Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pal5017 (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 15 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 14 >

Purge server cache

April 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phases of speech

The article is essentially a dictionary definition. Also, I have been unable to verify that the term is used in this way outsided of Wikipedia and the source listed. The results I found concerned speech development or the phases of speech technology. -- Kjkolb 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nobody knows how to merge the article, the move it to author's userspace and leave a note inviting himer to put the material back in articlespace (either by merging or by making another article) with more detail and with some assertion of notability (such as a description of who uses the theory and how it's used). The Google hits do seem to be valid. Note in comment further down that author is on wikibreak til December 2007. Phr 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this appears to meet the cardinal tests of verifiability and neutrality, and is about a theory of speech which appears to be several decades old, i.e. is not original research. Not being a phoneticist, I don't know whether the theory is sufficiently widely accepted to belong here, but the fact that it is apparently referenced in online teaching materials from all over the world implies it may be. — Haeleth Talk 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Seems OK to me, if someone with expertise in this subject fleshes it out a bit. The El Reyko 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but let's relist in a month, maybe, if nothing else is added. I do believe that time should be given here. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the person who seems to have originally entered the article, had not been notified about the AfD. I left a note on hiser talk page. Anyone starting AfD's should do this when appropriate. Phr 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's user page says author is on Wikibreak til December 2007, so don't expect a response. Changed vote to "userfy or merge".
  • delete 2 months festering as a stub, this isn't adding anything of value to WP. It can always be recreated if an editor can deliver material of encyclopedic value. Pete.Hurd 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of God (comic)

NN Webcomic found here, fails WP:WEB. Been online for little over 6 months, Alexa comes back with 2 million, forums (yahoo group) almost totally dead. No sign of notability. - Hahnchen 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NickToons Network Shorts. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons Shorts

This article is a list of Nicktoons Shorts. It was tagged as unencyclopedic and I have to agree. If it has to exist, it would be better off as a category. -- Kjkolb 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg Cheal

No evidence of notability given in the article, none apparent via Google. Seems like a vanity page to me. Uucp 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have to assume good faith that this is true. No, actually we don't -- though perhaps you have a different "we" in mind when you use that word. So unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia has dumped its basic standards of verifiability and citation, there is no "we" (assuming, of course, you are not royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm). --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is 20 years old. Are we to believe someone this young is both a psychologist and criminologist, especially with no sources listed? My good judgement says no, and the amateurish photo doesn't help much. This seems like a clear cut case of someone writing their own NN bio. VegaDark 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my POV too, but it doesn't accord with:
===AfD etiquette===
*Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers ... assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
*Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
This appears to be a new editor Justin sane58and I feel there should have been dialogue in the first instance (especially as the editor has said it is not a vanity article), at least to ask for verification of the claims. There is no dialogue on the article discussion page and no warning on the user talk page (until I put something there). I feel this is lacking in communication and etiquette, when the edit appears to have been made in good faith, even if lack of knowledge of guidelines, which one must expect from a new editor. I feel they deserve a better level of interaction with the existing community, rather than a slap in the face the first time they have a go at editing. Tyrenius 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...when the edit appears to have been made in good faith Since this is an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, I'd say, no, this isn't "good faith." --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mac GUI

non notable site. Alexa ranking of 1,012,378. Rory096(block) 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourfingers

Originally prodded as a non-notable card game, but was de-prodded by the chief contributor. I've never heard of it before, the only source is also non-notable, and it sounds like something a couple of kids thought up at lunchtime. Vote to delete. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Burr

Non notable editor of two non notable redlink journals. Rory096(block) 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haru-Sari

Please see the first withdrawn nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haru-Sari, on the grounds it was a non notable webcomic. I pretty much agree with the nominator's original points on this one. The webcomic can be found here and the sub 100 member forums here. Alexa gives it back 3.5 million for those of you interested. - Hahnchen 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Out (Cocktail)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a cookbook. A transwiki to Wikibooks has already been performed at wikibooks:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail), and the author information recorded at wikibooks:Talk:Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topix.net

Not such a blatant {{prod}}, I thought. Why not throw this one into AfD to be sure?, I thought. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and BJAODN, hoax admitted by author, invoking WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre du'due

Delete I'm guessing this is a joke/hoax. At least, that's what "du'due" brings to mind... Etacar11 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I left a note in the creator's talk. "...self-proclaimed immigrants who had lived in Paris all their lives. Pierre spent most of his early youth as a doll," is funny as hell. TeKE 03:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoblogs

Was de-proded by author, who runs the website. 32 unique Ghits. See WP:WEB, WP:VAIN. Delete unless notability established. GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-denial

The content of this page is entirely arbitrary. It doesn't really have a reason to exist per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everything described on it is covered in greater detail and accuracy on other pages. IMO it should be deleted and made into a disambiguation page that links to specific topics, similar to the self-interest page (which, apparently it was created in response to.) rehpotsirhc 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important and encyclopedic concept, especially in religion. Needs expansion, not deletion. Look to asceticism for an example of how an article like this could be developed. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep encyclapedic , not sure I spelled that right though San Saba 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic article. Sheehan (Talk) 02:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will point out here that asceticism is a specific and well-defined concept with clear boundaries--it only means one thing. Self-denial can mean many different things. This is why it needs a disambiguation page and not a separate article with content that can only redundantly reproduce the content of some articles, and possibly exclude the content of others that might be related. We should note that Encarta and Britannica do not have separate articles on this subject, but rather use their equivalent of disambiguation to redirect to less nebulous topics. rehpotsirhc 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Making the article into a disambiguation page doesn't require deletion. You just change the text and slap a {{disambig}} on it. I'm not convinced that it should be a disambiguation page, though; "self-denial" seems to have a prima facie obvious meaning (denial of one's own interests), and what pages would it disambiguate? Regardless, if what you want to do is make it a disambiguation page, there's no need to take it through AfD. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I guess. I suppose I assumed that making an edit that would wipe out the entirety of someone else's content required an AfD. rehpotsirhc 03:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be Bold! TeKE 03:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ong

No evidence of credible information Theccy 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Gui's de Provence


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AG Films

nn filmmaking group. Maybe if they won the awards. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nepenthes rajah/B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah

Subpage containing someone's monograph on the plant Nepenthes rajah. Copyright status uncertain (to me, anyway) - it's an old text, so maybe public domain? If it isn't a copyvio, I still think there's a better way to present this information than as a Wikipedia subpage. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Actually it's just one section (#38) from a monograph of 51 sections, plus introduction and footnotes. The whole thing can be found here: [2]. Apparently Danser, back in the 1920's, was the world authority in cataloguing and describing varieties of Nepenthes. This particular page is a straight copy from here: [3]. Why paste it here instead of just providing a link to it? Author has put a note on the page that it does not belong on wikisource, but there's no explanation why not. This is extremely technical, and I can't imagine it being of interest, or even comprehensible, to anyone other than a botanist. Fan1967 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems all the information from the monograph has been incorporated into the main article in one form or another and a link to that webpage is in the "External links" section. In answer to your question, the reason it does not belong on Wikisource is due to its publication in 1928 and the fact that fair use texts are not accepted. NepGrower 07:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for original sources. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I had already proposed.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to ONE Family Fund. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kady Goldlist

Non-notable vanity page The article was already speedy deleted once and then recreated. While the young lady seems like a good person and one who will do great things in the year's to come, I don't see this being worth an article (as of this point in time) Alabamaboy 01:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to 69 sex position. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position

Unencyclopedic listcruft. De-{{prod}}ed, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JDoorjam Talk 04:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M. Brown

Non-notable person. Clearly a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeccampbell (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. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takanjism

According to the article itself, this is a religion founded in 2006 with three known adherents. Two Google hits, both DeviantArt pages. I support their religious self-determination and wish them well, but... AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article now will accomplish nothing. When there finally are several outside sources, all the work will be lost. Perhaps we can let this wait a month or two, and if you still think there's nothing supporting it, it can be deleted. Zack Green 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers: Thunder Strike

This is OBVIOUS fancruft and Wikipedia is no place for that! A BLATANT attempt at trying to pass this fanmade project off as something noteworthy! The One and Only 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Power rangers: Thunder Strike has also been nominated. Andy Saunders 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Danuta Laszcz

probable hoax, a Buddhist peace activist from Russia who lived at least 110 years, only google hits are to wikipedia. Thatcher131 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. San Saba 01:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, rename, or keep all you like, but no consensus to delete the article. Further discussion at talkpage recommended. Mailer Diablo 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Space

This is a minor factoid that belongs in the already extensive Indian space program page. User:georgeccampbell


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time Lovers

Delete, non-notable San Saba 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groovezilla

found while cleaning up dead-end pages. looks like a non-notable band, created by anonIP 6 months ago and never updated. But, what do I know about bands. Claims to have one album, allmusic shows an album cover on an otherwise blank page. Thatcher131 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infantil 0506

Article about a middle-school soccer team. Author blanked requesting "delete" but as there have been multiple editors, not a speedy candidate. Apparently non-notable.Thatcher131 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not-notable San Saba 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols

This page is just the opinions of the users editing it and cannot be verified in most cases. OrangutanCurse 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of objective criteria for inclusion. "A subjective list"? What? Wikipedia's an encyclopedia; it doesn't have a personal opinion on who is sexually attractive. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? So try the lists of actors/singers etc - no reason to keep this. --Doc ask? 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federalist Revolutionary

No assertion of notability of verifiability. De{{prod}}ed by author, so here we are. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative (Internet Community)

Vanity article, request for review removed DonaldMick 02:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article my ass. This is a very well known place. I don't think GGFan would give a damn if you posted about civil engineering on there. This is a well known Pokemon community and needs to stay.

The article is poorly written if English isn't your first language.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Morris

Delete non-notable fancruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 03:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after places

I proposise this article is deleted because it seems to fall under 'Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list).' from Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists--Matt 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do a regular radio show which is thematic. A list of artists named after places is very useful for that. I can imagine that I'm not the only person who'd find the list useful for that sort of purpose. Grutness...wha? 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be better placed in the Fountains of Wayne article than a list? --Matt 02:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE (sole contrib's request and no keep votes) . -Doc ask? 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with repetitive names

I believe the list is too specific under Wikipedia:appropriate topics for lists Matt 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate this list, we don't need personal attacks --Doc ask? 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He started the list and is making fun of himself --Matt 22:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that wan't obvious. But even after he created this awful thing, I wouldn't like to call him a moron. :)--Doc ask? 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just being silly. My "strong delete" is serious, though. (What was I thinking?) dbtfztalk 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per rewrite. Kotepho 18:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Thomas

I think this may be a completely fictional person. None of his records, nor the book he is supposed to have written, are on amazon.com. The article says Tammy Wynette was his third wife, but he isn't mentioned on her Wikipedia page, which has a section for such things. None of the links on his page point to anything that actually mentions his name. I can't find any trace of this "greatest living country singer" anywhere. It should probably be a disambiguation page, since there ARE Ray Thomases who warrant a page (such as one of the founders of the Moody Blues). But that isn't this guy. I don't think this guy exists. Carlo 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax. It's a modified copy of George Jones. Pretty much all the details, including the dates, the wives, and even the title of his autobigraphy, are from Jones. It's almost word-for-word from the Jones article as it existed last October: [5]. - Fan1967 03:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: DO NOT CLICK THE SITE LINK. It is a linkspace for ads; there is no real site. Just a money generator. SPEEDY. TeKE 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't catch that. My pop-up blocker stopped the pop-ups and I thought it was just a dead page. I've removed the link from the page. Fan1967 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with vengeance. --Saforrest 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. May I suggest deleting the text and turning the article into either a disambiguate page for the others, even though most don't have pages yet, or into a page for the stub for Ray Thomas (Moody Blues). Carlo 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or just make this article about Ray Thomas of the Moody Blues. I don't know of any other notable people by that name. The other DAB notices at the top of the page (the US Senators) are not real people. They're modified copies of the DAB notices that were on the George Jones page, as there were two senators by that name. Fan1967 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless someone knows of one besides the Moody Blues member there is only one. The senators don't exist. Nothing to DAB. A Google search for the name finds this article, a lot of entries for the musician, and a bunch of scattered others. There's a lawyer, a few academics, a bit actor in old westerns, a catcher who went 1-for-3 in one game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1938 (his total major league career), an aspiring artist, etc. Nobody who looks notable. Fan1967 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if nothing is ever written about the others, this can be replaced with an article about the Moody Blues guy. JIP | Talk 16:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of sorry for the catcher. Reminds me of Moonlight Graham. You make it to the Brooklyn Dodgers, and get to play in just one game. Fan1967 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is it okay to consider this one settled? Carlo 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Article is now a stub about the flautist (I prefer flutist, but that's an old argument) for the Moody Blues. Recommend Speedy Close. Hopefully, some music fan can flesh out the article. Fan1967 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JDoorjam Talk 05:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roaring 20's

Also Kevin Fey and Karl Fey and Mathew Petronelli. And the images.

