is that fan fiction is generally not notable, and we don't want to include it, largely because there's so damn much of it. Seems that half the internet is people making up their own Trek or Jedi or Stargate stories, or, in this case, making an RPG out of it. We could clutter up half of Wikipedia with various forms of fanac, and we really don't want to do that. Fan1967 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Arturo Moreno Ivanova


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 existing article. mikka (t) 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi Temple Bombing

Nominating for deletion.

- Ganeshk (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 'delete all. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide Timeline

Timeline of Armenian Genocide Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Attacks on Armenians Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Forced Deportations Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman State Timeline_of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman Military Timeline_of_Armenian_Genocide_and_Ottoman_State_Related_Activities Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Armenian Resistance force — copyvio. El_C 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have just now deleted Armenian Genocide and Executors as copyvio of the Armenian Youth Federation, Greece. See: tinyurl /luyb9. El_C 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have just now deleted Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Turkish War of Independence as copyvio of the ANI. See tinyurl /pj9c7. El_C 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete The specified pages are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, which can be find everywhere. It is the organization of the dates makes it unique. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. This set of pages are UNIQUE and not copyvios. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs)
A text is copywritable regardless of the format and the way it is presented if it comes from elsewhere it is copyvio. Fad (ix) 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could make for one interesting article. Oh there's already one. Eivind 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also its referencial basis: Ottoman Armenian casualties. El_C 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Certainly there is enough detail here for a very good Timeline of Armenian Genocide. These are rather too detailed, but they may be merged, and we should be careful not to lose the detail contained in the detailed timelines. bikeable (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to merge, everything has been copy-pasted from the Armenian National Institute's website. I might as well have speedied it, perhaps I should have, but I wanted a [single] reference; I wanted complete transperency (for nonadmins, who can't read deleted text). And it isn't like the ANI is likely to sue in the next few days (though I invite admins to speedy it immediately/early), or that they would have sued at all. The fact remains that it is outright plagiarism (that is, the real author/s are not credited — the author of the article is effectively claiming their work as his or her own; unless s/he is the author, in which case, now's the time to say so). El_C 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I missed the "copyvio" link at the end of your nomination, and didn't see the copyvio mentioned anywhere else in my cursory look. In that case, certainly they should be deleted as copyvio, unless ANI releases them under the GFDL. I would be very happy to see a recreated, and merged, Timeline of Armenian Genocide, however. bikeable (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote because I refuse to vote when I somehow feel involved, it is a copyvio, the language is unencyclopedic, we don't need a dozen of chronological articles one is enought and probably should be written, but it should be worked, discussed before being submited. The main article still has issues to work on, a lot of issues, starting to work on multiple chronological pages, ane even one is still much too soon. Also, even if it was to be rewritten according to ANI website, I can source many timelines that somehow disagree with eachothers, a chronological article will require a lot, a lot of work even if it is not apparent at first, it will require to read various chronological tables and select those dates that correspond with eachothers. Fad (ix) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is a copyvio, it should be marked at such. In any case, requiring it to be "discussed before being submited" is hardly fair -- we don't require that of any other articles; we edit them as we go and improve them. It may be a lot of work, but it is most certainly encyclopedic. bikeable (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it is a chronology pages meant to be an expantion of the main article on the subject, I think at least asking those involved in the main page is very welcome when the main page itself is controversial and prone to edit wars... starting a couple of timelines regardless if it is a copyvio is just not an OK thing to do, that they are copyvios make it even worst. Was it a documented encylopedic text prepared by the editor with a lot of sources, merging them would have been the solution, in this cases even when merging there still is the copyvio issue. Fad (ix) 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From author: The specified Armenian timelines are unique contributions of the author. As they are collection of dates and events, and it is the organization of the dates makes it unique to this author. There is no page on the internet that organized these events within these categories. [2] This would make the articles original research (in positive sense). Every article, ideally, should be backed up by verifiable references. If someone changes a number here how could one check validity? Pavel Vozenilek 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Centrist Party

Another non-notable upstart political party. Does not cite any sources besides its own website. —Sesel 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. kingboyk 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter3 Ltd

An unwikified chunk of advertising. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was fix the double redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

"Dean Royston McVeigh (born 9 June 1950) is an insolvency practitioner in Melbourne, Australia". In other words, he is a non-notable figure who has found himself involved in a notable event. That event is being covered at Melbourne University student unions, and Dean McVeigh redirects there. The article was previously nominated and no consensus was reached. Since then it has been the cause of much vitriol and disruption to the project. The page is protected and a redirect. I nominate that it be deleted, as non notable, and replaced with a redirect and that all concerned editors get back to work editing (and fixing their numerous double redirects). kingboyk 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was merged to the student unions article as many editors deemed McVeigh to only be notable in the context of the MUSU liquidation and it allowed the removal of rampant POV. The only people strongly opposed to the merger were the editors who are named litigants in the legal proceedings as they no longer had a platform to criticise McVeigh's conduct. The unfortunate number of redirects and double redirects will be fixed once the reversion by a minority stops. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what this AFD is for as there is no article as such at present with this redirecting to the article that mentions McVeigh. The disruptive editors have abandoned trying to get the McVeigh article back up and are now focussing their attention on the merged article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's an article. It's in the history, one rollback away. If this AFD passes, the article and history can be deleted, and a permanent redirect put into place, protected if need be. If it doesn't pass, well, that's for you folks to decide. I'm just a janitor. --kingboyk 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently protected. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no concensus in the last AFD. I felt the issue should be settled. If there's concensus now (where?) that it will remain a redirect and remain protected then of course this AFD is pointless and can be withdrawn. That's all I'm trying to establish. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue is that the redirect is currently protected which is probably the only reason some editors haven't tried to restore the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% correct, thanks. --kingboyk 06:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. However, when an AfD results in no consensus, it usually is not renominated right away. Instead, there is a discussion of what is to be done or the issue is allowed to rest for a while. Also, if content has been merged to another article, it cannot be deleted, it must remain as a redirect to the article to preserve attribution for the GFDL. The edits of the contributors to the article must be visible in the history to non-admins. -- Kjkolb 11:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep locked as redirect. The information is where it belongs, in relation to the event. This person has no other claim to notability than being heavily involved in the event. By keeping it as a redirect, we solve the problem of recreation, and direct people to the events which is this person's sole claim to fame. -- Saberwyn 10:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The discussion seemed to start out "delete"-heavy and lean towards "keep" in the end. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians appearing on Beavis and Butt-head

Large unencyclopedic list. Doesn't even say what B&B thought of each song - it's just a long long list of which bands B&B happened to see on MTV (I'm assuming you know the show's format here).

Added: List of songs featured in The Simpsons, unencyclopedic list of songs which have appeared on the Simpsons. Delete both kingboyk 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Addition/del both --kingboyk 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Removed Simpsons as the debate is focussing on B&B. --kingboyk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is not that the subject isn't worthy of an article but that there's no context you should take that issue to the article's talk page, not nominate it for deletion. If there's a reparable problem with an article then that's something to work on, not a reason to scrap the whole list. --TM 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, with no response. Therefore, as it fails to meet the rules (WP:NOT), rules which I did not write, it gets nominated for deletion. --kingboyk 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible to understand the scope, style, or reach of a program that has a music break and is aired on Music Television without knowing what artists perform what type of music on the show. Any statement would merely be a generalization and original research, while providing the full list of artists and songs allows a reader to reach his or her own conclusions. Staxringold 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A table is something addable and fixable. I still hold my arguement that B&B probably has the best claim to needing a song list as it is based around music and shown on music television. Staxringold 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the episodes these are from, but surely B&B fans can work at that. I'll try putting a table together when I have enough time (I have to leave pretty soon). Staxringold 11:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft. KI 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I really enjoy this kind of trivia, as do many others, without episode references it is nothing but a random and incomplete list of bands of varying notability. -Dawson 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Dawson, it's rather useless without episode references. Perhaps if combined with an episode guide, I might go for it. It would also make a half-decent category. 23skidoo 06:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • B&B: it's not a bad list, but could just as well be a category (although we'd lose detail). As Staxringold has pointed out, B&B was pretty music-oriented, so I think this has some use -- weak keep. The Simpsons list is even more valuable, particularly the "Parody songs" part -- I mean, I had no idea that ""The Children are our Future" is a parody of an Ike and Tina Turner song, and my life is marginally enriched. Keep. (I don't think combining these two quite different articles into one AfD was super helpful, though.) bikeable (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grandmasterka. I hate B&B. Jcuk 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Radio

Non-notable band that does not meet wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. They are yet to release their first album full length album. (failed {{prod}}) --Martyman-(talk) 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed nomination slightly as I think they may have released an EP already. --Martyman-(talk) 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete

Wilde-World

Seemingly non-notable blog. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Delete. Fightindaman 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Brundage

Not notable, possible hoax. Google search for David Brundage wrestler. CrypticBacon 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Goldkind

Apparent hoax. 0 unique Google hits. Delete DMG413 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Agg

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Engineering Music Society

Non notable student society. Red link farm. Delete kingboyk 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECatalog

This article has no useful content, and doesn't seem to have any potential to grow to the point where it's useful. The title seems to be a neologism that isn't widely used, and few people are likely to look for it under this title. Nothing links to the article. Bcrowell 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Deltabeignet as {{db-attack}} — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurang

This topic is hopelessly non-NPOV. "Samurang" seems to be a neologism coined by the Kumdo school mentioned in the article, and I can find no mention of this theory outside the context of discussion of that school. This article seems to exist solely as an attack on that school and Kumdo in general. AKADriver 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RVBTO

A fan-run event for Red vs Blue. Do we really need an article on this? Drat (Talk) 03:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F41754F3/messiah

Has not actually released any music. Fails WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Delete Reyk 03:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Jesse Cowell

Horrendously one-sided. Seems to exist purely to promote him. Drat (Talk) 03:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EBM Radio

Delete, This page does not in any way meet WP:WEB. The site is only one of several internet radio stations of this kind, and does not stand out as notable, as it is one of several stations, which broadcast from Live365. It also fails to establish any kind of outside recognition or citation of any kind, other then links to its own pages. In addition the article is essentially written in a self-promotional manner, and this gives the impression that it was written for the sole purpose of promoting the site. Avador 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Eng

Not really verifiable, almost everything out there seems to be what he's put up himself in an effort to establish some kind of online presence. At best I can confirm that he has one book, published through what looks like a vanity press, available from amazon.com, with a suspiciously high number of five-star reviews. Claims to be "the youngest published science fiction novelist in America", which is entirely bogus. I don't know who is, but Christopher Paolini is apparently one better candidate. --Michael Snow 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesseca Turner (sic)

Re-listing per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorrie Stewart (et. al.), no vote. — Mar. 9, '06 [03:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 04:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Davies

Nonnotable or nonexistent wrestler.KI 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. bainer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polylogue

Delete: per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither for original research or dictionary definitions. This entry serves to define a newly created word —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Thomas Griffiths Wainewright. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Thomas Griffiths

Originally prod'd for the reason "No claim to notability besides being married to Ann Griffiths". Delete for that reason. --InShaneee 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtugo

Software corporation that was created in 2005. A search on Google finds 44 hits, many of which refer to a defunct dating service that used the name prior to December 2004.[12] No indication that there is an independent source for information on the company. Delete as per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a soapbox unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in the article. --Allen3 talk 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company is real, see website www.virtugo.com. Website details the evolution of the company from a parent Metilinx, see www.metilinx.com. Products being sold to clients using VMWare.
Secondly, the posting is a definition, not a soapbox of opinion. It details the definition of the company and what it does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.115.170 (talk • contribs) 17:38, March 6, 2006 (UTC)
With the only available information on the company coming from the compny's own website, it is not possible to obtain the reliable, published sources required by Wikipedia:Verifiability (the compny's website while useful has an inherent bias that reduces the reliability of the site). With the article having been created by a user named Virtugo (talk · contribs) it also appears to qualify as "self promotion", the second item listed under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 talk 18:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Burton

autobiographical vanity Fightindaman 23:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I consider journalists presumptively notable. Can you develop this nomination further? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think that every editor of every magazine is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. These magazines that he lists do not even have articles on Wikipedia. I think that some demonstration of further contribution is necessary to demonstrate notability. Not to mention, autobiography generally seems to be a sign of a lack of notability. If you have to write an article about yourself, how notable can you be? There's a reason why it's the first thing listed on WP:BAI. Fightindaman 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I agree, he's not a terribly notable journalist, though a strict reading of the guidelines might judge him notable. I appreciate your taking the time to add to your nomination! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hat_Putato

Furthermore, there is http://www.urbandictionary.com for this kind of crap. Leave it off of here. John 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park Mini Mall Strike

Delete. Seems this event is entirely non-notable. The strike consisted of 6 out of 8 workers at a minimart in Seattle. No major breakthroughs in labor relations appear to have occurred as a result of the strike. The article has some unverified info to it to boot. Montco 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Midway Sightings (TM) UFO Phenomenon

Non-encyclopedic nonsense/hoax/advertising page seems related to http://www.themidwaysighting.com --Martyman-(talk) 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the related Ufo city to this nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all moink 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'vyus, In His Own Words (N'vyus album), Rampagge Records, Ronyell

Article was nominated for deletion previous (see discussion but this new version is significantly different than before, thus disqualifying it from a speedy deletion. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC however. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add In His Own Words (N'vyus album), Rampagge Records, Ronyell -- Krash (Talk) 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indefinitely- I believe that the user who established this remove this tag. If this tag is removed you could be blocked. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA. This was added to the old discussion by this user who did not create a new nomination page. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naing naing

Delete vanity page for François L'Homer, he fails Google test San Saba 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What criteria did you match? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad bertha

14 Google hits for both spellings (Jihad bertha and Jihad-Bertha), all seem unrelated. Punkmorten 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Still fairly unknown, but gaining popularity online.

Jihad Bertha is a variation on the Jihad Jeep which has existed and been practiced since the release of Desert Combat (a mod for Battlefield 1942)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TegaDigital

It's some company. It was prodded, deprodded without explanation, then prodded again by someone who presumably didn't check the edit history. So I'm moving it here as contested. NickelShoe 04:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Plíhal

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria Gene Nygaard 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article seems to be a stub, but at near 100,000 google matches on his/her name (and that's on non-english websites) this muso appears notable to me. But I don't read Czech so I'd be interested in more information. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not even really a stub; the entire text is "Karel Plíhal (born 1958) is a hugely celebrated Czech musician." That has been there for five months. If nobody's found anything useful to say about him in that time, it is time to at least question his notability. Gene Nygaard 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jass

Non-notable name made up by a cartoon character. I don't see any reason to have this article. Rory096 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Someone boldly redirected it. This can be closed now.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguaian production companies

Delete. This is a spam page. Prod was on it but removed by author. Accordingly nominating it here as it doesn't qualify for speedy. cmh 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOVE to List of LGBT rights activists. JIP | Talk 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay activists

List with no clear inclusion criteria (are these gay rights activists or activists who happen to be gay?), probably mostly unverifiable, flamebait. Sandstein 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Flowerparty■ 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to commons or delete. Wikipedia not photo album--Shizhao 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starseed launcher

del A 1997 idea of star travel, a smart one, but unfortunately didn't gain notability in last 9 years. The article was set to {{prod}}, but opposed. mikka (t) 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to enthusiasts Sci-fi books have zillions of "not krank" concepts. Anything beyond the author's papers would be original research, unless this concept was discussed elsewhere and you are summarizing it. Basing solely on the original works is still original research. What is more, electrostatic accelerators and putting nanothings in them are not new idea. laynching nanos is K. Eric Drexler's idea and electrolaunchers are 80 year old idea now, if not older. Finally, it doesn't seem to be published in peer-reviewed journals. His website says that it was "printed in May, 1996 'prepress' issue of NanoTechnology, which I read that it was kicked out of the "real" issue of NT. If it is so, one more point towards original research. mikka (t) 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but that's not the point. People are nominating stuff for AfD on grounds that don't stand up to thirty seconds of Google research. If I can falisfy the claimed AfD justification with less than a minute's work... AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags and improving articles. This needs to be added to the article, yes, but to get an article improved you stick a cleanup tag on it. Articles should be deleted if they aren't notable, aren't sourced at all, are truly original research, or are otherwise abusive. Needing cleanup and references are improvements not deletion criteria. Georgewilliamherbert 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did google search before nomination (I am not freshman, you know), and I am still convinced of lack of both notability and originality. I can stuff wikipedia with hundreds of such premature undercooked inventions with flashy names. Man, sci-fi writers have dozen each. But it seems you all like it, so relax. That's votes for deletion are for.mikka (t) 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard of Baator

Stub for a newly-published non-notable book. Article was {{prod}}ded but the author removed the tag without substantially improving the text.  (aeropagitica)  06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. next time be bold. mikka (t) 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Abromovic

Delete: This article is a misspelling of "Marina Abramovic," on whom a detailed article already exists. Dorkas 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as an article lacking any context, and as likely hoax/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humbierto

Prod-ed, deProd-ed, reProd-ed, deleted, re-created, now listed here. This is an unverified fictional character of uncertain context. Delete unless verified. GTBacchus(talk) 07:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 Gonzo

I don't know why this BBC programme was nominated for deletion, but the nominator forgot step 2. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD

Not notable parsing SDK ... aa:talk 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around for mentions of this. I found the article via a random crawl. The only pages internally which link to this are self-referential. Looking through google finds some promotional links, and a large percentage of these are actually linked from one site. It does seem to be a non-notable SDK. My initial vote is to delete, of course. If somebody can come up with something showing that this is more notable, I'm open to it, naturally. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. as nom. ... aa:talk 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Non-notable as it may seem to you, it is a VERY notable parser - possibly the best, most flexible etc. I started this article when I tried to find out more about GOLD and was surprised to find no article about it. Just because people aren't contributing to the article doesn't mean it's non-notable. It is notable. Because it's not commercial it doesn't have a strong marketing arm to make people more aware of it I guess. To those of you who are voting on the AFD, please don't just say "delete" because you haven't heard of GOLD. Donama 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to gather more votes for consensus. JIP | Talk 07:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URL Butchering

Neologism, completely non-notable. Could also be original research, as the would-be citation at the bottom is dubious. Delete. Nikodemos 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept because it's been rewritten to be about a clearly valid idea. Any changes should be discussed on the Talk page. FCYTravis 03:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeper (politics)

Delete Neologism in the sense used; Attack page; the few references used don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (websites); also major issues of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; had been tagged totally disputed and citations needed; RFC had been made to Politics, and Media, art and literature Шизомби 08:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alexa Internet traffic rankings for sites cited: Newtopiamagazine.net: 3,671,022; Questionsquestions.net: 1,428,359; Oilempire.us: 238,267; leftgatekeepers.com: 2,679,074; globalresearch.org: 3,782,712; and an AOL site that can't be rated. There's definitely a question of Wikipedia:reliable sources for all of these. Шизомби 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the Alexa site widely used on Wikipedia to decide which web sites should be used as sources? --NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes. Wikipedia:List of ways to verify notability of articles Шизомби 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people even like to place Alexa ratings in a WP article, see e.g. [17] Although see Wikipedia:Google test#Alexa test which I didn't discover until now. Note, however that the claims there are not cited. - if they are true, they should be. In any case, they still do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) or Wikipedia:reliable sources. Шизомби 07:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, criticism doesn't seem to hold up after a review of the article. Sam Spade 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can confirm the accuracy of the article. The idea does not make sense, either. Why would the "left media" want to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration? That it does not make sense does not necessarily mean that it should be deleted, however. -- Kjkolb 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral. I am still skeptical because of the lack of mainstream sources (whether it is true or not is irrelevant to my decision, but I appreciate the great effort to answer questions), but I think the contributors deserve more time to fix up the article. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few people graduate from a communications program without learning this concept. Try not to focus on the anecdotal example currently at the core of the article, but on the long recognized concept. Maybe it doesn't make sense to some people that others would accuse the left of policing their ranks with gatekeepers, but the article should not be about an anectode -- it should be about the concept. Every communications system has some kind of gatekeeper. This AfD process is a gatekeeper for Wikipedia. Here's a reliable source on the social science of gatekeeping: [18]WhoSaid? 21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You might want to take a second look at the article. The premise of the term "gatekeeper" is that powerful foundations are spending serious money to buy off influential "left media" in order to suppress scandalous information about the Bush administration (among other things), which makes plenty of sense. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the article suffers from all the points I mentioned above, and probably more besides, HK is right about his statement above (i.e. it explains why some of the left media allegedly suppresses scandals:it's been bought off by the right). I don't know if this makes "plenty of sense," but it doesn't seem totally impossible, except that if it were true you'd expect the left media that hadn't been bought off to go over it, and seemingly it hasn't, only a handful of fringe websites. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think I came to the wrong conclusion because each is the article is verbose and the true idea (I don't like to call it a theory, as people confuse everyday "theories" with scientific theories) is nearly as improbable as the other. As Шизомби mentioned, some of the left media would not have gone along with it, especially those outlets that are controlled by an independent owner or a wealthy person who operates at a loss to spread his or her agenda. Also, we should be hearing from mainstream journalists that their stories have been suppressed by editors or owners, as journalists tend to be highly principled and often quit rather than violate those principles. The idea depends on the gatekeepers having an extreme amount of control over what is published and broadcast, and the silence of journalists, newscasters and editors, who the article characterizes as "left" (an assumption that the article gives no evidence for). Chip Berlet is given as an example of a gatekeeper, but he does not have the power to suppress media stories, even for the organizations he has worked for because he is simply a writer. Noam Chomsky does not either and he is actually known for his criticism of the U.S. government, according to his Wikipedia article. Norman Solomon is also a writer and his affiliation with a watchdog group and the institute he founded do not give him the power to suppress news. Writers can write stories that are supportive of the government or against its detractors, but that does not stop other writers from writing stories critical of the government. Also, gatekeeping writers' work is subject to change or suppression by the alleged "left" editors and owners. A gatekeeper would have to be in a position of great power within an organization and could not control multiple organizations without having someone powerful in on it at each one or using memorandums about which stories are inappropriate, which could be easily leaked. Even if a person is in a position to suppress articles, in a large organization almost any individual can be bypassed by going to someone in an equivalent position or at a higher one. -- Kjkolb 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article appears to be well substantiated: Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich. But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS as an example. This is from [19]. It is argued that his job is to spread propaganda. For anyone interested doing research on this subject, there is plenty of verifiable, credible information that seems to support this hypothesis. SkeenaR 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a closer look at the article should answer your questions. "Gatekeeper" is not synonymous with "censor;" the version of the article that presently appears defines a gatekeeper as one who acts "to manage, constrain and co-opt the movement," or to "ostracize particular voices." I suppose that this could be done by "suppressing media stories," as you suggest, but it might also take the form of organizing campaigns of defamation against other, more uncooperative journalists. I also find your assertion that "journalists tend to be highly principled" to be a rather broad statement; consider, for example, the case of Judith Miller, merely the first one that comes to mind (in fact, she might be an appropriate example of a gatekeeper.) --HK 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as attack. --Terence Ong 14:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The concept is presented in a neutral way, not as advocacy. The debate over the concept is also of some consequence for Wikipedia. --HK 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you mean you or those sites will attack WP as a gatekeeper, or me? I hope that isn't what that means (WP has plenty of scandalous stuff about Bush, anyway). The Gatekeepers article is simply not neutral from the first part of the first sentence: "In political parlance, a gatekeeper or left gatekeeper" - right there: "political parlance"? Broad use by politicians or political scientists? 'Fraid not. One of the other problems I failed to mention was the lengthy list of alleged gatekeepers. I don't know if there's a specific policy on allegations on WP (there's no lists of alleged homosexuals or people alleged by David Icke to be reptilian humanoids for example, though some pages do mention allegations), but List of people described as neoconservatives got deleted (see AfD) for similar reasons. The Gatekeepers article simply uncritically reproduces a list of allegations from a nn site WP is not a mirror (in its original conception it collated allegations from several nn sites). The article's primary author (WP:OWN) invited criticism to be added, but this theory seems to be so nn that apparently none of the major right, center, or left media has commented on it in the US or abroad. Шизомби 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, poorly sourced, appears to be intended as an attack piece on Chip Berlet. -Will Beback 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). -Will Beback 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I hesitate to vote "delete" on this article as it seems to be a term that is used by some conspiracy theorists and possibly others. I want to note, however, that this article is in no way "unbiased" or neutral point of view as some editors insist. For instance, use of terms like "Establishment" and "left media" (repeatedly), characterizing media coverage of 9/11 war games, and and implying that there are no critics or skeptics employed by the "left media" place this article squarely in the realm of POV. Of course, POV alone is not a sufficient reason to vote delete. I do not see the article as a whole as an attack on Berlet, as only one paragraph mentions him by name. My main concern with this article, however, is that it does not conform to WP:Verifiability. - Jersyko·talk 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Keep the article as rewritten by FCYTravis and move to Gatekeeper (journalism). - Jersyko·talk 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The original creator of the article HK (who did not identify himself as such above) appears to have a history on WP with Chip Berlet (also a WP user) and thus apparently a vested interest (as WP defines it) in pages that attack Berlet. I don't know much about either one of them or their history, but this much deserves to be noted. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep poorly sourced and not conforming to NPOV, but enough meaningful content to be cleaned up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If anyone can add notable, reliable, verifiable sources and make the article NPOV before the AfD is through I may change my vote. However, I don't believe that this is possible, and will not change it on the (I think remote) possibility of this being done in the future. Шизомби 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is well sourced with links outside of wikipedia to its use. There is no legitimate reason for deletion. It seems to be similiar to the producerism and conspiracism page with the exception that such said terms were quite dubious. --Northmeister 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I don't think foundation-subsidized folks should be able to censor material on the wikipedia website that reflects grassroots anti-war left awareness of the special influence that foundations play in U.S. left political and media life. Political Research Associates has published a journal, Public Eye, in recent years. In 1999, the Public Welfare Foundation gave a $50,000 grant to PRA, the San Francisco Foundation gave $120,000 to PRA, the Tides Foundation gave $57,550 to PRA, the Cummings Foundation gave $55,000 to PRA, the List Foundation gave $25,000 to PRA and the Ms. Foundation for Women (which was given over $1.2 million in grants from the Ford Foundation between 2000 and 2002) gave $150,000 to PRA. In 2002, the Ford Foundation gave $176,663 in grant money directly to the PRA. These are facts. And it is also a fact that a Political Research Associates writer acted as a leading conspiracy researcher-baiter within the alternative media subculture after 9/11/01 and attempted to stifle left subculture discussion of 9/11 conspiracy evidence, as well as discussion of the role that the Ford Foundation plays in U.S. political left life today. Wikipedia's credibility as an alternative independent information source for internet readers will suffer if it capitulates to the pressure of foundation-subsidized folks and deletes an article, like this gatekeeper one,--that apparently contains information that the foundations and their stable of journalists/gatekeepers do not wish to see shared with Wikipedia readers.(bf)