An unsigned band with no albums. Does not seem notable. prod removed so it comes here. DJ Clayworth 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense. -Doc ask? 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satanicus

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no consensus, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

This article is pure speculation and none of the information present can be confirmed. I vote to Delete OSU80 04:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both the original speculation and objections to that speculation are authoritative and well-documented in this article. It's well-balanced, and it's a topic of interest. Why not? Deco 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speaking as the person who added four references to the first paragraph of the article (and meant to go back and work on the rest but... didn't), I'm curious as to what is meant by "none of the information present can be confirmed". Hitler's sexuality is, like most things surrounding Hitler, a subject of interest, and if we are able to discuss it objectively and with reference to reliable sources, I think we should. —Seqsea (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though this article needs work, it should be improved rather than being deleted. There has been a long standing interest and a number of inquiries into this aspect of Hitler's life by even mainstream historical biographers. The topic was even covered in my high school history classes in the late 60s. Normally I would want this type of thing covered in the main biography but that article is already rather long and has already spawned a Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler due, in part to space considerations. Ande B 06:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This is the third AfD for this article since March 1. Article was retitled on March 24. Both AfDs were closed as No Consensus. AfDs were:
I doubt the result is going to change. Fan1967 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to merge this, after discussion on the talk page, but only after this vote is concluded. We don't generally merge during a vote, as it prevents people seeing what the vote was really about. --Doc ask? 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to my merge shortly after the second afd. It was reverted with no reason other than "no consensus". Gazpacho 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there had been reputable sources speculating on the drinking habits of the Pope - then yes, that would be a valid article. But there aren't. There is however a verifiable debate on the sexuality of Hitler (not just 'was he gay?' but was he impotent, and how might we understand his sexual psychology). The 'facts' may be POV, but the fact that there is a debate can be verified and reported. Here's a review of a notable book on the subject [9] which was reviewed in Britians leading History journal History Today and caused them to put a fascinating picture of the Fuhrer in Lederhosen on its front cover [10] with the title 'Hitler's Secret'. --Doc ask? 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 10:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Student Ambassadors

Just an article on student leaders at a university. This is not for Wikipedia, and is one in a line of similar deleted articles. Nothing except maybe the concept could be merged to the university's article. Harro5 04:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within Reach

Delete, Advertisment San Saba 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SP DELETE crap. -Doc ask? 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess the Great

I believe this silliness was first speedied, then recreated. It was a one-sentence stub about a supposed Germanic leader (born ca. 152). When I pressed for references, they helpfully added that all records were destroyed in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Perhaps thinking that this sounded too suspicious, a new reference has been added to a book which is no longer in print and copies are rare and in bad condition. ok, that's plenty. Delete, but BJAODN as a small reward for author's creative use of references and audacious assumptions about the stupidity of other wp editors. bikeable (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attack saga

Casually written account of three movies, Shark Attack, Shark Attack 2 and Shark Attack 3: Megalodon. These movies do exist, according to IMDB, and therefore there is no reason why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about them. Unfortunately, it might be more productive to write articles from scratch than to clean this up. Delete, but my opinion might change if this was cleaned up. gadfium 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They really are movies? I thought they were descriptions of cut scenes from some game. Still, this thing needs a major rewrite. Let's wait a few days and see if there's some cleanup. --John Nagle 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent seen these movies, but they certainly do exist, and just by using IDMB reviews and descriptions, Im sure I could write a good summary. Take this down and Ill clean it up. Ill use this one as well, but Ill just uppercase and fix it up real nice. Let me have a few days though.--Pal5017 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I change my vote. Just delete this. Im too busy to give it a nice cleanup right now. Sorry guys. Or, if someone else cleans it up, my vote could change too.--Pal5017 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sendermedia

Non notable company. Only 87 google hits, many of which are unrelated to this. And dont let the link fool you. The site is written in Swiss. Pal5017 05:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pun


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The moto guide

Delete, good site, but not notable enough for inclution in WP San Saba 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunch Club

Delete, not notable enough San Saba 06:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement Goyanks193 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was article was deleted at author's request. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach

David Smail is mildly notable, but each of his books do not deserve their own page. Mainly, because they are no notable, and they do not add any info of their own. They simply restate information from the David Smail page.Im also nominating his second and third books, Illusion and Reality: the Meaning of Anxiety and Taking Care: an Alternative to Therapy. Pal5017 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (but as new page without colon, see below). I removed the deletion tag as I got confused into thinking a bot had wrongly added it (a bot message appeared when I first saw the tag - sorry, that was not intended to be provocative. However, I remain puzzled as there are thousands of books that have their own page on Wikipedia, and I was not aware we had to argue about notability. If so, this seems an impossible state of affairs as its so subjective. I see many novels given pages, which I would regard as less notable than the ones I put up. There is of course no problem with database space in Wikipedia and so no reason to put all the books on one page. Putting all books on separate pages is preferable, I suggest, as it makes them respond to a search by anyone who does not know the author. It also allows them to be Wiki linked to. I have now put up a new page on Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy. Again this was not meant to provoke, I was simply testing whether the deletion was caused by the colon in the title being interpretted as namespace. The new article contains more information. Will you accept my reasoning? If not, what is your reasoning for not using the advantage given by separated pages. While I accept that minor points of view are not to be given too much weight in Wiki, as against major points of view, books seem to be a different matter. By listing a book we are not 'plugging' it, so long as all books can be factually listed. By choosing to give only some books a page we are indeed plugging them, and on a very subjective and personal basis. --Lindosland 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok thats reasonable. You fixed it up, and it does seem like worthwhile information. So how bout a merge per below? Have the descriptions in several subheadings under the David Smail's Books section? That would make it even easier for interested readers.--Pal5017 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with David Smail (same goes for Taking Care - an Alternative to Therapy) unless Lindosland adds such a detailed discussion that the main David Smail article becomes too long; the search engine argument is not valid, you'll find the book even when it's just listed on the author's article. Notability is not the issue, but granularity: As long as the material on Smail is sparse enough to fit on a single article (say less than 50k), creating stubs for every book is spammy. Create a section for each book on the main Smail article. Once the individual sections become too long, branch out via the {{main}} template. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go along with that, and have just moved content across. --Lindosland 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuline Academy of Dedham

NN - 28 google hits Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 07:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMOG genre challenges

Non-encyclopedic essay, unreferenced, original research. Prod contested by an anon without comment. Quale 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperantomobilo

Didn't happen. Melchoir 07:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beegees's History

Delete, already covered on main Bee Gees page San Saba 07:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly repeats some info from the Bee Gees page. Ande B 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Chick Bowen 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education Credit Union of Georgia

Non-notable credit union - only 13 Google hits. [11] Also, I asked a Georgian editor and he said that he's never heard of it before. The guy who wrote this article, Education Credit Union of Georgia (talk · contribs), has been adding links to his website on Georgia-related article, trying to promote it. --Khoikhoi 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geee wonder if this is self promotion...Delete as non notable spam. Mike (T C) 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cajun Nights MUSH

NN online game. Only gets 323 google hits. As of this writing it is ranked #1045 over at The Mud Connector (TMC) and is listed as having a minimum of only 25-49 players online. Delete. --Hetar 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --lightdarkness (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 17

article does not assert any notability, appears to be an advertisement for a PR firm, but can't figure out if it wants to be a disambig page either. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter-Day Mac

article gets only 159 google hits, non notable religious niche group. Not meeting WP:WEB etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment- for google link, click http://www.google.com/search?hs=tY0&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Latter day mac%22&btnG=Search ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetar, to refer to this article as "spamvertisement" is totally inappropriate and attaches a very unnecessary, emotion-driven label to the article. No one is being spammed. This isn't an email being sent out. What is the difference between this article and an article on "Third Day", a Christian Rock Band or an article for "Bibleman Jr.", a Christian kids's show, both of which are Wikipedia articles? "Ship Of Fools" is another example of an article about a niche religious topic. Swatjester - regarding your concern, in the short time between your initial comment and now (4 days) a Google search on "Latter-Day Mac" now garners 256 hits - a 61% increase in 4 days. At that rate, in four more days, this hits could be up over 400. Rsabey 13:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Stranger Reading Order

Fancruft, blatant copyvio and above all, unnecesary, considering we don't apply it to other comic characters. Kusonaga 07:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles Of Blood Shed

NN 'webcomic' with no google hits whatsoever apart from this article Tyhopho 10:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I seem to be smelling something, but never mind.... - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De facto

"De facto" is not in itself an encyclopedic concept, but merely an adjective/adverb that describes an unofficially recognized state of affairs. In no way does the article discuss anything other than etymology and language usage. That means it's a dictionary definition, although somewhat expanded. The article has no encyclopedic content and even if I'm sure plenty more usage notes can be added, it clearly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Peter Isotalo 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; this is much more informative than a dicdef. There are many articles about Latin phrases - ad hoc, ad interim, ad nauseam, in situ, de jure, ipso facto, mea culpa, prima facie etc. David Sneek 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It contains etymology and examples of what it means in actual language usage. The bread and butter of any wiktionary entry. How does that make it more informative than a dicdef except that it has more examples and prose? And could we just for once have an AfD discussion about the merits of an article concept per se, not the de facto (!) presence of X number of similar articles? It's not an intellectually honest way of conducting a discussion. / Peter Isotalo 17:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The presence of many similar entries is relevant because it tells us something about what the wikipedia consensus about such articles has been until now. AfD discussions do not take place in a vacuum. And even if it is was not relevant, to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for mentioning them is silly. David Sneek 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep, nice informative article.Crypticfirefly 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: I think part of the trouble is that the dictionary and encyclopedia are too separate. It is too difficult for people to link from one to another, and each must be searched seperately. But that won't be solved here or anytime soon . . . Crypticfirefly 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well done. george 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article, good topic. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because the article is long doesn't mean it rises above being a dictionary definition. Copy some of these examples to Wiktionary if they're so valuable, though I think they're self explanatory. GT 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is basically a dictdef, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. Kotepho 18:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- It's much, much more than a mere dicdef. It's an extensive, informative and well thought out article and belongs here. The El Reyko 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you actually read the article? It's actually just a definition then example after example ad nauseum, as if we didn't get the point after the first 20 de facto ______'s. Other Latin phrases deserve encyclopedia entries because they represent important legal concepts. This however has no potential to ever be anything other than what it is now -- a definition then a useless list of everything the writer(s) can think of to put after the phrase. GT 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge.' Since de jure and de facto seem to talk about each other, why not merge them into one useful article? SigPig 08:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because when something's "de jure" it can't be considered "de facto" and vice versa. "De facto" has a much wider area of usage and can be applied from national politics to descriptions of family affairs. / Peter Isotalo 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know they are opposite terms. What I meant to say was, if you look at both articles, each uses the other as a point of reference. I merely suggested that if they were, in jurisprudence, opposites, like, say, guilty or not guilty, maybe they could be merged as "de jure and de facto" or some such. But, I guess, as you stated, that is not the case. So if this gets deleted, will there be an AfD nom for de jure? SigPig 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something like 800 articles link to this article. It is necessary and explains the concept in an encyclopedic way. Jokestress 05:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep De facto important article. --MaNeMeBasat 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it would be more useful to refer to prime examples of de facto governance and an emphasis on the Wikitionary article. mxdxcxnx T C 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough with technicalities. Bottom line, it provides useful information. I'd call it a stub or in need of cleanup; not worthy of deletion. Sean Hayford O'Leary 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: worthy of own article space. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It helped me be sure I understood the meaning. With the speed and ease of electronics over books, whats wrong with combining an encyclopedia and a dictionary? Maybe with books, it was desirable to have only one volume for all entries when one wanted a dictionary, but electronic access is free of weight and size restrictions. I see no problem with a comprehensive entry, especially when the quick answer was at the top.Tom thoreau 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful article, helped me understand the term. Etcetera exists. Ad nauseam exists. Why shouldn't this one, as long as it's helpful? Arrenlex 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is very helpful, and contains things that should be seperate from what would be in the dictionary, and has the possibility to contain more that is not just related to the definition. It's easier to find in the Encyclopedia, especially for people looking for more than just a definition. Iwanttobeasleep 1:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep: How this even got to a VOTE I don't know. --Mboverload 09:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep: Now that I see it, me neither. Maybe it could be deleted if the Wiktionary entry has as much data, but I bet it doesn't. I can think of countless articles that are less useful than this and no one threatens their survival. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:what do you gain from losing this article.

Strong Keep!!! Only those out to decieve and control will persist in deleting such valuable revealing info!!!


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

The result of the debate was uh......no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

This article is in need of deletion because it violates several of Wikipedia's policies. For one, it is simply a list of random shock sites that various people have compiled; in effect, an advertisement for shock sites. Wikipedia is a repository for notable information, not an indiscriminate linkfarm. If any of the sites mentioned in the article are notable, then individual articles can be created for them, but most of them would not likely merit an article.

Furthermore, in terms of censorship, while Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, that does not mean that any form of content is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. In fact, links to shock sites is something specifically mentioned against in What Wikipedia is not. Several users have pointed out that this only refers to placing links to shock sites in articles that are completely unrelated, and that placing links to shock sites in an article dedicated to them is naturally acceptable. However, that would mean that by creating an article dedicated to something that is normally prohibited, the prohibition can just be bypassed. An analogy would be a person disagreeing with Wikipedia's policy about having POV in articles, and creating an article on a subject and specifically noting that POV is allowed in the article as a loophole. Having a link to a specific shock site in the article for that site may fall into Wikipedia's category of appropriate usage, but creating an article that is an indiscriminate list of shock sites is really just a way to bypass Wikipedia's policy of inappropriate linkage.

It should be noted also that a Category:Shock sites already exists.

In addition, I would like to bring to light the interests of those whom have taken both sides of this issue. Though I cannot speak completely objectively, I find that many those who are for the deletion of this article to have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, while those who oppose the deletion often seem concerned primarily with their own interests. Examples of this may be seen in the many of the votes cast during deletion debates.