Comment--Your argument is sophistry. Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites?

If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. Perhaps it's more appropriate for such folks to act as gatekeepers for more middle-class academic-biased/establishment-oriented encyclopedias, like the World Book or the Encyclopedia Britannica?--bf

  • Comment It would help if you indented your response underneath the post you are responding to with either an asterisk or a colon (or more than one as necessary). It would be nice if you signed with four tildes ~~~~ too. Anyway, I'm not sure I entirely follow you. (1) Are any foundation-sponsored editors/writers presently helping to determine what "violates WP policy"? I don't know. Going through the history for each article and corresponding talk page for each policy page would take an awfully long time, and I don't know that there'd be any way to prove which editors were "foundation-sponsored" or not, since in most cases there wouldn't be any way to prove who any of the editors' identities are. (2) Have the majority of WP readers ever been allowed to determine WP policy with regard to which articles to censor? Do you mean have the majority of WP readers been allowed to edit the policy pages? As far as I know everyone can edit those pages, but AFAIK most don't chose to make edits to those pages. Or do you mean are the majority of WP readers involved in the AfD process? I would guess most aren't, that most WP users simply read articles, followed by creating new articles or editing articles. I think it's probably a smaller percentage that bother with AfD, which seems to be a necessary process unless you really want every article posted on WP to stay (e.g. Dogballs). (3) Are the WP gatekeepers willing to also start deleting all the articles that are little more than repostings of corporate-sponsored, historically inaccurate and politically-biased corporate websites? Who are WP gatekeepers, all the people involved in the AfD process? Also, it would help if you identified what sort of articles you had in mind. It seems to me editors do try to address issues of "corporate-sponsor[ship]" "historically inaccura[cy]" and "political[]-bias[]" in articles, but whether they can keep up with such problems, or address them as well as is necessary are open questions. (4) If foundation-sponsored gatekeepers have conflict-of-interest issues which lead them to censor wikipedia articles that are critical of their foundation-sponsors, then they are not really capable of editing the wikipedia website in an ethical way, from an alternative journalistic point of view. I'm not sure if you're referring to prior editing of this article (and the AfD), and/or editing of articles about foundations. Certainly, I would agree that if somebody is taking money from e.g. the Ford Foundation, and they make edits to that article, then they potentially have a conflict of interest and an ethical problem. There might be some ethical people who could work past those problems, but for the most part it would be unwise. My "sponsor" at present moment could be said to be my late grandmother (thanks Oma), and I'm afraid she would not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Deceased people so there's never been and probably never will be an article on her here. With regard to pages for foundations and media, I'd advise you to do what I indicated at the bottom of the Gatekeepers talk page, what HK agreed with; I'd support such edits and help revert edits removing such information if I came across it. I see no sophistry in that. Шизомби 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is real and verifiable. POV is solved by NPOVing, not deleting the article. Liking or not liking the term is irrelevant. I dont get why the validity of the term is disscussed here, for all i know it could be a figment of imagination, it does not matter. What mater is that it is real and verifiable term, much like the term "gods", although much less notable. --Striver 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Atfyfe 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Easily meets Wikipedia standards. SkeenaR 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has historic merit regarding the evolution of left media and its relationship to political events. The sources are reputable and the gatekeeping is real and documented. I urge anyone questioning this topic to read the source articles for themselves. Bov 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Quite notable topic, especially given the increasing encroachment upon the Wiki itself by deletionists with vested interests. Ombudsman 15:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first reference given is very dubious - there is no indication who it is supposed to be, or what its aims, and indeed its funding are. The article itself clearly is an effort to deal with actual content, some of which is of some significance, but I am very doubtful that it is a useful description or a process or body that should be considered separately from corruption bribery politics spin-doctoring lying propaganda sabotage public relations etc. The thesis is not made out in the material presented, and while an article about suborning political opponents in the media might be written, I don't see this as it, nor the title as a good one. There isn't a fence for this gate to be kept in. I see the WP article as an adjunct to the .com site, although this is purely supposition - regardless, I think this is presenting something as distinct which is really just a routine conspiracy. Midgley 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Keep--NathanDW 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the user User:Northmeister deleted my above comment where I linked the creator of the article asking people to vote on this afd. This isn't acceptable on Wikipedia afds.....He just did it again. [20]--Jersey Devil 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any comments added should pertain to the article, its substance, and whether or not it should be kept etc. No personal attacks or surveillance techniques to dishonor another editor. Jersey Devil has done this twice, please refrain from personal harassment. Thank You. --Northmeister 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Jersey Devil comments above are inappropriate for a page discussing the relevancy of an article. It is dishonorable to conduct surveillance of others with the intent to harass. I ask that he remove his comments to establish his credibility and restore his honor. --Northmeister 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmm, you didn't delete the baseless attack on the recommend delete people that we're all "foundation-subsidized", you only deleted the fact-based "attack" on the recommend keep people. That's a bit one-sided. (What is policy on what Jersey Devil did, is there one?) Is mediation possible on AfDs? Шизомби 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not sure what your talking about. Any personal attacks are un-called for and should be removed by those who make them or by other editors. We are interested in whether this article meets the standards of wikipedia pure and simple. Surveillance of others with the intention to discredit those individuals is not only bad manners, it is in violation of wikipedia harassment standards. Conduct a civil discourse without name-calling or harassment is all I ask. Is this article, well cited? Is this article relevant? Does this term get use outside of wikipedia? Etc. are what is under discussion. Not whether any one editor tries to inform people that a vote is taking place and then calling it VOTE STACKING, that is harassment and a personal attack and I removed it as such. --Northmeister 05:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The attacks I referred to that Northmeister above said were not understood were (bf)'s comments above (User:Bob jan AKA User:209.213.73.30). I apologize for my long response to bf, whom I let annoy me. And Northmeister, I wish you would explain why you feel the article is "well sourced" when the handful of sites used as sources don't meet WP criteria by a long shot - see my original post in the AfD and the comment below about the Alexa ratings. Шизомби 05:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "attack" wasn't a personal one if it was merely pointing out likely or potential vote-stacking. If there is evidence that a certain group of people is vote-stacking in similar Afds, it's actually more relevant to this discussion, not less. Asking someone to vote in an Afd is, as far as I know, not against Wikipedia policy, even if you know how they will vote beforehand. It is, however, a relevant consideration for a sysop that is attempting to determine consensus in an Afd vote, consensus being a muddy concept (as it should be, imo). Please remember to assume good faith and interact civilly- Jersyko·talk 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good points and I understand what your writing. But, how am I to assume good faith with someone who writes 'vote stacking'? That person is not assuming good faith himself. --Northmeister 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment' The good faith/civility comment was meant to be a reminder for everyone here. Regarding whether the information about potential vote stacking violates WP:AGF, well, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I.e., if there is evidence of potential vote stacking, an editor can and should point out the evidence. Here, there is at least some evidence of vote stacking (though the nature and weight of the evidence will be for the sysop who goes through this Afd to determine), thus it was appropriate, in my judgment, for Jersey to point to the evidence despite AGF. I hope this makes sense, forgive me for being somewhat long-winded. Cheers. - Jersyko·talk 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posting the vote stacking links concerns this article and getting into a revert war to try and hide it is a serious offense. You aren't suppose to delete other people's comments on an afd. I have also deleted the part of my comment which could be interpreted as a personal attack already. Needless to say, if you see the user's talk page and the bottom of his user page he has been accused of being a POV Larouchite editor in the past. He also just broke the three revert rule. I have already informed an administrator about it.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have broken the three revert rule actually well before your above post. Second, to revert personal attacks is not in violation of that rule. Third, I ask that you refrain from your continued personal attacks on myself and other users. Fourth, I ask that you remove your words 'vote stacking' as a personal attack on the creator of this article. Fifth, I ask that you make an official apology to that said user for your harassment and surveillance of his postings. Sixth, I ask a personal apology to myself. See above for reasons to edit out your personal attacks and harassment. Harassing another editor is in violation of Wikipedia Harassment and I ask you stop. --Northmeister 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) -Now you are attacking me by calling me a POV LaRouchite? Who are the others? The names of the accusers are as revealing as the McCarthy like accusations that were made and the individuals who continue to reveal their true motivations for disrupting this vote in violation of wiki-standards. --Northmeister 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Hopelessly POV. It assumes that the media in the United States is left-wing, which laughable statement seems to actually be believed in some quarters, but should still not be reported as "fact".
b) It's a LaRouchite fantasy. Actually, let's scratch out "fantasy": when we're dealing with LaRouche, one doesn't need to specify the disconnection with reality, since it's basically inherent.
c) Undue weight. The term is not used in political parlance; it's used by a handful of lunatics and conspiracy theorists when writing lunacy on conspiracy theories.
d) It's a LaRouchite hit list. I suspect, as a general policy issue, we should profit most mightily from refusing to host LaRouchite hit lists.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a forum for conspiracy nuts and Lyndon LaRouche fanboys to piss all over the sum of human knowledge. Whatever happened to that ArbCom ruling that this sort of crap had to die, anyway? Has it expired? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have figured out why we liberals never win any elections. It's because we have a group of people who expend enormous effort and energy trying to prove that other leftists aren't ideologically pure enough or far-left enough. Bill Moyers and The Nation are part of a grand CIA conspiracy and George Soros' Trilateral Commission funding turns Pacifica into dupes? Holy. Fucking. Shit. Delete this tripe. FCYTravis 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Attack page. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confused nonsense. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cursing, as seen above in this discussion, is not argument. Attacks and counterattacks directed at political factions are not arguments relevant to the article under consideration. The term is widely used in political analysis by analysts at several stations along the political spectrum. Its history dates back at least 50 years, as documented by legitimate academic source. The article is badly slanted against perceived left gatekeepers, but that can be fixed. The pervasiveness of the term in political anaylysis is reflected by the choice of the National Communications Association to name their Mass Communication Division Newsletter "The Gatekeeper". Try looking at some legitemite etymology before typing a tirade against a poorly written article. The word has a long, documented history, available even from easily found reputable on-line sources such as the University of Twente. According to this, it might better be subtitled (communication) rather than (politics). WhoSaid? 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legitimate topic. 205.177.246.156 01:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Riding

Original research, POV, no sources. Remy B 08:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books that have been considered the worst ever

Delete I'm a little dubious about this one, but I think it's (a) completely unverifiable (b) always going to be POV and (c) uncyclopedic. There don't seem to be any 'prominent' sources on this one - we're just going to end up with a list of every book some people in the media/whatever didn't like. And, of course, right now it's unsourced - at the very least, the books should be removed until they have some sources (but I decided to AfD instead, and we'll see if anyone has a viable idea). Fuzzie (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete grossly uncyclopedic joshbuddytalk 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is an online list by a reliable magazine, or something else along the lines of the "worst movies" in imdb that is based on the opinion of a lot of users, I think this couldn't not be POV. Clq 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands there's nothing I'd keep in this article; some verifiable sources might make a difference. — Stumps 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's inherently POV -- I agree with Шизомби that a well-annotated list with cites of who thinks book X is worst ever and why (as per the films/games lists) would be fine -- I just don't see any evidence that anyone's going to put the work in to make it into that. (NB I would consider changing this vote if someone stepped forward.) --Bth 08:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nabble

Delete. Article seems like an ad; I thought about removing the strong POV / hype content, but it basically would leave nothing. Stumps 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Appleyard

Prod-ed, deProd-ed, reProd-ed, etc. I'm bringing it here because it clearly isn't an uncontested deletion. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 08:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian support resources (Singapore)

An unencyclopedic, redlink infested list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a one stop shop for support. Article created on 30 November 2005 and has not had a single major edit since then. kingboyk 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ncaabbs

Non notable web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe non-noteable if you hate college sports or live outside the United States .... what an ignorant remark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.207.153 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 March 2006.
  • SPEEDY obviously violates WP:WEB and/or is clearly NN. Speedy tag removed by inclusionists. :) Crzrussian 12:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MemphisTigers.org is a part of NCAAbbs.... and it meets the criteria of WP:WEB as mentioned below. If you're using Alexa to justify site rank and use, please bah like a sheep because you are one. As webmaster at NCAAbbs, I could throw up an Alexa button on every page and inflate our rank in Alexa greatly. Shame on you for trusting Alexa for anything beyond the top few hundred. It's really this simple... MemphisTigers.org... which is a part of NCAAbbs that has been given the name "memphistigers.org" due to its high activity... MEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTH HERE. If you're going to delete the page then do it, but while you're at it be fair and delete that policy since it's clearly not used as specified... and don't forget to delete a few hundred (thousand?) other wikipedia pages for similar communities. --georgia_tech_swagger
  • I happen to disagree. NCAAbbs IS a notable forum. However it would be for someone not in the U.S. Over 13,000 fans..recently received an offer for xxx,xxx. The Memphis and UAB forums are recognized in the Memphis and Birmingham newspapers, and the UAB fans were even seen on ESPN(largest sports cable network in the U.S.) holding a sign that had NCAAbbs.com on it. Please specify more of what you want, and I am sure we can provide. The "speedy" tag said to be removed? --Techfan - <*> 07:38, 9 March 2006 (EST)\
Comment huh? (no, really, I didn't understand...) I am in the U.S. Crzrussian 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Why do articles about web forums insist on listing their users' nicknames? Do they really believe anyone cares about them? JIP | Talk 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertisement and WP:WEB are not means for speedy deletion.WP:CSD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.52.4 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2006.
  • I think it should stay. It meets the inclusion criteria as it has been in newspapers as well as syndicated radio talk shows frequently. If one thinks this should be removed, then by all means remove all similar Wikipedia articles such as the page for Something Awful, the page for LinuxQuestions.org, etc. I really could go on for hours listing similar long-standing Wikipedia pages of the exact same merit that relate to the exact same community type. WP:WEB gives a list of criteria... and if it meets ANY ONE it's deemed noteable. Well, here's an award NCAAbbs from an independent newspaper. That meets the WP criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.207.153 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 March 2006.
    • Comment I was unable to find NCAAbbs.com in the very long list of winners, are you sure this is the right address. Eivind 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I believe User:68.119.207.153 was referring to the third-place award won by MemphisTigers.org, but the relationship between NCAAbbs.com and MemphisTigers.org is unclear to me. --Metropolitan90 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment MemphisTigers.org falls under the umbrella of NCAAbbs.com. It is run on the same server, but because of the popularity of this particular portion of NCAAbbs.com it has it's own domain name.
  • Keep it. Many other non-profit organizations have entries. NCAAbbs adds flavor and encourages people to participate in many online communities such as Wikipedia itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 March 2006.
  • Keep it. Not-for-Profit venture that allows sports fans to express opinions and show school spirit. Has shown up on ESPN, Birmingham News, Atlanta JC, WMC-Memphis, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.216.69.78 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2006.
  • Keep it. It is a valuable site for trading sports and non-sports information. MySpace has a Wikipedia listing and is not marked for deletion. I feel that NCAABBS has similar-type content for the 20-45 year old sports enthusiast. The site has also been mentioned in numerous sports radio broadcasts. I thought that Wikipedia was a place to share information and not a popularity contest. Removing this entry while keeping entries of "popular" sites would be a disservice to those who use Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.162.100 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 March 2006.
  • Keep it. I particularly object to the reference to WP:VSCA, as it qualifies for none of those classifications. Many of the ideas posed on the site are discussed in the media and by NCAA Coaches and Athletic Directors. NCAA players and families frequently contribute as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Works2late (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 March 2006.
  • delete per nom Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • DELETE as per all the above. this is not a notable bbs. 150.108.61.240 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! NCAAbbs, and all of it's sites, are 100% non-profit non-commercial. They have been mentioned in the news, radio, and even tv. It meets the criteria set by this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.171.241 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 March 2006.
  • KEEP IT What makes a site "notable" 150.108.61.240? You using it? Many of the above respondents have listed multiple media inclusions including newspaper, television and radio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.162.100 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2006.

If you delete NCAABBS how can you justify keeping something like the Dem Underground in respect to Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1]??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rickheel (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 March 2006.

  • "MemphisTigers.org is a part of NCAAbbs" or "MemphisTigers.org == NCAAbbs", which is it? In any case, you failed to note that the "award" criteria reads: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award". Deizio 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is some independent verifiability, I think that having one of the component sites selected as third best Memphis related sites is quite enough to meet the bar. I would reconsider if the site had even minor influence on college sports or if more verifiable material was found. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deizio - I'm not sure what kind of problem you have with NCAAbbs, but to say that MemphisTigers.org, BlazerTalk.com, and NCAAbbs.com have not had an impact on the college sports world, especially in Memphis and Birmingham, then you do not need to be judging it. The point on UAB fans is that they were not only seen, but mentioned and also on the UAB radio station. Was your cousin mentioned? --Techfan
  • I have made no comment about the "impact" of anything, the only problem I have is that this topic does not meet any part of WP:WEB or any other notability criteria and is invalid for inclusion in this particular encyclopedia. The appearance of people holding signs in crowds or unsolicited mentions on radio shows is not noteworthy. If you are going to argue that your site has received sufficient "media coverage" to make it noteworthy you should be thinking about verifiable and in-depth coverage in major national newspapers, nationally syndicated radio and / or popular national publications such as Time Magazine. I'm unfamiliar with "the UAB radio station", can you clarify what it's sphere of influence might be? By all means keep up the banter here but without an understanding of what makes a topic suitable for inclusion on WP, and the procedure by which pages get deleted, you aren't getting anywhere. If I do have a slight problem with anything it's the unsightly deluge of unsigned opinions from newcomers which are endemic to AfD debates on web forums. The encouragement of forum participants who have not previously edited on Wikipedia to make submissions here has the opposite of the desired effect - there is no surer way to ensure your site sticks in the minds of many WP editors for all the wrong reasons. Please check the links for new editors I've placed on your user talk page. Deizio 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to you saying "Did you mean '...not quite enough...'?" in reference to the influence on college sports and communities of fans. Think of it this way: Musicianforums is ONE OF MANY homes for musicians. NCAAbbs is THE home for fans of Memphis, UAB, Cinncinnati, NIU, etc. Now why is Musicianforums fine, and NCAAbbs not? I think that there are many problems other than our page to be worried about. The result of many "unsigned" users are here because they saw the big notice on the NCAAbbs page when viewing the page. It HAS made an impact. It HAS been mentioned in newspapers, radio, and TV. What do you want more of? What will get it "passed through"? If you could be more specific, I am sure we can provide what you want. Techfan 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...not quite enough..." related to the point "I think that having one of the component sites selected as third best Memphis related sites is quite enough to meet the bar" by Capitalistroadster, as I believe he may have accidentally omitted the word "not". To answer your other points, each AfD is judged on its own merits and one should resist the equation: "If topic A is ok, why not topic B?" Let WP:AFD and WP:WEB be your guides in this matter. I'll be happy to answer further questions on my talk page. Deizio 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but you still have not answered my questions. What do you want more of? What will get it "passed through"? However, I think that it would be unfair to delete the NCAAbbs page, but let another that serves its purpose just as we do, but I would argue that NCAAbbs has made a bigger impact. Ediquette or not, I think you SHOULD compare situations to what others have considered o.k., rather than your own assumptions. Also..it DOES meet WP:WEB, even if you do not consider the Memphis award enough. See "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Techfan 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techfan

  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is: the users would like to see this on here, and questions have NOT been answered or responded to. If you are going to say "delete", then answer our questions as to what more we would need on our page, because I am sure we can provide. NCAAbbs has never had an advertisement, only word of mouth, and since 2002 we have grown to 13,000+ users and have MADE AN IMPACT on the college sports world. The users that have posted here are not new to Wikipedia, they just do not contribute or monitor pages. We don't expect to get 1,000 new users from this, but we do want it to serve as a page for newcomers and others interested in the history of NCAAbbs. Our page is fine on the terms of WP:WEB. See related links for reference. Techfan 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blachi

Seems a neologism. The only relevant hit by google comes from the urban dictionary [28] and was recently added. -- Koffieyahoo 09:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term Blachi is more of a slang, and it has some meaning to it. For educational purposes it is rather interesting and the research can be verified on other skin related websites.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, most of these have already been merged. W.marsh 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John MacBain

This article apprears to be complete WP:VSCA. the related articles John macbain, John McBain, Didier Breton, Trader.com, Trader Classified Media, and the changes to the disambig pages which are all of the changes ever made by user 81.80.159.196 should all also be deleted/reverted. Jabencarsey 17:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge biographies in organization's page. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against band

Band with a Myspace page. Prod tagged, tag removed, then tagged for speedy - probably valid, but the author clearly wishes to ocntest deletion, so bringing it here to give him the chance. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno communism

Someone's utopian musings. Was tagged for proposed deletion by User:Hynca-Hooley

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quandrum

Yet another unsourced vanity protologism. Contested PROD. Sandstein 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I am from Australia myself, and I have heard of Dr. Wang and studied the controversy surrounding her particular theologies (not the simplistic movement though). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reality 22 (talk • contribs) .