The following are three votes submitted during previous deletion nominations for this article that share my sentiment:

  1. Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- User:Thesquire 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) {2nd nomination)[reply]
  2. Delete — The large majority of the sites listed on this page would not stand on their own merits of notability. This page appears to be essentially a blow-by-blow list of web site links. I see nothing notable about this page. — User:RJHall 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (2nd nomination)[reply]
  3. Delete - This page is just a resource for those Internet trolls out there who want to scare/disgust other people with these shock sites. There is absolutely no need for this article to stay. I can't believe people are asking to keep this article; It's basically advertising vulgar photographs. I suppose anyone can make a shock site and use this article to "advertise" it. I strongly doubt anyone will come into the mishap of seeing these vulgar links if no one sees this page. I suppose the page that just defines a shock site is OK, but there is no need to post links to shock sites. People know what a shock site is, and they don't need to see an example. --User:Blackeye 12:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) {3rd nomination)[reply]

I would also like to mention that one of the most repeated reasons for the opposition of deletion has been about Wikipedia not being censored. There are two things wrong with this:

  1. Wikipedia, while not censored for the protection of minors, does have content guidlines, and, as I stated before, shock site links is something specifically mentioned against.
  2. Completely disregarding censorship for a moment, the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. As was stated before, it is just an indiscriminate collection of links and violates policies related to spam and advertisement/promotion. If the article had delt with inoffensive material, it would have been deleted promptly, yet because it deals with shock sites, many have opposed its deletion even though it merits it for fear that by supporting its deletion they might be participating in "censorship".

I will conclude by asking those who are considering casting a vote to think this matter through and to vote with Wikipedia taking precedence over their own interests. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One other thing that I would like to mention that has merited this article's deletion is that most of the sites listed there made no attempt at verification (though this has been corrected since this nomination began). in other words, they had a discription listed beside their link of what content the link contained, but as most of the sites were said to contain just a single image, there was no way of determining whether or not the discriptions were accurate.

See also

Please note that the nominator of this nomination has not participated in any of the previous nominations.

  • Comment Like User: The Minister of War, I too have an issue with the formatting of this nomination. I would like to see links to the previous nominations clearly listed in one place, all in a row, at the top of the nomination, rather than this hodgepodge of votes quoted seemingly at random, with editorial comments, and no links to see context. If we are being asked to make a considered decision, give us the links to the older discussions, make a reasoned case for the deletion and let us weigh in with our opinions. As it is now, I don't have the time to try to decipher this mess. I won't be commenting until it's reorganised, I fear. Note, for the record, I've seen notes about this discussion, asking for people to weigh in, placed on OTHER WIKIs... (they were poorly formatted so it wasn't trivial to find... haha, too bad for the votestacking spammers I guess) ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have crossed out this comment since the links to previous nominations have now been clearly listed. - Conrad Devonshire 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have uncrossed it out as I feel it has valid points beyond asking for the links, especially the fact that there is votestacking requesting going on at other wikis. I will thank you not to cross out my comments, please, even if you feel you have addressed all of them. This "striking out comments by others" has been deprecated in AfD discussions for some time now. Please do not do it again to my, or others, comments, thank you. If you have concerns about that please feel free to discuss further on my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The formatting was changed and the "keep" votes from former discussions removed by the nominator. Kusma (討論) 18:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, it's much improved now. Thanks to whoever. My comment about posting in search of comments to other sites stands, though. I hope the closing admin takes that into account, as I think there may be strong feelings on both sides here. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. Please double-check all edits by Conrad Devonshire, such as this one, where he has removed keep votes with misleading edit summaries. 86.128.222.36 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above edit has been crossed out because it is a false accusation made by a user known for vandalism [12] and for using sockpuppets to influence this nomination and prievious nominations. The only votes/comments that I have intentionally removed from this nomination are those cast by Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (this user's account which is currently blocked), and Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a sockpuppet used by this user), as this user has cast votes under both accounts for the purpose of influencing the nomination. This user has repetitavely reinserted his illegitimate votes under 86.128.222.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [13] after the other two accounts were blocked, and many of my edits, though intended for other purposes have involved the removal of those votes. If any of my edits have unintentionally resulted in the inappropriate removal of votes or comments due to carelessness or edit conflict, I apologise, and will try to be more careful. - Conrad Devonshire 16:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That diff seems to show nonvotes (remember, this is not a vote, it's a search for consensus) in previous discussions, not nonvotes in this one, doesn't it? If you or anyone has a diff where comments are being removed without good reason in THIS discussion I think bringing it forth would be a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That diff does show the deletion of some valid comments (and some sockpuppet "votes") together with the removal of the old "votes". Probably just carelessness in an edit conflict, though. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment calling this advertisment is ridiculous. How can you advertise something that nobody willingly wants? And disregarding that, if it can be argued that these are advertisments, it could be argued far more easily that articles such as eBay are just giant adverts. Foolish Child 10:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The version of the page that is currently protected has been significantly altered from the version that went up for deletion. Please keep this in mind when casting your vote. VegaDark 07:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make recommendations below this line