Keep and expand. Interesting article. I have heard this term used before, but not in relation to the movement. Perhaps a new term which has recently come to light in Australia? The previous comment is the first edit of new contributor Wherehow (talk | contribs).

  • Comment The only edits of the keep voters are on the Quandrum page and this Afd. Having that said, I abstain because I don't have any info on the use of English words. Fetofs Hello! 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A neologism, as the article itself admits, that I suspect is a portmanteau of "quandary" and "condundrum". I cannot match the reference given at the end of the article to a published title, so verifiability is also an issue (an ISBN would clear this up). Sliggy 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Maximum Rocknroll (album) — Rebelguys2 talk 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E is for Everything

This is an unverified, rumored EP by NOFX, not acknowledged by any official website (i.e. it is not listed at the official discography at nofxofficialwebsite.com), there exists no cover artwork, and no mention of it can be found except on unreliable fansites or fan-controlled sites. There Dylan 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drinkin', Stinkin', Never Thinkin'

This is an unverified, rumored EP by NOFX, not acknowledged by any official website (i.e. it is not listed at the official discography at nofxofficialwebsite.com), there exists no cover artwork, and no mention of it can be found except on unreliable fansites or fan-controlled sites. Dylan 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep/merge. W.marsh 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dell_UltraSharp_2405FPW

I don't mind a page per SERIES of hardware produced by Dell, but a page for every product ever made by Dell seems a bit excessive, and even non sensical. I also think it verges on advertizing for Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timharwoodx (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was keep/merge. W.marsh 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dell_UltraSharp_3007WFP

I don't mind a page per SERIES of hardware produced by Dell, but a page for every product ever made by Dell seems a bit excessive, and even non sensical. I also think it verges on advertizing for Dell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timharwoodx (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Common Rooms

Disputed Prod. As a contested deletion it should come here. Please see the talk page (Talk:List of Junior Common Rooms) for the removing editors resons for doing so. The Prod was {{prod|Wikipedia is not a collection of external links}} Blue520 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkey Bar

Closer's notes

  • The comments of User:84.68.243.197 were discounted, the comment was that user's only edit.
  • The comments of User:Icehardkiller were not discounted, as the author of the page, Icehardkiller is entitled to contribute to the deletion debate.
  • As fuddlemark said, all deletion nominations should be formed properly. Users are welcome to correct malformed nominations, or nominate the article for deletion themselves.

Non notable. If every pub in england were named wikipedia would never load it'd be so large. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (P.S. As Nominator he votes delete automatically-- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Uhh, that's not a nomination. It's a vote. And because AfD is not a vote, a nomination would have been much better. Deary me! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. Oh, and when there's a proper nomination, I'll enter a proper response. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes pubs achieve notability in their own right. I'm not sure this one has. In the last 5 years I only found one mention in Lexis/Nexis European sources, a recent (4 Mar 06) article on the rennovation of Pilgrm Street. FWIW, the explanation of the name Monkey Bar given in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle is different than the one given by the author here. Thatcher131 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable pub. Postdlf 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no apparent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These sorts of significant local landmarks are generally kept. I think the article has fine potential. -- JJay 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No longer abstining, see delete vote below I just made it a proper nomination per Gallagher, so everybody is happy -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Headdesk. Lookit, AfDs are traditionally kicked off by someone nominating it, explaining why he's nominated it, why the article needs to do, etc. References to deletion policy, page history, What links here, and, of course, Google are common, all making up the rich tapestry that is an argument for the deletion of one of our precious articles. This is a Good Thing; if nothing else, it means that if an article's deleted then someone can look at AfD and understand why (none of this idiotic "nn d" crap). Pointing out that the nominator automatically votes delete is not merely nonsense, but evidence of a terrifying misunderstanding of what *fD is about here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retort the nominator makes a perfectly valid point, I assumed you were giving him a hard time about process. He states, "Non notable." Thats all the reason, if the pub actually is NN, that he should need to give. I think that, while my understanding of AfD may be flawed, your understanding of WP:Notability is equally so. Just because he didn't google the bloody thing, or dig around LexisNexis (as two of the voters have done), it doesn't make his deletion listing any less valid. I still refrain from voting as I have no opinion on this article.
        • I disagree. Out of simple respect for the editors who have worked hard in good faith on the material in question, a nom needs to do more than type two letters. Even you modify your statement by saying: "if the pub actually is"...How do we know anything about what the pub "actually is" or the reasons why it does not deserve a place here if the nom is too intellectually lazy to address the question? If that's the best noms can do, they should do something else with their time. -- JJay 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm on record as saying "fuck process". The nominator damn well should do a good job of explaining why he thinks an article must be deleted; if he cannot be bothered, then he should not be listing articles for deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a bar --MaNeMeBasat 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we can keep articles on stupid cartoon characters that don't even exist.... Jcuk 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Monkey Bar (Market Lane) is one of the few pubs in Newcastle that hasnt been modernised, had its name changed etc... it has more history than I, personally, know of and can be expanded by others... for example Thatcher131 has another historical version of how the pub got its nickname... it seems slightly ironic that it is mentioned in the argument for deletion... whatever... Icehardkiller 12:11, 14 March 2006
    • Note all of IcehardKiller's Edits are to this page and the article in question. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - yes I (Icehardkiller) wrote the article being discussed. Is the above Note implying that I am not entitled to argue for the article's permanent inclusion? Apologies if I am grasping the wrong end of the stick... and, yes again, all of my Edits are to do with The Monkey Bar article - but whats wrong with that? Finally in response to the original complaint, all the pubs in England are not listed in Wikipedia - but some are, see 'Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom' - if Swatjester's argument was applied to every entry, Wikipedia would be, for the large part, empty. Icehardkiller 20:25, 14 March 2006
      • Note: You most certainly do have a right to vote Icehard, but I am simply of the opinion that the closing admin should know that, similar to 84.68.243.197, you may not have a complete grasp of how WP works -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response - no I dont have a complete grasp of how WP works, though what bearing this has on whether the article should be kept or deleted I fail to see - the ony thing I've done is put up (and am subsequently trying to defend) a bit of information about one of the oldest pubs in Newcastle - I am still learning about syntax and how to sign and timestamp edits etc Icehardkiller 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find that what's really important or relevant for an entry isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration, fact or even what it is we do/want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship. Others can interpret craftsmanship as style if they wish. Style and importance is what unites memory or recollection, ideology, sentiment, nostalgia, presentiment, to the way we express all that. It's not what we say but how we say it that matters and how that affects those that read and understand our art. In the end, who are we to judge what anyone else finds relevant unless we have been in their shoes! (previous unsigned comment by User:194.72.35.70 -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sorry, that last comment was from me, bit new to this WP malarky Metalmania 194.72.35.70 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or at least I assume thats what the dude who used the talkpage was voting due to his comment) I agree with the previous view. Who are we to say what's worthy and what's not. If the pub means a lot to enough people, keep it here. Those who say "just a pub" don't know what they're talking about. (Unsigned on the talk page, by 84.68.243.197 (IP's only edit)) (All things in parentheses by, and added by -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete in lieu of the last set of votes, and due to the fact that, however interesting they may be, historical places are not inherently notable. If we had an article for every building not "having had its name changed," which appears to this pubs saving grace according to keep votes, then we'd have tons of articles about every trivial building in most every major eurpean city and a few American ones. It only yields 11 results when searching for "The Monkey Bar Market Lane" and when searching Monkey Bar newcastle, the first page is entirely composed of the pub's page, a few pub-centric travel guides, and the wikipedia page. This bar is not notable, thus I reiterate, Delete per nom. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Demo

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

The result of the debate was other! as Cool3 points out, it would be a bit improper to delete the albums if the band itself is still included. Especially as the nomination for the band has been withdrawn, this AfD is a bit too irregular to be used as any kind of measure of consensus. If re-nominated, the band should be included in that nomination, or it should be stated from the start that the AfD is only about the albums/singles. W.marsh 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City (single), Gotham City (band), Black Writs, 1983 Demo, Live in Umeå 1985

Single song by band whose article admits they are little-known. Unless there is a lot to say about this, it would probably be better as part of Gotham City (band) article. Fourohfour 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Gotham City (band), Black Writs, 1983 Demo, Live in Umeå 1985 -- Krash (Talk) 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaggards

The genre Stout Irish Rock is up for AfD already. These guys are a small local bank not notable. Defunkier 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sources of articles aren't just small local papers. If this were Ottumwa, Iowa I'd probably agree but seeing as how they're from Houston, and doing a fairly large tour of the East Coast. Dismas|(talk) 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Rather un-notable. Please provide evidence of the contrary. Cut the reviews, get rid of the spurious quip about there being "no 'the' in their name", and replace all the promotional links with some reliable sources. Basically make it more encyclopedic and I'd reconsider. I have a hard time taking any band seriously when the third Google result is their Myspace profile. -- Krash (Talk) 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They appear to be a local act that's now touring other areas. I doubt they meet WP:MUSIC requirements, but we've now got people making articles on Paddy Rock Radio to help promote them also. They seem to be somewhat borderline on signficance and media coverage, but I wonder if it's worth trying to delete them? It sure looks like self-promotion, but do we care? Ned Wilbury 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, that's all the more reason to care more. See WP:VAIN. -- Krash (Talk) 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may have a point. They have some press coverage, but so far it's local papers, not serious music media. Local bands get written about in local papers all the time, so if being a local band isn't enough, delete. I don't see how being a local band in a large city makes you something more than a local band. Ned Wilbury 15:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's all a matter of scale, all of it. Rudy Giuliani is notable for having been in New York politics but then the mayor of a small town who has organized many things in their area like food drives for the poor, and various other humanitarian efforts would raise the deletion question in some people's minds. Dismas|(talk) 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appear to be just over the notability line. "When in doubt, don't delete." Monicasdude 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - smacks of fanzine Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,my thing is, is that Austin is known as the live music capital, many bands local, mational, and international come to play here, to very huge and famous music fectivals happen here (Austin City Limits and SxSW) therefore when the local paper writes about a band, they know what they are talking about. Same for the Houston paper, Houston and a major city in america and has a major newspaper, local but decently well known. Also, you say that they do not play other places, they just embarked on a major tour of the northeast, playing at some very well known pubs in New York and Boston. Instead of writing them off, why don't you get to know them and listen to some of their music, maybe see a live show (if you can). I believe if you see them live, you would be hooked. Just ask the over 5000 myspace friends from all over the world that have never seen them live but are hooked because of the CD.

--199.59.33.130 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario T Barri

Unverified stub about a supposed Filipino movie director (ie, directing Filipino movies, not that he is Filipino - there's no way of telling that, as he is unverifiable). There is a Filipino actor called Mario Barri, who should have an article yet doesn't. Unfortunately, there's no way of telling if telling for sure that this refers to the same person, and I don't think guesswork is appropriate. I'm noting that this article is for a director, and Mario Barri (with no T) was an actor, which also weighs against this being the same guy. Anyway, back on track. This fails WP:V, which is the bare minimum requirement for any article. Ergo, delete. Please note that this AfD in no way implies that non-Western 1950s pop culture people are any less (or more) notable than their Western counterparts, because God knows that's always the first accusation when you try and AfD an unverifiable and ugly hellpit of redlinks. Proto||type 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified and cleaned up. -- Krash (Talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original author created many small articles which met the the-current verifiability policy. WP:V does not require online sources, and enough of the already-contested pages have proved accurate. Whatever the AfD nominator may say, the consequences of this campaign is to exclude large swathes of non-Western popular culture from Wikipedia by the moral equivalent of Wikilawyering -- and the same standard hasn't been applied retroactively to recent Western popular cultrue articles. And I don't see any "hellpit of redlinks" listed among the valid criteria for deletion; if they bother you that much, just unlink them. So fix it. Monicasdude 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a reference can be provided then I will happily withdraw the nomination. Note that I am actively trying to create articles on Filipino film here (see, for example, Giliw Ko), not delete 'swathes of non-Western popular culture'. If an article has no references, then, unfortunately, we do have to rely upon online sources. All articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Mario Barri is a well known filipino actor and director. One of his claims to fame being that he gave Fernando Poe, Jr. his first big break. All of his films are verifiable on the net. For example here where he is clearly listed as director. [32]. Of course, this demands some effort and knowledge, because Manila is not Hollywood. On a side note, I see the same articles nominated, prodded, then renominated. Once again, I say there is no reason to destroy our incipient coverage of the Filipino film industry. The denigration of other cultures needs to stop. -- JJay 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep verifiability claims made by Monicasdude and JJay hold up. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If JJay says it must be so. Herostratus 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-10 04:52Z
    • Comment I'm sorry, but is it verifiable? There's not a single reference. You can't say 'no, this is verifiable', and then fail to provide a single reference or source. At the moment, it's verifiable because JJay and Monicasdude say it is. Again, if there's one single reference provided, I will withdraw this nomination, happily. Proto||type 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay and Monicasdude Jcuk 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
I think User:Proto's concerns have not been addressed, at least not well enough for me to be comfortable closing this (no one's actually replied to him, for example). I realize this doesn't happen all that often, but in the interest of making the right decision (whatever that may be), I'm relisting to allow for more discussion. W.marsh 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is the reference above not good enough? Or the IMDB page [33]? Or all the google hits? [34]. The nom refuses to accept any evidence and has repeatedly tried to delete this page based on a middle initial. I can't believe that justifies extending this debate. -- JJay 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of movies attributed to Mario T Barri in this article does not seem to correspond at all with the list of movies attributed to Mario Barri on IMDB. Like I said... there just seem to be some issues here that have yet to be addressed. --W.marsh 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's quite strange. Most of the movies listed in the article appear nowhere on IMDB. The ones that do don't mention Barri, but they are largely devoid of credits. "Anak ni Palaris" (Anak ng Palaris in imdb) doesn't mention Barri, but does mention Fernando Poe. Other film names appear to be spelled wrong ("Song of Sto. Thomas"). It looks like somebody made an article about a legitimate figure with a lot of questionable or downright false information. Can it be kept and throughly re-edited by somebody who actually knows about this person's career? Carlo 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ropes course providers

Just a collection of links, seems to be nothing more than a magnet for linkspam. It is telling that we don't have article for most of the providers - and those that we do are not primarily ropes course providers. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cashville Records

I seen Cashville Records website and looked at it clearly. I believe that it's possible for it to true, but there is no official word from Interscope Records. Interscope has the say in that matter. To me, personally, it looks like a fan site devoted to Young Buck. The B.G. is in talks with G-Unit, but not a signed member of the group or an artist established to any label other than Chopper City Records, his own established label. I doubt B.G. would be a part of any label after Cash Money cheated him out of money. Not saying G-Unit would, but it's more likely he wouldn't. LILVOKA.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Nunnally

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not provided, but probably had something to do with The Wrestling Voice (AfD discussion). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stachecore

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris sauchak

Does not explain, why he is notable. Delete. --Tone 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate rock

No sources have been produced to indicate that this is a recognized genre. So far the article just seems to be based on the fact that some bands have dressed pirate-style at times, or otherwise used pirate themes. See talk page discussion, we have established no way of knowing who is or isn't in this "genre". Adam and the Ants are included since they dressed as pirates during one period, but the sources I've found describe them as "new wave" or "post punk", nothing says "pirate rock" or (worse yet) "piratecore". This may be an attempt to define a new genre rather than document a recognized one. Ned Wilbury 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That looks like a blog by a guy involved in some of the bands. I guess the question isn't whether some bands have called themselves "pirate rock" or a similiar name, but whether this is a genre recognized by independant sources. Bands may call themselves many things, but that doesn't make a genre, neccessarily. See Stout Irish Rock. Ned Wilbury 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's a self recognized genre that a number of notable bands consider themselves to be a part of (e.g., this isn't the 1-band genre that "Stout Irish Rock" is). If notable bands call themselves "pirate-rock", but no one you would consider an "independent source" does, it doesn't mean that the genre doesn't exist or lacks notability. — TheKMantalk 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism for a non-existent sub-genre. If no "independent source" has labeled these bands as Pirate Rock then what they choose to consider and call themselves is irrelevant. If my band and 5 other bands decide to call our version of Zappa-inspired experimental/noise rock "Christian Inspirational Mood Music", that doesn't create a genre of that name referring to our style of music. When the music press picks up on it and starts classifying bands of a certain style with a certain name, that is when it becomes a genre. The bands exist, but the genre does not.--Isotope23 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But now wait a second. This isn't about random bands giving themselves a random name for whatever random type of music they are playing. These are notable bands, with members dressed as pirates, singing about pirates. If you're saying that this doesn't happen, or doesn't exist, well...try looking! — TheKMantalk 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said there were not band dressing as pirates, singing about pirating. It doesn't matter how notable they are... The issue here is that there is no evidence that the term "Pirate rock" has any general usage in relationship to a genre of music. I found a handful of uses of this term in relation to this style of music & many uses was self-referential. Most were printed in local college or entertainment newspapers. There is just no evidence provided at this time that this term has any general usage as a genre. Don't get me wrong... the world needs more pirates to stop global warming, I'm just not convinced of this genre. Provide sources from a major music media source that this term is used in relation to certain bands and I'll change my vote.--Isotope23 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bands listed don't all claim to play "pirate rock". Some of them don't even use the word "pirate" in describing themselves, from what I can see. Also, I don't see that they have anything in common musically, so I don't see it as a genre. I don't think we can turn a few references to pirates or "pirate rock" into a genre called "pirate rock" unless we can find references to it as a genre in reputable music press. I've looked at the sources provided and I still don't see that this is an identifiable genre. Ned Wilbury 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this mean then?: Portland's leading pirate rockers come clean.[44] Or why am I seeing articles with lists of pirate rock bands? [45]. Why did the Portland Tribune write a line like: "The finest all-ages pirate rock band anywhere" [46]. Based on the amount of hits, it is hard to deny that there is a groundswell of these pirate bands. Regarding the music, it seems based on the evidence that the genre is musically diverse, and relates more to costumes, songs and the pirate lifestyle. -- JJay 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, from the sources provided, I'm willing to believe that the bands Pirate Jenny and Captain Bogg and Salty have been described as "pirate rock". Neither one of them have AMG bios, so they don't appear to be major bands. Again, I still don't think we have enough to go on to assume this is a genre. We can't just say "Look, we've found a few bands with a common characteristic, therefore it's a genre." Ned Wilbury 14:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter what the bands call themselves, the fact is there are many bands dressing as pirates and playing pirate themed rock/punk music. Hence there is a new subgenre, best described as pirate rock. If deleted, this article will just need to be remade in a few months when the mainstream media starts taking an interest. Buttle 01:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New subgenre?? Have you seen Johnny Kidd and the Pirates? Those guys date back to the 50's, according to their article. 50 years later, pirate rock still doesn't look like it's a recognized genre. We're not supposed to come up with new ideas, we only report on what our sources have already said. Ned Wilbury 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WarpstarRider 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is unacceptable. I'm in a Pirate-Core band, and a pretty darn fine one, too. I know this makes me EXTREMELY unbiased about this, But we've been written up in Metal Rules magazing and CMJ, both articles citing we play Pirate-Core. I'll scan the articles and post them for verification.

I've been keeping tracks on the genre since all other bands in it are my peers. As long as there has been punk bands there have been punk bands dressing up as Pirates. The Hard-Core scene is literally littered with Pirate Acts. Then there are pub-rock pirate bands and more kid friendly/Ren Faire pirate acts. There are scenes going on In Washington, Baltimore, Alabama, New York and Texas. You cannot delete this entry. As someone else stated, it will just need to be put back up once one of these bands breaks big.I understand Isotope23's statement that a self given genre lable lacks the legitimacy of the title being bestowed by the press, however if this is such a problem then the article simply needs to be re-named, not deleted.Unkiedev 7:39 EST March 11, 2006


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notposting

Article consists of a made-up word and definition. Only 346 google hits [47], most of which seem to be mistypings of "not posting". Fang Aili 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lyon

Contested {{prod}}, bringing here for consensus. Was a straight lift of the imdb's biography when I found it. RobertG ♬ talk 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Music of Oklahoma. JIP | Talk 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oklahoma musicians

The contents of this page are included in the Music of Oklahoma article. --buck 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uncanny

Delete. Reproduces a primary source (Freud, 'Das Unheimliche'). Not a candidate for Wikisource since it is incomplete - stops about half-way through. Does not respect paragraph divisions and does not reproduce Freud's footnotes. Possible copyright violation as well, which I have tagged separately Oliverkroll 15:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an unencyclopedic copy/paste of "Das Unheimliche" from here, and according to the nominator it is incomplete. Assuming Freud's works are not public domain, an essay published in 1925 would still be copyrighted. — TheKMantalk 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things That Don't Exist