  • Keep Shock sites are a part of the internet, and it is only fair to give them a dedicated page. The reasoning "each site wouldn't stand in a page of it's own on wikipedia" is stupid, as you could say that about an album, for example. Why would you list the tracks of an album when you could write a page for each song? You wouldn't. That is why most songs don't have a wikipedia entry, only more notable ones.
  • Keep Like whoever said above, just delete specific ones. If you delete the list you really should delete the individual entries for the important site as well or your whole purpose is defeated. --What does this do? 15:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I have explained myself above. - Conrad Devonshire 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh man, I'd nearly forgotten about this article. I'd like to think our seriousness about WP:V has improved beyond this level. There is exactly one item in this entire list that makes even an attempt at verification, and that's the main article of Goatse.cx, which has exactly one reliable source, and it's already linked from Shock site. I will understand if List of shock sites is kept on pure inertia, but I will then remove the unverifiable items from it, one by one, until there is just the one item left, and it can be merged to Shock site and this whole mess forgotten for good. Melchoir 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent arguments for deletion made by User:Conrad Devonshire. Bwithh 08:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Mgekelly - Talk 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe in not helping publicize websites that do more harm than good. I believe in protection for minors no matter what Wikipedia says, and my votes and edits will reflect that. Actions that protect minors also tend to protect some adults. When the downside of such actions is just fewer entertainment websites, such actions should generally be taken. If the entertainment is commonly labled as "shock" then it's a no-brainer, and it's even more of a no-brainer when you see what the sites in question actually are.
Wrong. An article does not have to be about commercial products in order to be in violation of the "no promotions/advertisements" policy. - Conrad Devonshire 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First, it's an eternal list with no internal mechanism for limitation. Second, it is inherently POV to have "List of (notable/significant) shock sites": without any objective criteria for inclusion, the include/exclude is POV. Third, there is no internal organization to the list -- chronological, in terms of hits, in terms of amount of animation. Fourth, the topic is ephemeral, and sites wink in and out of existence, so, by the time a site is listed, the list is already out of date. Fifth, it's not explained in any context -- it's just a list. "List of shoes in my closet" is also a list, and my shoes are very important to my feet. Without anything internal to the article to give the items listed a function, there is no internal logic. Geogre 11:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I'm an inclusionist but this is basically just an advertisement of disgusting websites. Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep But clean-up as per George. The argument about this page being specifically prohibited by WP:NOT, it specifically says inappropriate links to shock sites. I can't see anywhere else where they would be more appropriate. Also, the interpretation of the voting is highly biased. There were plenty of votes for deletion that were primarily selfish (e.g. "This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that.") and plenty of selfless keep votes. This article is not an advertisment, if anything it deters people from visiting these sites. For every troll that uses this page as a reference there are about 50 innocent users who now avoid visiting any of these sites. There is also fact that every time this article is nominated for deletion the number of keep votes heavily outnumber those for delete. As for none of these sites meriting an article, Goatse.cx, Last Measure and HAI2U all already have their own articles. So in conclusion I think that this article should be kept, but cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foolish Child (talk • contribs) .
  • First of all, most of the sites linked to on that page have just been random sites of no notablitiy, and therefore the links are inappropriate. And of 20+ sites listed there, only three have their own articles (and the article HAI2U is being considered for deletion). While the page may help people to know not to visit those sites, it would also provide a haven of sites for trolls to get their hands on and link people to. Most people who end up visiting those sites do so unintenionally due to a troll's meddling, correct? So knowing not to intenionally go to them would not do much good. Also, while I do admit that there was selfishness and selflessness on the parts of both the "keep" and "delete" voters (and showed an example of an unselfish "keep" vote in order to be balanced), the lack of consideration for Wikipedia has been far more apparent on the part of the "keep" voters than it has on the part of the "delete" voters. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite a simple matter to block your browser from ever taking you to a site, so yes, it does cut down on the number of visitors to a site. One can visit this article and add all the sites contained to a "block-list". I know of several people who use this article in such a way. And besides, the vast majority of people ending up on these sites are due to entirely unmasked social engineering attempts in forums by users exploiting the new memebers' ignorance. And while I know that several of these sites are definately not notable, I did say this page required cleanup, which would involve deleting those. And sorry for not signing my comment ><. Foolish Child 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how that could be helpful, but it is not what Wikipedia articles are intended to be. There are other sites for that. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Name me one. (BTW, I realise I've now stopped being relevant so I'll just STFU). Foolish Child 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Also, this article is unsourced and seemingly will never be sourced. Just because a site contains shocking imagery does not make it a "shock site" so some proof of popularity is at least needed, but only the very most significant examples will have any verifiable information. The concept of shock sites is notable, maybe, but we have Shock site already. Mangojuice 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I now think Weak keep. My previous voice was partially out of frustration with certain editors of this page; I had been trying to encourage improvement of this article but was basically thwarted repeatedly, but I now think I'm starting to make some progress. I wouldn't mind seeing this article merge with Shock site but I also don't mind it having its own article, there's a reason for it as an article, but the article needs severe cleanup. Many of the sites in the list aren't even worth mentioning, and there's a total lack of sources. However, I think if we stick to reasonably established sites, they may be sourceable eventually. Mangojuice 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. *drew 12:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last three keeps. Useful and encyclopaedic, and also a way to avoid them when they're linked by friends. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm either. - Conrad Devonshire 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the notable sites in the list will be notable under other criteria and don't need to be put in a single clearinghouse. Andy Saunders 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per eloquent nomination. Far too indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm keeping this due to the fact that Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors, these sites ARE in fact notable, and because it's already been voted on and kept three previous times. There's a difference between an article being disgusting to a person and an article being blantantly useless. This is just going to be yet another moral battle, meaning a deletion would not be a neutral point of view. --Wizardman 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few of the links on that page could be considered notable. - Conrad Devonshire 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why this article should be deleted, as it is just a host for random shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Goatse" is probably the only notable site mentioned there and it already has its own article. - Conrad Devonshire 15:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Foolish Child 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a useful article explaining origins sources and purpose of some otherwise puzzling images forming part of an emergent internet subtrend.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.40.13 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not censored.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This really is a great and sound article. The information is accurate, and extremely notable. Hell, it lets you "preview" the horrors instead of having to see them for yourself. I don't know of any other sites I would really trust with giving a synopsis on shock sites. It even gives history on sites that seem to have unknown origin. Where else can you find that? brabblebrex 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep. Further calls for deletion of this article should be summarily closed by any admin. Let's give this a rest. Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Rhobite 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:POINT. Adebeus 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Give this a rest. This page is fine.[reply]
    I'm not really sure about how this afd is supposed to violate WP:POINT (I could be persuaded though) but I am sure that I'm highly skeptical that discussion is an effective way of leading to wikipedia content policy changes. It seems to me that in such discussions, if even 10-20% of the users in a discussion is opposed to a rule reform, the rule reform doesnt happen. Wikipedia discussion seem to work largely on the inefficient principle of changing only when there is absolute or near-absolute consensus. Bwithh 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been around for four years, and it's survived AfD on three separate occasions, the last one a single week ago. Waiting a month or two to nominate it again wouldn't be the end of the world. Rhobite 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep Despite what the nom said, this article does not violate any policies. It is not merely a linkfarm, as there is information on the sites; the policy regarding links to shock sites that the nom cited has absolutely nothing to do with this; if this is an ad, then the article on [any article here] is an ad for [subject of said article]; it can be cleaned up; the sites that lack their own articles are lumped together here for that reason; any Delete votes with the argument "it's indecent, immoral etc" are irrelevant; it's been kept in three AfD noms, one of which occurred very recently; and it's ridiculous that the nom highly selectively presented examples of votes, being careful only to show the ones that supported his/her arguments, and didn't bother to show us the context. Yeltensic42 don't panic 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong speedy keep. These are notable sites, wikipedia is not censored, and this is a terrible-faith nomination, especially attacking users who want to keep this. This site has survived three AfDs. Let's please move on. Grandmasterka 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. While I am willing to assume good faith in the nomination, I think that these issues have been discussed and settled several times in the past, including a very recent AfD, and that nothing new has really been brought up. (I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the nominator "cherry-picking" some votes from the previous AfD as examples.) As a substantive matter, I believe the content to have encyclopedic value in showing examples of a notable Internet phenomenon that is followed by a large audience. As with any article, specific items of content that are inappropriate can (and will be) removed, and/or replaced by better content. I think this should be speedily closed as keep and further time, energy, and emotion be spared the participants in AfD. MCB 17:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbiv. --Rory096(block) 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those who argue that the list is useful, being useful is not part of our content policies. We do not entertain cookbooks and FAQs, and WP:NOT an Internet directory. To those who are concerned with process: the third nomination was bungled by a throwaway account that never presented a coherent argument. User:Conrad Devonshire deserves a lot more respect. Melchoir 18:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — A series of paragraphs describing graphic images shown on the front page shock web sites is not encyclopedic IMO. If you removed the image descriptions this page would be virtually empty. There is no criteria determining what is a "major" shock site; who decided this? Have they had some type of political or economic impact? I can't tell from this page. Sorry, but I have to vote to dump favor dumping this steaming pile. — RJH 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shock sites are an important phenomenon. They are certainly notable, as they many represent some of the most vulgar material found anywhere--on the internet or otherwise. Deleting the list I do not think is in Wikipedia's spirit of exploration, as the sites actually should be studied and discussed. I would like to know why exactly they are created and how people can endure such poses. In other words, I am advocating expansion of the list to get to the bottom of it.--Primetime 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have shock site and articles on notable sites. We don't need an additional list-article to circumvent the extremely weak notability standards already in practice. I suggest starting ShockSiteWiki if you're eager to explore the issue. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No thank you. Wikipedia is not censored, so I don't have to. Perhaps you could start your own censored wiki, though? But I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that we should discuss shock sites but not mention which ones exist?--Primetime 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Provocative linkspam. / Peter Isotalo 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per being an explicit example in WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as I had voted in the 3rd nomination, relevant shock sites like goatse and tubgirl have their individual articles, we don't need links to unheard of shock sites that some unscrupulous editors' friends created. --Philo 19:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopaedic. Midgley 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is good adjunct research material to the article shock sites, providing the reader with an overview of what a shock site is (and what is considered shocking in our society) without having to actually look at the sites themselves. If I had no idea what these sites were, but wanted to know, this list tells me. Useful, but also needs a cleanup. Natgoo 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links to disgusting and non notable pages. This should not be allowed anywhere on the internet, let alone an encyclopedia. As stated in the rules, when in doubt consider if this should appear in a normal encyclopedia. The answer is no. Especially with the links included, this goes far beyond not censoring for minors. Goyanks193 21:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether you find something disgusting is completely irrelevant to whether or not it should stay, and if Wikipedia is not censored for minors, I fail to see how including the links makes a difference. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, and so can be more comprehensive than a general encyclopedia. I said delete above, but I'm also tempted to change that to keep in reaction to your logic. JoshuaZ 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Some of the sites could go into Internet Phenomenon or Category: Shock sites. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant with Shock site and Category:Shock sites, and a magnet for utterly useless spam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main argument that people seem to make against it is that they don't like the sites and find them distasteful. That isn't valid criteria for deletion. I am no fan of shock sites myself and that is the point of keeping something like this. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate...even about dark dirty things we don't like. IrishGuy 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, I commend the nominator for making an excellent case for the deletion of the article. Shock sites are indeed a notable phenomena, in part because they permit the public exposition of those things which the public generally detests. Article could probably stand cleanup, but that's true of most articles. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" This page is invaluable in directing wiki users towards actual examples of shock sites. All in favor of deletion should instead try to shut down the shock sites themselves... wiki should not be censored. Reid Sullivan 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable. Repeatedly VFDing an article because you just don't like it ought to be grounds for a ban. (This is, what, time #4? C'mon, kids. It's not as if there's a shortage of articles that really merit deletion.) jdb ❋ (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imagine a physical encyclopedia with this kind of information and you'll get the point. I think the page of shock site suffices here. Zwaardmeester 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, verifiable, and I'm really tired of seeing people continually submitting this for AfD. Nortelrye 23:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and not in violation of any Wikipedia principles. Specifically, WP:NOT mentions shock sites in the context of (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) therefore implying that appropriate links are allowable. One would be hard pressed to argue that a page entitled "List of shock sites" would be an inappropriate place for such links. Finally, there is the process issue. Even if the last nomination was "bungled" as argued above, the previous ones were not, nor has anyone really come through with new rationale for deletion since it survived the last ones. At the very, very least, wait a few months between renominations. Turnstep 00:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree. If the nominator has reason to believe community beliefs have changed significantly since the last nomination, then it would not be very improper, in my opinion, to nominate the article for deletion again. However, a week is not long enough for the Wikipedia community to change radically. These nominations could be considered a form of harassment; a way of holding a sword of Damocles over editors heads, always trying to keep them in fear of having their contributions deleted (i.e., threatening them). If the article is nominated again in the near future, we should either (1) remove the notice immediately, or (2) ban the nom.--Primetime 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that upon closing, the closing admin should state that a renomination for AfD should not occur for 2-3 months & enforce this by speedy keeping any afd's of this article done in that time frame. (assuming this is kept or a no concensus, which looks like it is going towards). VegaDark 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating it every day for deletion. This is not a list of "advertisements", don't be rediculous. - Abscissa 01:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you continue trying to delete this and fail, this is too big a fish to fry. This list could be used by parents and people everywhere to keep their computers clean. I think meeting in the middle and removing the links is the most that should be done. If a person were to use google to find a list of shock sites, this page will come up first. I feel that this page is a good place to read in regards to shock prevention.Killerrobotdude 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless linkfarm. --Calton | Talk 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Linuxerist L/T 02:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm really not seeing any policy changes or new arguments that have been introduced since the previous three AfDs which have all very clearly and overwhelmingly decided to keep the article. I'm very concerned that the original nomination was written in less than neutral manner to push a pov - I'm glad he corrected himself. Let it go. Kuru talk 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the actual links to each site were to be removed, wouldn't that end the linkfarm objections? A simple Google search would allow someone to find the sites, and the article would exist just to inform and educate. hobbie 04:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done. Melchoir 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it rather defeat the purpose of a list of websites to not have any external links? Foolish Child 10:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Catherineyronwode 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's encyclopedic  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this useful list. bbx 04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this list is helpful and informative Yuckfoo 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  • strong keep for the last time Michaelritchie200 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - how many times do we have to go through this? This is really useless and inane, remove it and do something useful on wikipedia instead. Dyslexic agnostic 07:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I'm usually a deletionist, but the nomination reads like the person clearly has never even visited the page in question, "Advertisement" my @$$. The site specifically lists a phenomenon connected with Internet Trolling and there is no reason to delete. It has saved a couple people embarassment. And besides, if Wikipedia is to be the "Sum of all human knowledge" it is rediculous to delete articles that are both useful and maintained. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Useful and maintained" are pointless descriptions of an article in these discussion. Anyone can maintain any type of article, and often does (Gundam-fancruft, anyone?) and "useful" can describe anything that isn't an outright lie. Neither have anything to do with being encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge. The word comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia meaning "general education". Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever, so saying that something isn't "encyclopedic" because it isn't relevant is a contradiction in itself.--Primetime 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any article related to your website can be used for advertising. This article can be used to warn possible victims of these websites and entertain others. You are being a facist and have no business nominating this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.74.209 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - This just encourages the creation of more shocksites and this page is just used to publicise them even further. Also this page is likely to be used to distribute the images to other persons.--Andeee 13:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Create a new article about shock sites in general at Shock sites.--Urthogie 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just letting everyone know that the list of shock sites has increased since this nomination was started, which helps prove my point about it being just a linkfarm for shock sites. - Conrad Devonshire 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The excessive comments by the nominator, challenging every keep comment, inappropriately striking out comments questioning his approach or methodology, hectoring participants to think of the encyclopedia (I would reply that I always do, in every AfD I participate in, and I find it personally affronting to be so hectored), etc, suggest the nominator has more personally at stake than may be prudent. That may not be good. But what is more important is that despite my personal distaste for this topic, it is encyclopedic. The growth of the list during the debate is a factor in favour of keeping it, in my view, as it demonstrates notability of the topic. With considerable personal regret, I must now comment Keep. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not crossed out any comments because they "questioned my approach or methodology". The only comments that I have crossed out were a criticism of my introduction which I thought I addressed, and a false and inflamatory accusation made by a user who has vandalised my talk page, tried twice to remove the AfD tag from this article even after being warned for it, and used sockpuppets to try to register multiple votes in this and previous nominations among other things. As for my personally addressing many comments, I admit that I probably have gone overboard on that and will try to refrain from doing it so frequently from now on. I have nothing "personal" at stake in this debate, but I believe that articles like this are detremental to the quality of Wikipedia and that the only reason that this article has been kept for as long as it has is because the argument for its deletion has been made to seem all about censorship, even though there are other strong reasons for its deletion. - Conrad Devonshire 18:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Repeating for emphasis: "I will thank you not to cross out my comments, please, even if you feel you have addressed all of them." I withdraw any speculation about why you actually chose to strike my comment, with apologies, while choosing to nevertheless point out that you give the appearance of having stricken my entire comment (not just the part about previous noms) because I questioned your approach, which I for the record still do. I'll reiterate in case it is not clear: Unless you're the closing admin, (and nowadays not even then) it is my view that it is terrifically bad form to strike anyone else's comment or substantially change by refactoring or other means what they say. If you want established wikipedians to take you seriously, it is my view that you should strongly consider forthrightly apologising for it, and not doing it ever again. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can only have a list of shock sites if a criteria is drawn up for them first or if the list comes from a recognized body.--God Ω War 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article should be kept, but any sites that aren't notable should be removed. Wikipedia should not become a directory. --Jason (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative and useful, not only to the trolls, but to their victims who would use such a list to prevent attacks. Jesustrashcan 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no other way to find out what exactly is on one of these sites. Like many of the other Keep voters, I've actually gotten some use out of this article. It's information on a notable internet phenomenon. --Breathstealer 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Four nominations, and it is up for a vote AGAIN. I will say what I said at the last vote... Wikipedia is not something that bends to the will of the squeamish. Sure, you don't like shock sites, understandable. BUT that doesn't mean that shock sites don't exist. Nominator mentioned the Wikipedia policy, and it says delete shock sites immediately EXCEPT FOR PAGES WHICH DEAL WITH IT SPECIFICALLY. I believe that "List of shock sites" deal SPECIFICALLY with it, so obviously the nominator's "Wiki guideline" argument flies right out the window. Nominator also villifies anyone who votes for keep. Surely, this is abuse? "You vote delete FOR THE GOOD OF WIKIPEDIA. IF YOU VOTE KEEP YOU ARE TRASH WHO DOES NOTHING BUT CONTRIBUTE TO MORAL DECAY." This is an unacceptable attitude. I, and hopefully others, will not be pressured by this attitude of "My way or the highway". I will say this again. You may not like it, but this article does serve its purpose (warning others of shock sites, giving example of what a shock site is, a chronicle of internet history). Despite whatever your pretensions are, this article should, nay, needs to stay. Hobbeslover 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - weather you like it or not this is a part of internet culture/history. And stop trying to delete this page! --Joe dude 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage of shock sites is not what is objectionable, it's the notability of such sites being listed here. There is no problem with having an article on shock sites in general, or certain well-known shock sites getting articles. However, what is not needed is a list containing every random shock site people can think of and throw up onto a list. Also, Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. WarpstarRider 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep I don't see why this article needs to be deleted -- it's a useful article, and it kept me from going to lemonparty.org (thank you!). I get a strong feeling that most of the deletion suggestions are based on users finding the content objectionable, which should have no relevance as per wikipedia policy. Assuming this article is not deleted, it should also be protected against deletion -- it seems like it's constantly being put into deletion, and constantly pulled out.24.250.119.145 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has useful information about a topic that is definitly important on the internet. Its not a nice topic, but it sure is relevant. Jamesinclair 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I see no reason that this article cannot simply be merged into shock site. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The few sites on the that are either notable or best illsutrate the genre shoulde be covered at shock site. The list itself needs to go. -- DS1953 talk 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per most others. It's also not cricket to renominate an article for deletion only 6 days after the previous discussion closed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to me like Conrad has an agenda here. Note the extremely lengthy intro, and of course, his stupid idea that the people voting to keep are doing so only for moral decay. In a time when our crime rate is down, when same-sex marriage has REDUCED sexual promiscuity, and basically people are beginning to realize that true morals (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm others) are more important than stupid shit like laughing at shock sites, it's sad that people like Conrad just don't get it. Nice way to try to be a hero, Conrad - point at some minor "sin" and attach yourself to it to hide from your own personal problems (yes, I checked out your user page). (yes, I did delete Conrad's lengthy intro, but it got restored. That was probably not a good idea on my part, but this page does not belong to him) --69.248.236.62 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you make a very interesting point here, and I would strongly reccomend that those who have not done so yet read Conrad's user page to conclude for themselves whether he has "an agenda." - Abscissa 06:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Is it the fact that he plays the piano, or that he plays computer games such as Rise of Nations which gives him away? Lets not sling mud here, and more so, lets not sling mud on the basis of stereotypes. WP:AGF and WP:NPA and all that. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addressing User:69.248.236.62, I would appreciate it if you would not attack me simply because you disagree with my belefs and stop trying to infer my reasons for nominating this article for deletion. You claim that same-sex marriage has reduced sexual promiscuity based on the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to last longer on average than married couples, however this does not take into account the number of additional partners that the two members each have during their relationship. And also what morals are "true" and what morals are "stupid shit" are entirely your opinions. It is my belief that things that we tend to deem "smaller", such as pornography lead to the "greater" wrongs, such as murder, and therefore if the "smaller" wrongs were done away with, the greater wrongs would consequently disappear. As for my introduction, I wrote it to try to point out the problems that the article had and avoid making the nomination seem strictly about explicit content. Just because you disagree with it does not give you the right to remove it. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I am not making a personal attack. I also don't care that he's Christian, or 17 -- nor do I think most people. However, many other comments have made reference to his user page. I do believe it's relevant. -Abscissa 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I learned something from this article. KWH 04:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an established article that has survived three previous nominations. Worse an editor with an agenda nominated this for this fourth AfD and is making heavy handed edits that will not be helpful fir the closing admin. David D. (Talk) 05:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speddy Delete I cannot believe that this list of links to troll porn has been even been given serious consideration by Wikipedia, when other, better articles have been deleted. Here is a list to links that, not only will get Wikipedians fired from their respective places of employment, but in at least one case will infect the computer with dangerous code. This list of links has no scholarly merit, nor any redeeming value whatsoever. Tyr shadowblade 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's second edit, both on AfD pages. Also, the content of the linked sites is not the topic of discussion here. Just because the sites are disgusting or dangerous to a user's computer does not mean that it should not be on Wikipedia. --Breathstealer 12:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attempted vote stacking Note that Skinmeister (talk • contribs) solicited votes from 20 people (see his contribs). Not all have voted here but more than half have, and all of them voted keep. I don't think any of the voters were acting in bad faith, it's just worth notifying the closing admin about this. Mangojuice 13:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was an unfortunately necessary answer to attempted vote-stacking by the nominator Conrad Devonshire, who contacted everybody who had voted "delete" in previous nominations. Many of them came here and voted "delete". I think the playing field was levelled again by Skinmeister's action, although two wrongs don't make a right. Kusma (討論) 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not know that there was a rule against this, and I expected that keep voters would likely inform other users about this nomination, so I don't consider this the same as trying to stack votes. If I had created the nomination, had not mentioned it on its page or the "articles for deletion" page, and had then informed previous delete voters of the nomination, that would have been different, however. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Conrad's arguments are almost completely spurious. This is no more advertisement for shock sites than List of fast-food restaurants is an advertisement for fast food restaurants. This is notable information because shock sites are, like it or not, a notable internet sociological phenomenon. WP:NOT says that "obviously inappropriate content" is forbidden except from an article directly concerning the content. If links to shock sites are inappropriate on a list of links to shock sites, what exactly *is* appropriate? Furthermore, bringing up users' motivations in voting is a total red-herring. But the ridiculousness of this claim is all the more vindicated by the fact that Conrad solicited votes from previous AfD nominations for this page, as well as his numerous lamentations of society's "corruption" on his user page. If this doesn't make the existence of a personal agenda blatantly obvious, I don't know what does. Avertist 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phenomenon of shock sites / picture collections has been around even before the