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boghossian

Did't see any remarkable credentials beyond what thousands of other philosophy professor might have. Esprit15d 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite warnings, and though I invited him to comment here at the discussion, the author has removed the afd template twice. I haven't added it back in order to avoid a revert war. Not helping his crediblity.--Esprit15d 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (from the apparently less-than-credible initiator of the article in question): I apologise for not catching on immediately that you had created a separate discussion page on this issue. Anyway: Your objection is not a sound one. Boghossian is one of the leading contemporary philosophers in his fields of interest, and has a natural place in any serious catalogue of contemporary philosophers. I hope that you will consult a member of the philosophy project, before you consider similar action against philosophy-related articles and stubs in the future. While the maintenance work of "recent changes patrollers" are important, they should not interrupt the work of the projects concerned with making wikipedia a leading source of knowledge. --Thorsen 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please leave the AfD template on the article until the discussion is closed (usually about 5 days). You can continue to work to improve the article during that time.Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exasperated comment Not every editor can create a perfect article full grown on the first edit like Athena from the head of Zeus. While users should probably be encouraged to use their user space to polish their articles before going live, it is really beneficial to send an article to AfD 2 minutes after it was created? Thatcher131 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query in light of the comments: I have created numerous stubs on philosophers and social scientists in the past. Why have I not been met with this kind of hostility from recent changes patrollers on these other occasions? Is the adding of these deletion-thingies entirely without plan or purpose? --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly tip: If this is a reflection of a new policy, then someone should add similar deletion-comments to all the articles in the Philosopher stubs-category (500+ articles). --Thorsen 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His being at NYU should be sufficient to indicate his importance, but since you seem to think it isn't, he is an extremely well known philosopher of epistemology, and information about him is extremely useful to persons determining which graduate schools at which one should apply for admission. He by far exceeds the "basic professor" test, and an entry on him is certainly more important than having an extensive entry on every episode of South Park. KSchutte 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, c'mon, he has a stub in Portugese for God's sake. Stub articles are rarely (if ever) vanity pages. KSchutte 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Surely it would be great to have a longer article. Unfortunately, it's being put for an AfD request on the very day it was created, so there hasn't been much time for expansion. AfD ought to be only a complaint about article inclusion, not article content. KSchutte 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article inclusion is dependent on article content. An article shouldn't be posted until it is sufficiently detailed and sourced to prove its subject's significance independently. That said, keep per Elkman. Sliggy 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will expand it with this info when I get the time, but I'm already killing myself trying to salvage the whole philosophy of mind section, creating four queues for the philosophy portal, and correcting errors in any philosophy-related articles that I have come across in the last few day. Not that anyone notices. Leave the article as it is, for now.--Lacatosias 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice, buddy. You're doing a great job. KSchutte 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you K. It can get extremely exasperating around here sometimes.--Lacatosias 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His article Analyticity Reconsidered is of some interest. Mauro Murzi 0:03, 12 March 2006 (TMEC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gspace Extension for Firefox

Advertisement, notability as per the proposed standard WP:SOFTWARE is not evident, WP:NOT a directory of all Firefox extensions. Sandstein 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swingers Date Club

In the first place, this article is just a dump from the trademark office showing this is a registered trademark, with a link to the site. In the second place, won't survive WP:WEB even after cleanup. Web site claims biggest online dating site for swingers, 280,000 google hits, but with porn, who knows how many are from ads, linkfarms, and the like, so un-WP:V. No independent media coverage per Lexis/Nexis. I would speedy as advert, but was deprodded in less than 30 minutes so we have to do this the hard way. (forgot to sign, Thatcher131 02:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by R3m0t as G7. -- JLaTondre 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boricuapixels

Advertising, non-notable website. Prod was removed, so this is evidently contested, thus the AfD. Ryanjunk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advertising, boricuapixels.com is the first and currently only pixel page dedicated to the future of Puerto Rico. Four non-profit organizations get funded with proceeds from the site and it has been published about it constantly during its pre-launch only 10 days ago. Several Puerto Rican celebrities support the case of the project and tens of thousands of users have already visited the site and keep on coming back.

This is internet history in Puerto Rico, not advertising. Ny1109 16:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


the site is notable and famous here on the island. Calling it part of internet history is true. 196.32.130.122 16:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the site is ten days old... read the local press here. Ny1109 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia guidelines: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. The article does not use any sales oriented language and is not linking to a commercial site. The site supports non-profits with their work in Puerto Rico. And the article is meant to document that. As the current coverage in the press in Puerto Rico shows, this is already part of history, which then has a right to be shown in Wikipedia.

Or, as the guideline says, "A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however." The site is only commercial in the sense of that something can be paid for on the site (the pixels), but the proceeds are used for non-profit organizations. Ny1109 17:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance. -- Krash (Talk) 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
both not guidelines. Who has the right and authority to say if an article is important? This is not a valid basis for evaluation. Importance is not an easy to measure criteria. Similar for notability. The media in Puerto Rico, where the site is based and from where people will want to look something up about it, is covering it, showing both importance and notability. In addition to that, the quality of celebrities supporting the project (being published in the coming days), adds to the fact that it is purely writing internet history for the island. Never has something like this be done before, it is the largest private (non-governmental) fund-raising initiative ever. Ny1109 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not guidelines. But both generally reflect the way editors think when it comes to deciding what should be kept or what should be deleted. If you wish to continue this discussion with me, please provide some references (preferably plural, however at this point even a single source would give your argument some weight) that support your statement that "the media...is covering it". Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Krash (Talk) 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know what: just delete it. The way the so called editors think is probably the reason why they are "editors" of a free encyclopedia rather than a real one. Bye. Ny1109 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as pointed out before, this is the first and largest of its kind project in Puerto Rico and this alone should already qualify, given the appeareance in the media. But simply delete it. Ny1109 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does author conceding at AfD qualify for CSD G7? -- Krash (Talk) 21:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ny1109: please, you are giving us mixed signals here. You claim media coverage but don't provide evidence of it. And you repeat requests to delete this article. Now what is it? Please discuss the matter, acting like a victim or a martyr does not accomplish anything. Give us a verifiable claim to notability per Wikipedia policy and the article gets kept in a hurry! We are not your enemies, we are trying to provide good information in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Weregerbil 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Rock Radio

Delete. Contested {{prod}}. Non-notable web radio. Vanity. No reliable sources found. -- Krash (Talk) 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources can be found. I googled and only turned up a bunch of myspace pages. Alexa for the website is over 4 million. I can't find anything to suggest this is anything other than a vanity page (check out the creator) for a run of the mill website. Ned Wilbury 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't appear notable. Unknown how to verify listener rates. RJFJR 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Yamaoka

This page should be deleted because Kristi Yamaoka is non-notable except for her accident, which has basically given her 15 minutes (or maybe 3 days) of fame. To expand on that, the result of this accident (which seems to be the barometer of notability) was a ban or certain routines for one women's tournament in one division (which was over the same day of the accident or a few days later once the Salukis won the title to go to the NCAA tournament (from the MVC website). Furthermore, the ban recommendation already looks like it will not pass, even according to the articles that stated the recommendation in the first place. Lastly, the only things we know biographically about Kristi Yamaoka are her height, weight, and high school she graduated from. MSJapan 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:HOLE is not a policy or guideline. The article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) which IS a guideline. Even were WP:HOLE a guideline, it states that we should " establish the significance of your biographical subject with verifiable citations from reliable sources". The article is well sourced, as suggested by WP:HOLE. --Durin 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my opinion that being in the news does not immediately make someone a notable encyclopedic topic. Why can't you accept that. You don't have to like it. Just accept it. -- Krash (Talk) 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't accept it because it is not Wikipedia policy. It is your opinion. I accept your opinion as being yours, and you are certainly welcome to it. It is not, however, policy. --Durin 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:N: "The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it. When people mislabel an article as "non-notable", they can easily be convinced/outweighed by more knowledgable editors. AfD is a discussion, after all." If you truly believe this is a notable topic then you have nothing to worry about. -- Krash (Talk) 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... 14:57, 14:58, 14:59, DING. Fifteen minutes are up. Non-notable. Fan1967 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of people with considerably less fame have articles on them in Wikipedia. In Yamaoka's case, shes' been the subject of media attention from a broad range of major media outlets, including ABC, NBC, ESPN, CNN and hundreds more. She received a call from President Bush and also appeared on The Today Show. It isn't just the accident that made her famous, it's her actions afterwards that made her famous. The ban that you note may be overturned is in effect for the NCAA tournament, not just the MVC women's tourney (which is not over, it's still going on). Try searching for "Kristi Yamaoka" at http://news.google.com/. This generates more than 500 news article hits. Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically states as a test for inclusion in Wikipedia, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Having nationwide news attention, getting on The Today Show, getting a call from the President, etc., well exceeds that criteria. --Durin 17:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails every other test, though, and "notoriety" and "flash in the pan" are different things. Notoriety is Paris Hilton, not Paris, Michigan. MSJapan 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter if the article fails every other test. It is a valid test and it clearly passes; you grant that yourself. It passes. By your criteria which is (paraphrasing) "Delete any biographies that fail all but one of the criteria at WP:BIO#People_still_alive", we should then delete articles on a huge number of sports figures, since most of them would fail all the other criteria except for being sports figures. If you feel that failing all but the one criteria which you agree she passes is sufficient to delete the article, you're going to need to come up with better rationale for the deletion. Otherwise, you stand in disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines without justification. --Durin 17:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then: Would you have created an article on her prior to March 7, 2006? I also recreated your news search, and it occurs to me that in a few weeks, there will likely be nothing available for news on her. You're basing your claim of notability on a current event, and once the event is over, said individual(s) involved are no longer notable. More importantly, what do you see being added to this article that will make Kristi notable as a person, and how is this any different from John Smith who fell off his roof and hurt himself? Because there was a camera around? I think I'm more than justified, and at this point, it's no longer up to you or me, as we've already voted. MSJapan 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider eventualism. A vast, vast majority of the people on whom we have biographies are not going to be anything more than obscure footnotes in history 100 years from now. Yet, we have biographies on them. For example, a substantial number of NFL players are completely unremarkable except for the fact that they are NFL players. They've barely even made it into the spotlight, most haven't had any news articles focusing on them, and certainly many of them have never appeared as the subject of a major media story. In applying your criteria, it's useful as a check to apply such criteria against other articles of similar type. Your criteria does not work; we'd have to delete a very broad range of articles if your justification is valid. The subject of the article is already notable for having been in major news media all over the country. It's unlikely she'll be famous for any other reason, but that does not disqualify the article. This is dramatically different than John Smith having fallen off the roof because of the news media attention that it drew. The news media thought it was important enough to warrant attention. The Today Show thought it was important enough to fly her, a friend, and her doctor to New York City to appear on the show. The president thought she was important enough to spend time calling her. Lastly, AfD is NOT about voting. It's a concensus building mechanism. Discussion is certainly relevant and useful. --Durin 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say Consider eventualism as a reason not to keep. By the time this AfD is decided, a week from now, she will be mostly forgotten. The guy shot by Dick Cheney will be more remembered than this girl even a month from now. Fan1967 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an article on Harry Whittington, the person Cheney shot. Not a terribly good analogy :) If we should use a criteria like "eventually, nobody will remember this person" then we should set about deleting tens of thousands of biographies of people that easily fit within this (very subjective) criteria. --Durin 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually we will all be worm food and will be forgotten, so the question is not whether this person will be forgotten eventually. The question is whether they'll be forgotten next month. Fan1967 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the very concept of notability imply that people will remember you a month from now? On the other hand, there's an easy solution here. We can Keep for now, and if someone Prod's or AfD's the article on April 15, see if anyone contests it. Fan1967 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same arguments would apply. You've still not cited a deletion criteria that shows that an article can be deleted if the person will be forgotten in a month. "Being forgotten" is highly subjective. Certainly a month from now the American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators is going to remember the subject of this article in their April meetings regarding bans on various types of cheerleading stunts. Notability is a frequently contested deletion criteria. The very discussion we're having here is a microcasm of that far larger debate. That's why it's important to rely on verifiable sources, getting material from reliable sources and presenting the article in a neutral point of view, all of which this article does (and all of those are policies). --Durin 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if this article is AFD'ed in a month or two, and in fact, at that time, she has been forgotten, I think that would meet the definition of "not notable". Fan1967 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have commented such before. You still haven't cited a Wikipedia policy or guideline which states this. THAT needs to be the criteria for deletion; not people's opinions on whether she'll be notable in a month or not. --Durin 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which has no relevance on whether the article should be deleted or not. Show me the policy that says we should delete articles on people which might be forgotten in a month. Your opinion isn't policy. My opinion is that we shouldn't have individual articles on pokemon characters like Wally (Pokémon) and Will (Pokémon), but my opinion isn't policy. My opinion doesn't affect my voting on whether something should be deleted or not. Policy and guidelines do. I've cited WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V; all of these are policies or guidelines, and this article passes all of those. Opposite to these, no policies or guidelines have been cited, only essays. Show me the policy that says we should delete this, and there's a pretty good chance I'll join you in voting to delete this article. So far, nobody has provided one shred of policy or guideline that says we should delete it. --Durin 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what it looks like you did is notice that this article fails every standard test, and then use Google. Google hits are an alternative test, but the hits need to be "distinguishable hits" - this means that the 500+ hits you got that are all on the same story don't have the weight of 500 distinct hits. Therefore, the article also fails that test, and does not meet any of the notability requirements at all, as originally stated. MSJapan 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, this is the right margin. You're squishing me.
  • partial re-indentingWP:BIO#People_still_alive says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". If her appearance on CNN, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc..etc...etc.. doesn't qualify her participation as the center of a newsworthy event, I dare say I fail to understand what your qualification under this test would be. --Durin 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about this: try your search on Google News again, and take note of the fact that there hasn't been an article on her in three days. That means that from March 6-8, there were a ton of articles with mostly the same information, and from March 8-10, nobody cared anymore. What I am trying to illustrate is that this is only newsworthy because it is sensational, not because it is notable. We know nothing about Kristi aside from the accident (which is what 90% of her "biographical" article is about, BTW, which makes it not a bio stub at all), which shows that she is only notable because of the accident, not in addition to it. The only reason it's a big thing is because somebody had a camera on her at the time and sold the footage. The benchmark for notability has to be more than a week. Also, think about this: if she's so injured, how did she get on five networks in three days, and how is she going to try out for the squad again in six weeks? So, in the grand scheme of things, is she really notable? As far as i can tell, she's had three days of coverage, and now no one cares, so she's not notable. This is why, also, WP doesn't tend to do current events - there is far too much bias wrt five minutes of media exposure. MSJapan 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opionion, but Wikipedia policy does not agree with your stance. Despite repeated requests to the people who want to delete this article to provide a basis in policy to delete, to date no policy citation has been provided which shows why this article should be deleted. --Durin 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave plenty of reasons why, and cited a number of policies, as have others. However, if you want to take your interpretation of WP:NN, for example (temporarily passing one of 15 tests and failing the rest still means the person is notable), as "clear indication of notability", of course you're not going to find "a basis in policy to delete" - you're just going to oppose deletion because the article passes 1% of the criteria, rather than allowing for deletion because it fails 99% of the rest of the criteria. Id like to know why you fell this need to get this given up - is it so you can win a little victory for now, even though it can simply be re-AfDed in a week when it is absolutely clear (as if it wasn't now) that she isn't notable? If so, you're violating WP:POINT. I'm really not going to comment on this any further, because I have a feeling that your intent after this will be to show that since it caused such a "huge debate" on AfD, she's clearly notable. MSJapan 18:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that further commenting would not help, since you're now attributing emotions and thoughts to me that I never voiced. Hopefully we can agree to disagree. You think it should be deleted. I think it should be kept. Happy? --Durin 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be combative here, but if it passes notability now, it passes always. There is no aging specification for notability. As noted above, if that were the case we should be deleting thousands of biographies. --Durin 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. "Notable now" is not the same thing as "notable for all time". A good example is sportspeople. A current player who has played a handful of games is more notable than a guy who played a handful of games 50 years ago. Reyk 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The piece is newsworthy (for now) but Wikipedia isn't the 6:00 news.Montco 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete moink 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mkmuzika