internet. It is too important not to be listed here. Also, the page enables people to inform themselves on the subject without acutally spoiling their day by having to look at the sites. gbrandt 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pint of skull-splitter with a triple whisky depth-charge Strong Keep. This article was last saved (SPEEDILY!) a few days ago and I see nothing in the nomination describing what has changed since then. I also have some issues with the bizarre formatting of the nom- can't the emboldened (vote) text be removed or at least stricken to avoid confusion? Badgerpatrol 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta. Badgerpatrol 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect from further renominations. This list is perfectly acceptable, no valid reason for deletion has been provided by the nominator. Silensor 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I think that this list might actually be a good resource for someone studying these kinds of things (probably university/college students). I don't think it should be deleted. --User:Matt0401 19:12, 18 April 2006 (EST)
  • Keep with serious grooming much as I dislike unpleasant content, that's not a good reason to remove it in itself. However, unverified content should be removed, and that means that the bulk of the page (all the links that aren't able to be an article themselves) should be removed. I count three items on the list that can be included, which will make a very short (but verifiable) article. Ziggurat 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP First of all, I sent a goatse link to my friend, Karl, under the guise of "your dad," and his reaction was really funny. Second, this is important encyclopedic knowledge and very notable. Third, deleting something just because it's unpleasant is like then saying why not delete gangrene, anencephaly (that image really ****ed me up!), Nazism, the Holocaust, Bill Cosby, or Michael Jackson just because they're unpleasant. Bill Sayre 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I ask users to stop personally attacking me and claiming that I have an "agenda" for nominating this article simply because I am a Christian or because I believe that the world is corrupt in many ways. If you do not agree with my nomination, then that is your preference, but simply state it and refrain from personal attacks. I thank User:The Minister of War for defending me in this matter. I know that some users have felt that I have done this by posting remarks from previous keep voters in my introduction and using them as examples of a lack of concern on part of the keep voters, however that was not the same, and nevertheless I have removed it to avoid confict. - Conrad Devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest here, but there is an element of stones and glass houses involved with this. Some may interpret your opening comments to be attacking past (and potential) 'Keep' voters- you do seem to imply that the preponderance are a) selfish, and b) do not have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart. It would have been a better idea to simply state your opinion of the article, why YOU think it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia, and particularly, what has changed since the previous 'Keep' vote on the 9th of April?. Speculating as to voter's intent or cherrypicking previous votes (for or against) is unnecessary. I have to say, it is not hard to detect POV in the wording of your nomination (rather than a frank assessment of the article's quality), which editors may pick up and comment upon. Of course however, the only points to be considered here are a) does the article conform to policy; b) has good process been followed in making the nomination. All else is irrelevant. Personal or ad hominem attacks of ANY form are always unacceptable. Badgerpatrol 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When the votes are counted on this article I hope they are done carefully. I feel many of the keep votes are from smurfs accounts. If Jimbo came along I bet he'd agree on deleting this page.--Andeee 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd bet he'd buy me a pony. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP No good arguement for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.36.47 (talk • contribs)
  • They're trying to blank the article. Hi everyone. It looks like Aaron Brenneman blanked most of the List of shock sites article because he says the statements need sources. However, the sites are linked to and anyone can see plainly that they're shocking. Consensus is to keep the article and this appears to me to be a underhanded way of trying to delete it. Another user is trying to do the same now, as well.--Primetime 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether or not they're "shocking" (an opinion) is not the point. The links to the articles have discriptions next to them describing their content, but most make no attempt at verification, and therefore there is no way of determining their accuracy.
  • Keep, but clean-up. It's survived several nominations so why is it being relisted again? And anyone who votes delete just because they find it offensive should not have their vote counted as far as I'm concerned, wikipedia is not censored, nor should it be. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, last AfD closed 6 days after this one began. 3 clear consensus AfD's in the past to keep article. The reference to shock site links in WP:NOT is taken completely out of context. I don't know Conrad at all, but given this and the opening commentary, I really question the good faith of this nomination. -- Samir (the scope) 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (which I have read and yes I have looked at the article; simply the nominator makes my points for me). --kingboyk 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful information about an important internet fad. The nomination seems to imply that if you want to keep, you are working against wikipedia, not cool. It is also interesting that an admin has protected a nearly blanked version of the article. Lapinmies 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • b • p • d • m) 06:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Apr. 19, '06 [07:07] <freakofnurxture|talk> (user's 21,533rd edit)
  • Keep These sites exist and there is no reason not to document them. If you vote delete, you're on the long wavelength. YahoKa 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom who does an excellent and thorough job of explaining why this article should be deleted. I had noticed the previous noms but was unsure of which way to vote, this nom clearly explains a valid reason for deletion. --Hetar 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is completely redundant. There is already an article on the subject, which if properly expanded in accordance with the content policies and associated guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE will more than adequately cover whichever few sites have the supportive literature necessary for encyclopedic treatment. There is also the category, to link to the small number of articles on those shocksites which have enough reliable source material to justify individual article pages. The page as it appeared before Brenneman's clean up was in a very poor state. Aside from the redundancy issue, there was an arbitrary division of the sites into "Major shock sites" and "Other shock sites"; this is an inherently non-neutral construct, as is the idea that some of the entries are indeed "shocking" in the first place.

    The keep arguments are not convincing, to my mind. "Useful" is not synonymous with "deserving an encyclopedia entry". My telephone directory is useful too; like this list, however, that does not mean it is appropriate for its contents to be listed in a Wikipedia entry. The test of encyclopediability has never changed: has the subject been sufficiently studied and reported on in multiple, independent, reliable publications? Are there books, theses, monographs, journal articles, government or repliable third-party reports, newspaper articles, and/or magazine articles that are focused on the subject? If these are plentiful and of very high quality, and the subject meets notability guidelines, then the acceptability of having a page on the subject is a given (for example, Bertrand Russell). At the other end, if there are a few stray sentences on the subject in a newspaper article that is devoted to something else, the subject probably does not deserve an dedicated entry, especially if there is no sound reason to adopt an m:eventualist view (the John Bambanek entry was a good example). And if the subject has no source whatsoever (in independent reputable publications), the question of including it in the encyclopedia in any form simply does not arise: we can't include it, whether as a statement in a broader article, an item on a list, or (obviously) a dedicated entry.

    I suspect the items on this list fall in several different places on this spectrum. A small number may have source material; many, however, are likely entirely bereft of good sources. This posits a further difficulty for this list, in addition to the redundancy and non-neutral arguments I have already alluded to above. The best outcome IMHO would be to expand the main article on shock sites (in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:CITE). I would ask for a redirect, but the phrase "List of shock sites" isn't a good one. Hence, delete. —Encephalon 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The difference between your telephone directory and a list of internet shock sites is that your telephone directory is only useful on a local level. If there was a wiki for the city of Burlington, North Carolina, an article listing public telephone numbers for Burlington, North Carolina might be appropriate after all.

      There are a number of cultural phenomena that have articles on wikipedia (such as Culture jamming, Internet troll, and virtually every article discussed in Internet meme) that receive (compared to Bertrand Russell) little attention from mainstream publications and academia. I think this is a pretty poor measure of worthiness on wikipedia.

      A comprehensive list of shock sites is no less legitimate an article topic than a comprehensive list of famous children of Orthodox clergy (which I'd wager a list of shock sites is both more useful than and more encyclopediable than). However, if it is going to remain in its present, heavily edited form, the article may as well be merged with Shock sites. Avertist 16:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I agree with Avertist here, this person clearly has some knowledge of Internet trolling and understands the worthiness of such a list. I also believe that we should revert to the previous version of the article before Aaron Brenneman decided, in my opinion incorrectly, to delete most of the article in order to illustrate a point. - Abscissa 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW. Cant somebody WP:SNOW this? I'm kinda tired of adding comments to disruptive posts and socks. We all know its not doing to get deleted anytime soon. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unfortunately, this stuff is notable. Cyde Weys 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to point out, to all of you who say "There's already a Shock Site article" that on the Talk:Shock Site page, they agreed to spin off this list to help keep their article manageable. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Notable as per all the other "keep" votes. Deleting the article won't make them go away. Frankly, I hope this article keeps more internet n00bs from being duped. People who don't understand the notability are blissfully insulated from the interweb that many of us see every day. Finally, for a moment of humor (and I promise this isn't a shock site), please see these funny "remake" of a comics[14][15] --again, I repeat it has nothing offensive in it as of this time stamp: Bobak 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another unmanagable inherently POV list. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shocks sites are a notable phenomenan in the internet. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Shock sites are an Internet phenomenon with a notable history. Also, this page warns people of shock sites they may be passed. The reason I say it's a "speedy" keep is that after three unsuccesful attempts to censor Wikipedia, it should be kept as a lesson to all those who seek to inundate Wikipedia with attempts at deletion and re-hash deletion requests.
Ay Double Yoo 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadir Ambrósio

Non-notable musician. 149 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 21:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carioca. All of the online references seem to be in Portuguese, but even the crude Google translations indicate he wrote a song with popularity on the general order of "Take Me Out To The Ball Game," which makes him notable enough. Monicasdude 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline booking ploys

Does Wikipedia really exist to show people how to fiddle the system? Especially when the article says (and I paraphrase) the main airlines don't like people doing this? Francs2000 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Indeed, this article raises ethical questions, but I don't see a big difference between this and an article about DeCSS, for example. I think this article gives a balanced view, and underlines the fact that these methods are shady at best. Bardak 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the article does mention the downfalls of attempts to game the system. (Indeed, I've worked for employers who have done things like back-to-back ticketing.) The article could probably use an update, though, since a majority of air travel done these days is via E-tickets, and the traditional flight coupon seems to be a thing of the past. --Elkman - (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. How is this topic encyclopedic? GT 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how this article wouldn't be original research ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that we should have an article on this, but there are copyright issues involving the link provided - see [16]. -- Mithent 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject (the best start to such an article would by making it about such tactics as opposed to a how-to on such tactics. Howver, at this point in time, the current article is not in parallel to my beliefs. I would not be qualified to contribute to such an article, and would not shed any tears either way. -- Saberwyn 12:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the originator of this article. This article is my first full contribution to Wikipedia. So far I have only done minor fixes under an anonymous identity. I was much dismayed to see that the article has been tagged with an AfD flag only seconds after its completion and somewhat in disregard of WP:BITE. But I guess this is now as good a forum as any to discuss it.
Originally, I started this article thinking that the subject is in the likeness of Pyramid Scheme or Creative accounting and should be covered by Wikipedia, and having thought that I am ripe enough now to be capable of achieving the feat of contributing a full article. Apparently, this was not the case, as can be seen from some of the above statements made by fellow users.
I agree with the comment made by Saberwyn that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject. I can try and improve this article myself so it meets such standards, but the time might not be right for that just yet.
However, some of the claims presented here were unjustified, in my opinion. Minor ethical questions would have more properly been discussed on the talk page, and not immediately under an AfD. As for the article being original research, numerous sites discuss the matter thoroughly, as can be seen from a Google search.
In conclusion, I propose this article be made into a stub. --Bardak 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. I and the others who have voted to delete appreciate the time you took to make the article and your initiative in deciding to do it but we just disagree that such a topic even deserves an article at all. Personally my reasoning is that almost any system can be gamed and exploited. It should be obvious that the same is true about the air travel industry. To that end the topic itself simply doesn't merit an article, and the fact that the article ends up being basically a how-to guide kind of reinforces that for me.
If the article gets deleted please do not feel discouraged. You might want to consider finding other existing articles and seeing how much of this article fits into them. GT 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are ethical issues in there, but I believe the article should be expanded upon (and put into the appropriate ethical frame), not deleted. Strong Keep --Ramdrake 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scyle

Dicdef and/or neologism. Delete. Andy Saunders 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the opening line of the article is an obsolete word; but would you transwiki the rest of the article as well? Andy Saunders 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usbob

Vanity, Fancruft, non-notable, unencyclopedic - take your pick SFC9394 12:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.I’ll say exactly what I said yesterday when the article was removed from the deletion list. “Usbob may be an amateur football club, but it is certainly a recognised football club in the Prestwick and Ayr region of Scotland. There is nothing wrong with the actual article and is more in depth than some professional team's articles. Please keep this harmless article.” - Martin Le Roy 13:44, 15 April 2006 (BST)
I am sorry - it reads as a load of nonsense - "Chairman: Colin Usbobison" - utter rubbish - sources please for this being notable to the ayrshire resion, from the Ayrshire Post newspaper or some such. WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh. The article is pure Vanity it is as simple as that. SFC9394 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"WP is not a playground for a load of lads having a laugh." That I do agree with. That is why we keep our ramblings to our website and away from here. As it stands the article in entirely true. PS. the Colin Usbobison bit is a mistake from when I created the article, it's been fixed.Martin Le Roy 14:12, 15 April 2006 (BST)
That is your opinion - I will let the rest of the WP community decide how valid your points are (bearing in mind the only edits you have made have been on that one article) SFC9394 13:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, I did some updates on the Kilmarnock FC article aswell, though i wasn't signed in as Martin Le Roy. It is down as 81.77.213.120
2 edits under an anon IP which could or could not be you is not an edit history. Can you provide any credible media source to back up whether this team even exists? SFC9394 13:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are metioned on http://www.expage.com/gullspeed, the official website of World Seagull Racing. It's nice to know we are recognised by other sports.
  • Keep.This article should be kept as I feel this team is very important to the culture of ayrshire. i am sure that many others would agree that this is a very informative page, and has a lot of valid information to the team. I wholeheartidly agree with what Martin Le Roy has said in his previous statements. Shaun Cumming12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) <-- this comment was actually posted by 87.81.48.82
  • Delete. The article is decently written, nice infobox, but a short google on USBOB FC shows only 4 distinct sites listing them [18]. I'd be happy to reinstate the article once they've played a few years more, and won a few notable prizes. All the best to you! The Minister of War (Peace) 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is unlike the old paper encyclopedias - it has a lot more storage space! While this article may not be about Britney Spears, it is still well done and is about a real football league. So keep it. george 15:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article isn't even about a football league, and the 'club' doesn't even play in a league I am confused as to your comments. SFC9394 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a real club that play in a real league, so i am siding with george on this one. Good work!! shaun cumming
What league "Shaun"? (aka 87.81.48.82). Can anyone provide any information on this? Are the club affiliated with the SFA through one of the 6 associations? Can anyone provide any evidence of notability whatsoever? SFC9394 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no legitimate reason for you displaying my IP address. I am extremely disappointed that a site of your stature would resort to such a thing without first asking permission!! I am perfectly aware that i am within my rights to stand up for a club which i used to happily watch every week. i made it to a standard that i have now been asked to join this club! shaun cumming
Hey Shaun, your IP gets logged automagically (check the history tab above). It is quite standard for unsigned posts to be attributed to IPs if they have no user account. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it really is standard practice. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hold your horses son... I'd be ok with this getting chucked off cos of Usbob's fledgling notability. But Usbob is real, it is not a hoax let me be clear on that. Besides, as I suggested earlier, our websites have no bearing on what we suggest is actually going on at the club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin Le Roy (talk • contribs) .
If the club is real, please provide independent verifiable sources that show that. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a verifiable factual basis for the article. If there is, I will be happy to change my opinion. Gwernol 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, can you please hold off creating any more articles at the moment Martin, until you understand how WP works - Doors (Sport) which you have just created being an example of something that is also likely going to be nominated for deletion unless you can prove that it satisfies Verifiable and Notable amongst other policies. It is important that you understand that WP is not just a online dumping ground for any old thoughts or ideas - the two articles highlighted would be much more suitable at Wikicities than here at WP.SFC9394 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest with you, due to the lack of good Ayrshire amature football coverage it's not looking good, is it. I think everything on the official website apart from the frontpage and news is true. The only other evidence I could produce is from the Prestwick Academy Yearbook from when we played their teachers for CIN. Martin Le Roy 17:21, 15 April 2006 (BST)
http://usbob-fc.tripod.com/id29.html pictures of the team with other real people, thats a start at least. I'll get rid of Doors (Sport), only 4 people play it in the world, i see your point there Martin Le Roy 17:27, 15 April 2006 (BST)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth.info

This page has already been speedy deleted twice; however, I'm listing it here because, since it is a site critical of Wikipedia, we should be seen to be transparent in our processes, rather than running the risk of being seen as deleting criticism for it's own sake. Because of the reason for listing here, I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted. By the way: User:Hturtikiw's name is "wikitruth" spelled backwards, and this is their only edit. -- The Anome 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, for the time being at least. The site deserves a sentence or two at that page, and an external link, as criticism by admins should be covered on that page. I notice that even external link adding has been reverted. Now its ok to do that for Wikipedia Review which has the occasional really unpleasant "commentary", but the criticism on Wikitruth is legitimate (even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it). The redirect strikes the appropriate balance between notability and transparency. Pcb21 Pete 13:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to make any sense. There is valid criticism of Wikipedia all over the place - nobody is getting censored. Put up the facts and the article stays. Put up blather, and its off to perdition with it. george 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Pcb21. The article contains no actual information beyond the link itself. Gwernol 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lest our zeal to be fair and unbiased in the AfD process cause us to retain an article on a web community that has maybe 5 active users, from what I could tell. If/when it reaches notability it would deserve a mention on Criticism of Wikipedia. GT 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think m/r is best. Kotepho 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With multiple media mentions (even if two were written by AO) I think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Also, Jimbo thought it was important enough to make an unsubstantiated claim that it is a hoax. Kotepho 02:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMerge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Kotepho is quite right, it doesn't yet meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) with one mention, but it will likely gain more attention... perhaps eventually it will deserve its own article... but not yet. With the additional mentions on Slashdot, Digg, and many many more sites in the past couple days, I'd say this is newsworthy enough to get included (that doesnt remove the future possibility of another AFD however)  ALKIVAR™ 22:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) to Criticism of Wikipedia. Or just delete it failing that. Geez, whose vanity article got deleted this time to make us deserve this? They don't seem to tell that on their "FWK" =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the following is a comment about your comment and the state of Wikipedia in general. It is not about whether we should have an article on wikitruth.
    • At a minimum there is one admin contributing to that site (they are able to retrieve deleted content). To pass that site off as if it is merely some banned troll having a hissy fit makes us look bad. Rather than shutting our eyes and saying "LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU", we should at least consider what they are saying. Maybe they have some sensible ideas for improving Wikipedia and we all want that! Pcb21 Pete 12:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course I'm not trying to pass it off as a site probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. I'm trying to pass it off as a site - one that has a Wikipedia admin on board, mind you - that was probably founded by a banned troll having a hissy fit. =) Which is why I'm saying merge, not delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a single cited newspaper article, and no other evidence appearing to meet the criteria listed at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, combined with an Alexa rating of 366,000, 49 unique googles for wikitruth and 128 unique googles for "wiki truth", I would consider deletion. An alternate option mentioned above (which I would support) would be to somehow merge the 'gist' of the information and an external link into the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article. -- Saberwyn 12:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is going to be relevant or not, but all votes "above the line" were made before the slashdotting. All votes "below the line" were made afterwards. The closing admin should use his/her judgement as to whether this is important.

  • Keep as per Kanaman. Grodin Tierce 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Censorship has it's limits. Prohibit Criticism? where are we? China? North Korea? or did the kommunist east germany where I come from did just reincarnate here? --Roy-SAC 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Censorship of a page about censorship on wikipedia would just be bad. I think we need to acknowledge this site; with over one million articles on wikipedia, I am positive there are many articles that are less notable than this that don't have several dozen votes whether or not to delete it. I suspect the reason why there is so much resistance to this site is because it is critical of wikipedia. Rm999 09:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have it backwards, the reason there's dozens of votes on whether to delete it is because it's meta-wikipedian. If you look at the site by normal Wikipedia:Notability (websites) standards ("contents have been the subject of multiple nontrivial published works", etc), it utterly fails and would have been deleted with zero fuss. Phr 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Censorship is BS. We can change the page to be less caustic-sure. But deleting a page altogether is nonsense.Chickenofbristol 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't vote either way on this without an actual article to base my vote on, per:
22:01, 16 April 2006 Jayjg deleted "Wikitruth.info" (created by banned user wik)