Creator removed prod tag, so I moved this to afd - clearly non-notable website, possibly advertisement. --Obli (Talk)? 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Forward, Russia!

Not notable, self publicity Mediawhizz 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Appologies. I created this page. I meant to come back and put a lot more work into it. However, i've been swamped at uni. I have abosolutly no affiliation with Forward Russia. I am a fan, and i saw that their name had been added to the 'Leeds' page, so i thought i'd help out and add an a page on the Band. I didn't realise that anyone would actually view the page!
  • Comment This was listed incorrectly, I have fixed it to avoid confusion. --W.marsh 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not believe it should be deleted however it should be re-written.

--Luke C 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - they have had a UK Top 40 single, which was also NME single of the week. [49] The article does need a complete rewrite to take it out of the first-person, though. — sjorford (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per sjorford. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite Eivind 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems like an advertisement, there are already over 132326382326 more bands that are listed in Wikipedia that have a much more richer history and past. A 2004 band isn't something that should be listed. Also, they don't seem to be well known anywhere, other than perhaps locally within the county. - XX55XX 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but mark with {{cleanup-rewrite}}. If they've had a UK Top 40 single, then I would have to say they meet required standards. Stifle 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is self-publicity. The band have had some regional success, but are not worthy of this kind of article. The Top 40 single is an irrelevance. These days, the number 1 single sells as few as 20,000 copies - to get in the Top 40 isn't actually difficult. Mediawhizz 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they are pretty well known, have had hit songs, are playing major festivals and also quite substantial venues. --Horses In The Sky 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think they are well known enough to merit listing.Fullerov 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThey are a significant, ever-more popular band, central to one of the most vibrant scenes in the UK at the moment, and a major concern across the whole country. i honestly can't imagine why they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. i would suggest that anyone so desperate to have it removed must have personal illwill towards the band.Alcxxk
  • Keep, They are popular enough to be listed.
  • Keep, They have been widely covered in the media by numerous popular publications including q magazine and nme and drownedinsound. they are at the heart of the explosion of new music coming from leeds and are embarking on an nme tour aswell as major festivals.
  • Keep, Mediawhizz appears to have a worrying lack of knowledge regarding current music trends.
  • Keep, As has been mentioned, this page could benefit from extensive editing (removing the block quoting of reviews and bringing it in line with other entries for bands) but deleting the entry entirely is uncalled for. The band has a considerable and growing fanbase, and some unique artistic quirks which are worthy of attention. This page is very far from being the most frivolous or unnecessary on Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les incompetents

It makes no claim for significance according to the Wikipedia criteria (no album, no chart success, etc.). I tried to mark it for speedy deletion on those grounds, but User:Alkivar insists that mention of a single played on BBC radio constitutes a claim for significance. I disagree. Delete. Phronima 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep artist has verifiably played on BBC Radio 6. Currently has a single for sale on Amazon.co.uk. Has a video single on MTV2 Europe its been played on 120 Minutes, and Brand Spanking New (voting to put it in rotation is here). Had their current single played on The O.C. in February (have to find the episode). Rough Trade listed them in the top 50 singles of 2005 at #14 [50]. They pass WP:MUSIC ... but just barely.  ALKIVAR™ 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Movement

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 07:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTX_-_Windows_Real-time_Extension

Text of page is copied directly from manufacturer marketing materials, a potential copyvio; the text that is there is essentially advertising, and useless. Cain 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- Reasons given above; there is nothing here even to make a stub. Cain 17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Already userfied, delete mainspace version at the request of the article creator. Kudos to him for keeping calm and welcome to Wikipedia. kingboyk 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro DePalma

Comment. Try to remember to userfy pages like this . . . I have come across a lot of people who simply don't know where their user pages should go. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generations linux

  • It seemingly has to be pointed out over and over that that argument is spurious. If those articles don't meet our guidelines for inclusion then nominate them for deletion too. --kingboyk 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my experience that spurious or not, some articles are favoured over others for no particular reason. How else is a new user to decide what to post if the rules are applied to some articles but not to others of the same type? (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not byte newcomers. Sorry if the articles come accross as self-promoting or as vanity. I am a person, not a company! And Generations Linux is an Open source software Linux binary distribution. I would understand more the deletion of the personal page, which perhaps belongs as User:Softcraft? Thanks. Softcraft 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on the wiki page(s) as time permits; just added a little bit more information. Provided the entry survives, it will become clear why this distribution rocks! Softcraft 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With over 300 distributions out there, some reason why this distribution is notable is needed to justify the article. Asserting that it is a great distribution won't do it, take a look at the notability guidelines. If it was used in some other, more notable project, that might be an argument. If it was reviewed more than once in magazines with wide distributions, or was the subject of some publicity, that might be an argument. Failing that, I'd rather see the article Userify-ed than deleted, to allow for some time for that info to be developed. ++Lar: t/c 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Lar. --kingboyk 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALLALOM Music

Does not appear to be notable. Deb 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Legenhausen

IS he that famous? I was going to speedy it, but decided not to. KILO-LIMA 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — do his publications put him above the bar on the average professor test? It doesn't look like it, but I can't be sure. I'll take a pass. — RJH 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep don't think the average professor test is the best yardstick here and I certainly don't think it's a speedy. Maybe marginal, but he has some books , quite a few articles and an unusual history - an opportunity to act against systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picon

Delete. Personal references. Wickethewok 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep moink 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Software

No notability according to WP:CORP established. A {{prod}} was contested by User:Monicasdude. --S.K. 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Does not fit in with The Sims 2. Anyone who can find a better place to merge, feel free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2)

It has never been fully merged with the Sims 2—neither was the redirect to avoid people reading it or re-creating it. But, anyway, the main reason is really because WP is not a how-to. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a how-to. Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs.com. Wikipedia is not for challenges for PC games you just make up one day. However, there is an interview by the Sims2 community on this. If evidence of more mainstream attention can be provided, I'll change my mind, but at this time, delete. -- Saberwyn 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wiki note a gamefaq..agree KsprayDad 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per the original VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Legacy Challenge (The Sims 2); that was 5 votes to merge, 4 to keep). Melissa Della 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Legacy challenge concept is extremely popular. Check the [2 Website] and other popular Sims websites to see how many people are doing this. Even if they aren't following the rules the legacy concept of following many generations of Sims is very popular. That said, the topic does need to be cleaned up to more about what Legacies are as opposed to how to play one properly. --Ryuukuro 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
In light of the previous AfD, and in the interest of getting it right rather than just closing the AfD, I'm relisting to allow for a more clear consensus to be reached.W.marsh 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food & Wine Magazine

Purely an advertisement for the magazine, created by User:FoodWine. Delete. Meh per Postdlf. I mean, keep the rewritten stub. Fang Aili 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True but out of tiny stubs can mighty articles grow. No Guru 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris preston

Delete hoax. 0 google hits for "chris preston" + "brien taylor",[53]. 0 google hits for "chris preston" + "International Arbitration and Peace Association".[54] 1 unrelated google hit for "chris preston" + bocce.[55] I probably should have just speedy deleted this outright, but I think it's a little more plausible on its face than most hoaxes, so I wanted more input. Postdlf 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know Talent

This article is well written, but ultimately half a hoax, half a non-notable band. I once lived in their hometown--a town of just 10,000 people, to be sure, so being the kings of the local ska scene is not exactly a staggering feat--and while I have heard of them, no one outside the city limits has. Any claims about making "real" albums, being reviewed in Rolling Stone, and dating celebrities are blatant canards. "Know Talent" ska Chappaqua garners a whopping 6 Google hits, most of them Wiki mirrors. The picture of the youth being "struck by a motor vehicle" or somesuch should tip you off that it's all a joke. StarryEyes 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballaholics

Delete. Seems to be a Vanity page with little broad interest KsprayDad 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_9&oldid=43021664"