--Goobergunch|? 09:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Front page on digg, slashdot, and a guardian article. Also Jimbo's deletion of Brian Peppers is ridiculous. (Bjorn Tipling 09:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    All respect, we aren't voting on Brian Peppers. Note that both digg and slashdot merely refer back to the Guardian article. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep - The Slashdot mention alone would make this worthy. As an aside, it saddens me greatly to see how political the deletion process has become over the past several years. I predict that some admin will take this discussion as license to delete, although there is clearly NOT consensus that such action be taken. - O^O
    Reinforcing what I wrote above. There is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus to delete emerging from this discussion. Deletion of this article makes a mockery of the entire AFD process. O^O
  • Strong keep or at least merge to criticism of Wikipedia. Like what Rm999 said! You can't delete something just because it may portray us badly. Also it's been slashdotted, so it's notable criticism of Wikipedia and needs to be treated impartially. I'd love to see this article grow and flourish as the WikiTruth movement does whatever it does, and Wikipedia reacts whichever way it reacts.--Sonjaaa 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. If you look at the delete votes that's not what's happening. It's up for deletion because it's a non-notable non-wiki barely editing by anyone, and whose primary purpose at this time is gossip-mongering. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. If this is kept, we have to trash every website notability guideline we have. They will all have to be scrapped, because this site violates all of them. It has been mentioned by one columnist in one online edition of one newspaper. One. That article was then mentioned on a popular technology blog (which, frankly, is what Slashdot is). If that's all it takes to establish notability these days then the floodgates will open. Never mind that the claims made about the website have not been verified. Never mind that the website is a forum for gossip and innuendo (like many websites). Never mind that, as this debate goes on, the website is down because of a slashdotting. Not that such an act establishes notability–Slashdot links all kinds of things from the main page. If Wikitruth actually grows into a serious critique of Wikipedia, it may deserve an article. But we're not a crystal ball. Anyone can setup a wiki with eight to ten users and post salacious gossip. I'm in a position to do so myself. Morevoer, given the repeated allegations of sloppy journalism which have followed Andrew Orlowski for years, I could probably drop him a line and get him to mention it in his next rant against Wikipedia. Would my website deserve an article? Apparently, according to the votes above. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "A policy of "delete if and only if the article is not verifiable in a reliable source" would make it far easier to decide borderline cases and would turn AfD into a more constructive process, which would make articles Wikipedia more reliable by adding references where possible. The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable."
    Doesn't seem like that one would have to be deleted. Rm999 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mackensen's extremely well-reasoned explanation of why this site it not notable enough for an article. Johntex\talk 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect The best policy for criticism is to enable it to be (at least somewhat) visible. Being WP related, with ostensibly an admin on board, /., and other sources show some interest/notabilty. SchrödingersRoot | talk 16:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing my vote to keep. The article is now much improved versus how it was when I first voted. Definitely worth its own article now, per many of the other great comments here. -- noosphere 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Merge/Redirect There's really not enough material here to merit it's own article. Merging and redirecting it to Criticism of Wikipedia is the only sane thing to do at this point. Once there's significantly more information on it I'd see no problem in allowing it to have its own article per WCityMike and many other Keep/Merge comments on here. -- noosphere 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: And how would half of the people who have visited this discussion page know that? In the past 48 hours three admins have seen fit to delete this article outside of process. No wonder sites like these exist. Silensor 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Diggidik Peng.[reply]
Comment How would they know what? And how does the rest of what you said relate to what I just said? -- noosphere 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may not always like what Andrew Orlowski has written about, e.g., my employer, but he is often worth reading, so this is now notable, and censorship would look bad. Let a hundred flowers bloom. FlashSheridan 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I notice a lot of people are claiming this site breaks notability rules. Please cite some, I think that would help your case a lot. Some people claim this site has only been covered on slashdot (which insinuates it has not gotten other media coverage). How is this a criteria for deletion? We have an article for countless websites, most of which never got mainstream media coverage. Should we start purging half of wikipedia? Other people have attacked the content of the website. Should we delete the Hitler article because he was a bad man? No, that's insane - just because some people perceive this website to be bad does not mean it can't be covered on wikipedia. Rm999 17:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice strawman. The idea that you would bring Hitler up in such a matter is repugnant. Language involving "purging" and whatnot–is such language really merited? Do you honestly think that a website with eight editors featuring the so-calld "featured atrocity" (of Wikipedia) can be equated to mass-murder? I tremble at the thought that you might be serious. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're trying to turn this into a flamewar, keep it professional and keep this to discussion. If you don't think I made a valid point don't reply, otherwise reply with something on topic. Rm999 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect for the time being, until the site gains some more notability. However many sites link to the guardian article, it's still just one article. -- Vary | Talk 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The website is attracting attention beyond what would usually make a site notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rls 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shutting down dissent fuels rumours that something is very wrong. Allow dissent, and judge it on its merits. For great justice. 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shutting down dissent? I think you're confusing the website and the article about the website. How is dissent being shutdown? This debate has no control over the actual site. Indeed, we're harming it by linking to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Although wikitruth may not be significant enough (yet?) to warrant an article of its own, it is fundamentally important for WP to clearly and fairly acknowledge criticisms of itself. To completely delete this article would amount to an inconcionable act of censureship IMO, and although wikitruth.info may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites), dont forget Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Lets try to reach the best compromise we can by redirecting and making a good article at Criticism of Wikipedia.-Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Criticism of Wikipedia. Not nearly notable enough for an article of its own; 279,814 Alexa ranking. --Rory096(block) 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Criticisms of Wikipedia. This is a criticism of Wikipedia, valid or not, and the site has become rather notable. --Knucmo2 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks to me like the site is fairly likely to meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites) pretty soon; it's getting considerable attention. I'm thinking of switching my vote from "delete now, maybe redirect later" to "redirect now, maybe restart article later". Phr 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's getting attention all right, but mainly from Wikipedia folk. Once the media scrum subsides though, what we've got is a page full of personal attacks on various people, the contents of three deleted articles, and one shoddy op-ed from a discredited journalist (apparently the Guardian is becoming perturbed at the "fan mail" it's been getting over the piece). Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this site fails all the notability policies, and this afd is becoming polluted with people coming from slashdot. I guess it's part of the strategia to destroy consensus and therefore having the article kept. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, does not meet any notability standard ?the Epopt 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having now been in the news, wikitruth.info meets certain standards of notability. People are going to be curious about what wikipedia has to say about the site; I, for one, came here for information about the site that may not have been evident to me at first glance. The fact that it's stirring up so much controversy, in my mind, makes it notable and worthy of inclusion. Captainktainer 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that you mention webcest on your user page, because that's exactly what's going on here. WikiTruth has no notability outside Wikipedia. It's present notability is the result of one man who, for reasons best known to himself, hates Wikipedia (see Andrew Orlowski). An opinion piece is not the same thing as an actual story. For one thing, actual stories are expected to solicit opinions from both camps, and Mr. Orlowski didn't see fit to contact anyone formally associated with Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad. Wikipedia is not in a position to judge good journalism from bad, at least not when deciding whether to include articles. Like it or not, this group is now notable. Tlogmer 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unfortunately it is probably too late to delete this - it has become rather notorious being linked from slashdot and is quite varafiable from the guardian as far as I can see :\. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mention in Guardian and Slashdot make it notable. -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site has become notable through wide exposure -- maybe it doesn't deserve to be notable, but it is, like it or not, regardless of the number of members or quality of content (some of which is pure personal insult, some of which is nuanced criticism). Also: it would reflect terribly on wikipedia if we deleted an article about a group criticising article deletions. If this article gets deleted I'll just shake my head at the endearing lack of PR judgement displayed, but most of the world, not versed in the sometimes confusing notability guidelines (and in this case I think they say "keep" but that's another issue) will see this as a display of Orwellian groupthink and mindless cencorship of any criticism. The more negative the public's view of wikipedia, the fewer people will work to improve it, and the less stigmatised vandals will be. Tlogmer 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it is dishonest and unethical to make the claim that because these votes came after a "slashdotting" they are any more valid or invalid. This group is now as notable as many other groups covered on wikipedia. To delete this group would be inconsistent and it would suggest that Wikipedia values the gods that Naruto (an anime character) worships over actual internet communities who obviously support wikipedia but have much to say about how it is run. Wikipedia allows troll groups on (GNAA) so why can't it have this group. Essentially Slashdot, Metafilter, Wikipedia and Digg have made this group notable. --ReptileLawyer 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They protest against censorship in WP but their own wiki can't be edited, that's stupid. But still, the site it's valuable for wikipedia itself. I believe Wikipedia is very democratic and it's a great tool for democracy. Even in democracy censorship is sometimes needed. But censorship on censorship? That's too much. And yeh, before you accuse me of sockpuppetry check my username in the spanish wikipedia where I contribute more often.--Rataube 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's in the news now. Guaka 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by virtue of being in the news in the Guardian and Slashdot (which may only report other people's news, but something on Slashdot is almost guaranteed to become well-known). As mentioned above, it looks bad for Wikipedia to delete this article as well, and sometimes you have to IAR. -- Mithent 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The validity of the opinions presented are irrelevant. The website has increased significantly in notoriety to the point where it's clearly worthy of at least a mention on the criticisms page, but it makes sense for Wikipedia to err on the side of generosity when concerning articles related to criticism of Wikipedia itself. Besides, deletion would only increase the website's notoriety even further. --ErWenn 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jimbo can't directly delete this article against Wikipedia consensus without proving wikitruth's criticisms of him are valid, providing them with more ammunition, and generating even more negative publicity. -- noosphere 04:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no article should ever be deleted from H.T. --Boborok 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Haham hanuka 08:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable. —Psychonaut 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the site just became notable --Dijxtra 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site contains direct criticism of Wikipedia, and is thus highly relevant. If this article were to be deleted, it would indeed give the impression that Wikipedia would be censored, because that impression would be correct. Also, the suggestion that all votes made after the first couple of days should be discarded because of Slashdot is obviously misguided. That would mean the poll would favour the creator and his or her friends. This article must be kept, or it will be recreated a million times. Ronin 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe there are much more famous sites, but keeping won't hurt anyway. Paulatz 12:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or in the alternative, redirect to the criticism article. The "five active users" figure seems about right. It also takes about five minutes to make an attack site. Not everything linked from Slashdot is notable. This isn't, yet. NTK 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to speak up, or we are going to make a grave mistake. It seems to me as if a lot of the votes are justifying themselves by saying,
"If we delete it, we really are censoring them!"
The problem with this argument is that it assumes we are already allowing that article to express a point of view. Remember, we are neutral when it comes to prose in the main namespace. That article, if well-written, will not express any point of view whatsoever. If the site's authors want a spot on Wikipedia itself where they can bitch and moan about our faults, they can do it in the Talk:, User:, User talk:, or Wikipedia talk: namespaces.
"The site's notable 'cause it's been linked from Slashdot and the Register!"
The site itself is a non-notable website. Being linked to from Slashdot is not notable. Being linked to from the Register is not notable. The Wikipedia Review, a similarly sized site with similar credentials, has no article, and this site shouldn't have one either.
"It's bad PR for us to delete it!"
Anybody who doesn't like us will bitch and moan about us no matter what. They will complain about deletions, admins, images, and pretty much anything else they want. This article is not a pivotal stronghold in the war against bad PR. More importantly, we aren't even attempting at the moment to create good PR. Wikipedia doesn't make press releases, right? The only one of us who's gone onto traditional media to defend us is Jimbo, who will defend the encyclopedia no matter what from here 'til the end of time. Let him, the man who actually speaks up, be the one to defend the project. As for this article, let's not throw away our policies just to cater to one small minority group. - Corbin ? 1 ? p s ? ? Rock on, dude! 14:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP's guideline on the notability of a website should be consulted, and the article in question would appear to satisfy the necessary criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Check; there are at least two, three, maybe more of these non-trivial published works already. Consider that if the article is deleted now, there will likely be more independent non-trivial published works on the topic. --Ds13 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough now. Appeared in the Guardian and on slashdot. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course! Are you that afraid? - Perspective 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, for the time being. As mentioned by other users I think the site deserves a sentence or two at that page, and an external link, as criticism by admins should be transparent and open. Although I might not agree with all of the points or the style in which they are made the criticism on Wikitruth appears to be legitimate and hence should not be banned. By redirecting and adding a paragraph and link to the site I believe wiki will strike the appropriate balance between notability and transparency. As the user above mentioned it has now been ./ed as well. - Edwin Smith 17:00, 18 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep -Fellow wikipedians, there is a paradox in the making here. A real trap, so to speak. If we delete this article we make the site more noteworthy, lend them more credibility, and make them more deserving of an article. If we delete the article now, we'll simply have to re-create it later, as "suppressed" and "censored" things always generate more interest than they would if freely available. Even something like merging or redirecting will simply give them ammunition. If the wikitruth site dies down and ceases to update, then we can consider deleting it. For now, it would be heavy-handed and counter-productive to get rid of it.

--Irongaard 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (websites), and just because something has been given wide media attention won't make it any more valid. It is a website with 10 members, all of whom are not verified and have no grounds for their supposed Wikipedia connections. Alternatively Redirect/Merge so the traffic is correctly routed to Criticism of Wikipedia. At the end of the day this article would be given this treatment if it wern't slashdotted, and acting differently because of this (which as far as I can see doesn't strengthen its case), purely shows inconsistancy and 'cherry-picking' which the site criticises that we do. Ian13/talk 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Mentions on the Grauniad, Slashdot and visitability makes Wikitruth by all means "notable" enough to warrant its own article. If it wasn't a website so critical towards Wikipedia, would we even be having this conversation? Porfyrios 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect Now the website is well-known, and criticism favors improvement :).--pankkake 17:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Being on Slashdot does not guarantee notability. See Alexa's traffic ranking 71.96.234.140 18:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Bear in mind that, according to Alexa, Wikitruth has been online for just over one month. Many sites that have been around far longer have far lower traffic rankings. Besides, traffic ranking is not a perfect measure of notability. --Myles Long 18:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, just so I don't have to look at the actual website itself ever again. Beyond that, if this discussion is ruled as a keep, could folks hold off for a good long while before relisting it for deletion? An ongoing flamewar over Just Another Website created by some disgruntled ex-Wikipedians will only increase visibility in this site -- which I assume those voting "delete" are against. -- llywrch 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamantine Keep Censorship and deletionism is inherently bad, no matter what. Denying a problem exists only allows that problem to fester, then suprise you when it does go critical and blow up, possibly severely damaging or even outright 'killing' you or your case in the process. Take heed... E. Sn0 =31337= 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that censorship is inherently bad and even someone voting delete would/should likely agree with that. I interpret delete here to mean not notable and keep to mean notable. Arguments for keep are stronger if based on notability. --Ds13 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that showing up on The Guardian and Slashdot in short order would count as notable. I've yet to see a web forum that doesn't have a thread about Wikitruth now. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The site has had more than 100,000 hits in a few days. Is that not noteable?
  • Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. They do make some valid criticisms, but I think that the Criticisms of Wikipedia page might be a better place to address it instead of a separate article. I also think it's a really bad idea if this page gets deleted for obvious reasons. So I say just merge/redirect it. --Champthom 21:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is lost in the flood, but I think that a mention on The Guardian, Slashdot, and Digg makes it just notable enough. Jimbo himself mentioned them, too, not that that adds much to their notability. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Whatever you do, don't lose the text of the article. Within a few days, it should die down. Being mentioned by e.g. Digg is only notable enough to attract a deletion debate. This site is just starting, and we don't know if it'll be successful or not. I suggest keep, and bring it back for deletion in a month or so. We've had plenty of other non-notable articles remain for longer; it won't hurt. -- Now if I had to vote now, I'd say Merge/Redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. --Geoffrey 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the site is most certainly notable, due to the numerous news appearances. Besides, there are a huge number of keep votes on this page; we shold be pretty close to consensus to actually delete something that violates no policies and is in fact a current and relevant item in the news. --Doopokko 05:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm leaning towards feeling that this might have achieved enough notability (even if Slashdot is merely reprinting other people's news, it undeniably draws more attention to its subject matter) Barneyboo (Talk) 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article is one of the very few that concern the abuse of power by Administrators. Unexplained WP:OFFICE deletion/protections are bad enough, but Article History alterations are so far out of line that, IMHO, anyone caught doing it should be banned for life, even if it is Jimbo himself. Meneth 14:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Tiny little website with an Alexa ranking that hasn't broken into the top 5,000 during a moment of prominence which will probably be brief. And almost all the hits are probably from Wikipedians. Keeping it would be self-absorbed and unencyclopedic; it is the equivalent of Britannica publishing an article about an argument the editorial staff has in the office one day. Piccadilly 16:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether or not your two speculative probably comments are true doesn't matter; the article satisfies the criteria laid out in the notability of a website guidelines. Simple. If your Britannica analogy included a website that resulted from the employee argument which was subsequently published in a non-trivial manner by several other notable publications then your analogy, also, would satisfy notability criteria. Guidelines are not hard policy, but you're not suggesting an overriding principle which would compel us to disregard the guidelines. --Ds13 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Completely bloody ridiculous. Exactly WHAT policy is this page infringing? Non-notability is out of the question! The site has been visited by people in excess of 100,000, has been Slashdotted, and covered in several other media outlets. Its obviously notable, its obviously verifiable, and I cant see any reason for deleting it other than what they say is true: we can't take the criticism! I LOVE wikipedia, I HATE the sore-losing idiots at Wikitruth, but this article just shouldnt be deleted. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa rankings only count users who use Microsoft Internet Explorer, not the frequent Wikipedia and Slashdot readers who use better web browsers. Alexa rankings are therefor meaningless. --Nick Dillinger 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notability guidelines for website inclusion:

  • Strong Keep -- First, I find the arguments for notability very persuasive. Second, PR is certainly a consideration here. Third, I don't know all the details, but speedy is to be used only for the most obvious cases. This doesn't even meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it's obviously generated substantial discussion. I'm not saying we should keep all unencyclopedic articles just because there are previous questions as to process, but from a PR and community transparency perspective, it needs to be considered. --MikeJ9919 19:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the notability criteria in WP:WEB. RexNL 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. meets WP:WEB criterion as it was publicized by Slashdot. Vacuum 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for web content

Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
      • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

As can be seen, Wikitruth clearly qualifies for notability, and notice that it qualifies if it meets any one of the following criteria. Any other conclusion would clearly be censorship. --Nick Dillinger 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good comment. Its a lucky thing that this site became notable in time for the AFD. Or else it might have been protected from recreation like another notable critic site that we all know and love, Wikipedia Review. No amount of notability will get that on Wikipedia now lol. 203.122.195.111 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alexa rankings are, to be honest, complete and total bullshit when it comes to rating the popularity of a site. However, this does not change the fact that they are still citable in an AfD. More importantly, they have been removed entirely from WP:WEB, so don't worry either way about them. If I were one of the people trying to save this article, I would be MUCH more worried about demonstrating that the mentions of Wikitruth in these two articles, here and here, are actually notable mentions. I quote from WP:WEB, criterion 1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." How strange, then, that the first article only mentions Wikitruth in two different sentences. The first sentence gives us "www.wikitruth.info." The second sentence is just a passing mention. The second article is even worse — all it says is that the first article has information! Seriously, this is just ridiculous. The irrefutable truth of the matter is that this site has been set up do nothing more than inflame and polarize the community (and at that, it's doing a fucking brilliant job, as the comments on this page have shown)... I have nothing more to add. If I have not managed to convince you yet, then I doubt much more can change your minds. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love how people make their vote more emphatic by adding "strong", size, adjectives, color, etc., as if that pumps up the value of that vote. Well, I trump you all: Adamantium-Strength Super Keep! not an actual vote Haha, the battle has been one with one fell swoop! — WCityMike (T | C) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has to be a keep I didn't actually see the link on slashdot but I think that just adds fuel to the fire, and further backs up an argument to keep the article. It is a very fair point to suggest merging or moving the article, but I personally think that the notability of it now warrants its own artilce, hence my comment. --Wisden17 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article, as apparently the images of deletion logs which are posted there indicate that it is not a hoax, and thus, a site started by some admins notable enough to get a mention on slashdot. Terror Island 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign this before)[reply]
  • Keep. was Slashdotted, has a Guardian and a Register article written on it. Lotsa hits too. Plus, wouldn't it be sort of weirdly ironic if we deleted it? I think they are probably hoping we do . Geedubber 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This website should be above censoring critics. Wikitruth was cited in The Guardian[22] which is how I became aware of it. I think a lot of smart wikipedians read a site like that and learn from it. Any good site learns from criticism and doesn't just blow it off --the latter is the "internet" thing to do, which usually equates to being foolish and pig-headed. As per the above comment, deleting it seems to fall into their plans: "OMG, we're what Jimbo Wales/Wikipedia doesn't want you to see!" If they have legs they'll keep walking, if not they'll get left behind. -- Bobak 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Dive (band)

Band not appearing to meet WP:BAND guideline. Prod contested. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shimgray | talk | 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej_Zalewski

Page should be deleted due to the fact that it was a malicious, offensive joke by inconsiderate person and is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I feel deeply dissatisfied with such a pathetic endeavour. 83.27.157.78 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't read Polish, but if somebody can offer a translation into English, I'd probably change my vote to Delete if it were what the submitter says it is. Otherwise, it should probably be transwikied into the polish language WP. Nortelrye 23:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This thing is about me and I do not wish to have such a note, untrue in fact, on internet. I'm not a celebrity, therefore I demand deleting this page. 83.27.157.78 8:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Poltran.com says it means, "Maciej Zalewski - first and sole scholarship holder so far polish < poland > UWC, it has gotten which (who) on no uniwesytet." --Hetar 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which is not true... Can you kindly delete this page? I do not want to have any notes about me on internet. This was probably written by a jealous person and as I have written before is irrelevant to wikipedia. I would like to remind you that I am not a public person and therefore I would like you to delete this page. --Mzalewski 08:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Waring

Seems like a hoax. Only 34 Google hits, and none of them mention King Henry VIII or anything historical. SCHZMO ✍ 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Chick Bowen 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate strategy development method

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization design

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Alphax τεχ 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business planning

Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) No vote. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 David M. Shoup. Shimgray | talk | 14:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Monroe Shoup

In the words of the article creator, "This text doesn't need to be here ... this bio was already created under David M. Shoup"--Zxcvbnm 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 § 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia in Singapore

No relevant content despite existing for nearly a year. Incoming links only from Homosexuality in Singapore, which itself should suffice to cover the topic. Jpatokal 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends, Romoin, and Insta-nan

The Wonderful World Of Romoin is a non-notable webcomic you'll find here. Romoin is an article about the main character of this comic, and Insta-nan is the (fictional) brand of coffee he prefers. Its claim to notability is that the comic has a small following on two internet forums (no Wikipedia articles for either) and that the author spammed it on a third. It doesn't meet WP:WEB. It also has WP:VAIN problems as all three articles are by the webcomic's author (note the author and licenses used on the images uploaded to commons). –Abe Dashiell

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. You can't bootstrap yourself into notability by starting with Wikipedia. Get notable first, then we'll see about an article. george 15:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nortelrye 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - believe it or not, this webcomic DOES have a following, as evidenced by the amount of people visiting the page. The REAL website address is www.geocities.com/worldofromoin/ and check out the critics page to see what people think about it. It's inclusion in Wikipedia is completely valid and far more interesting than listing Speed dating - John Surname
  • Delete nn and vanity. Listed on "geocities".--Jersey Devil 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable webcomic 203.26.16.67 06:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC) - [You're not even a user][reply]
  • Don't delete - It's notable ENOUGH. I actually created the "Wonderful World Of" entry, and I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comic.Jesustrashcan 16:48, 16 April 2006
    • Would you be so kind as to provide verifiable information taken from what the Wikipedia community considers reliable, third-party sources to back up your claim "it's notable enough". Items such as regional or national level newspapers or magazines citing the webcomic's popularity would be your best bet for such a thing. As an internet based comic, it would also be a good idea to review the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, and if you can provide sources showing that this comic can meet one or more of the listed criteria, I would say keep and merge all into comic's main article. If this cannot be done by the end of the deletion discussion, delete away as externally unverifiable. -- Saberwyn 12:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's obviously notable enough that I came across it through Internet browsing. If you can find something on the Internet that easily through Google, then I'd say it's rather notable. Not to mention the fact that this, by all means, is NOT a vanity article, as - as I said, I have nothing at all to do with the creation of the comics - but you neglected to mention that in your rebuttal. Did you feel you didn't need to, or was it just your agenda? Jesustrashcan 13:06, 17 April 2006
        • I'm not saying it is or it isn't a vanity article. I don't care who wrote the article, as in my personal view a well-sourced, externally verifiable article can be written by the creator or someone with a vested interest in the article's subject. I'm asking: "Can you provide sources such as reviews from newspapers, magazines, or major websites independant of the comic, demonstrating the notability of this article?" and/or "Has this comic been presented with an award from a major publisher or organisation?". Because a Google search for the title of the comic produces twelve unique from 55 hits, which implies a limited spread of the comic's notability across the internet, I am wondering if you can provide any published sources that attest to how popular the comic is, and therefore, if it passes the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline.
          • It states, in the very first line on the page, that it is not actually Wikipedia policy except in the cases of advertisement or using Wikipedia as a web directory. While it may not fit any of the criteria, it is neither an advertisement or an attempt at using Wikipedia as a web directory. Those aren't guidelines, they're merely suggestions. Jesustrashcan 14:50, 17 April 2006
          • I'm not sure which section of the guideline you are starting at, but the first sentances I see state "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), but it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered in Wikipedia in a way that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are formal policies." This guideline is the black-and-white copy of the consensus arrived at concerning website inclusion a while ago, and although it is a guideline, my personal interpretation is that if an article on web-based content cannot be demonstrated to meet any of the points listed, then another reason, one which is not feasibly covered by the guideline, must be provided if the article is to be included. I have not said that the article is an advertisment, or an attempt to promote the comic or use weblinks on Wikipedia to promote increased readership in any way or form. I have said that the article is unverifiable (official policy), through the use of reliable, third-party sources (guideline detailing how the verifiability policy can be enacted). -- Saberwyn 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • TWWOR is totally verifiable. It is an actual comic. It has a following of people. Who read it. And enjoy it. EVERYTHING on the page is 100% TRUE! I am not advertising, and simply because I can't afford a proper website, how does that make mine ANY LESS VALID? The websites that I host Romoin on ARE NOT PERSONAL WEBSITES/BLOGS. They are completely free of opinion. Just Romoin. Thrusty thrusty. - User:Johnsurname
  • Delete - It's hosted on spaces.msn.com - NO. - Hahnchen 12:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its webhost shouldn't be considered a reason for its deletion. Jesustrashcan 13:09, 17 April 2006
      • It wasn't the sole reason, but it is one of them that no one had mentioned at the time. There are going to be more popular myspace profiles than this, it's not notable, and that's why I voted. - Hahnchen 13:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I am doubtful of its notability, because it's apparent I mistook the original authorship of the The Wonderful World Of Romoin And Friends article, I am changing my implied delete for it to no vote. I maintain that both Insta-nan and Romoin should be deleted, however, and I am not withdrawing the AfD as a whole. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)(t/c) 15:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok the Insta-Nan and Romoin entries can go. But I still believe the comic is notable enough for it to stay. I created the MSN spaces site after the original site because I felt it might be easier to maintain a following on a blog format- johnsurname
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd

As far as I can tell, this company fails to meet any of the three notability standards at WP:CORP. Therefore, I am recommending deletion as non-notable. RayaruB 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman{L} 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenbaath

Non-notable webcomic. 769 Google hits. Delete. DMG413 15:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eddie Guerrero. Mailer Diablo 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vickie Guerrero

The article subject is only famous because of her (now deceased) husband. She don't require an article. McPhail 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Eivindt@c 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elation

Orphaned AfD. Completing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as this is a duplicate article. Actually, I will merge MS Enchantment of the Seas here, rather than the other way around, since that is consistant with the other ship entries in the Royal Caribbean International article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enchantment of the Seas

Cleaning up someone else's nomination. No vote. Andy Saunders 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the same ship as MS Enchantment of the Seas Splamo 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- No Guru 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard P. Sandulli

Seems to be another nn-bio. HappyCamper 16:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 § 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Czarnetzky

Fails WP:BIO. On top of that, only 60 google hits. Not notable. Pal5017 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Creativity

Delete Advert San Saba 16:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascination (ship)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sunday Belgium

This page lists no useful information, apart from some Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang bashing that is already prominent on other pages. Just refer to the last paragraph as an indication of the usefulness of this article. 1652186 16:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Television

Non notable company. Alexa ranking of 869,820, and Google doesn't work well with such a common phrase. "national television" "Brumby Boylston" -wikipedia only gets 119 hits, though. Rory096(block) 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire! 21:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Carl Barks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only A Poor Old Man

Non notable story by a notable author. 766 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MindTree Consulting

Advertisement that does not assert notability. (Prod removed without explanation.) –Sommers (Talk) 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it!!

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Department of Science and Technology (Philippines). (Already done.) --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Science and Technology

There is absolutely no information on this page at all. -Bottesini 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a seed, and I don't know if the creation author intends to add more content or not - his edit summary says "created preliminary article", which may indicate that things are not finished yet. The subject is legitimate, and there are plenty of articles that are literally one line stubs. As long as the article subject is legitimate and within WP's guidelines then I am always happy for a stub to be there, as it encourages others to expand it (whereas if the article didn't exist then there would be no chance of expansion unless someone went to the trouble of creating it). SFC9394 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akira123323's comments bumped this back to the top of my watchlist and I had another look at the situation - it turns out there are a few of these. I have posted on the article creators talk page about preferable naming conventions. For the closing admin: moves (of the naming form above that Akira123323 suggests) in addition to this AfD article are also required for:
A couple of them were created by other users, and it seems that that precedence has lead to others being created with the same form - if these could all be moved then it would save any further confusion (or Afd's). SFC9394 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I took the time to check the articles, and all articles except the one on the DSWD redirect to their respective articles with the disambiguation. --Akira123323 03:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuppelvideo

Non notable software. Rory096(block) 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - brenneman{L} 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Badger Badger Parodies

This page was created by Greenunity (talk · contribs) who also owns the site that hosts the "rogerrogerroger" animation. He spammed his link into Badger Badger Badgers–related pages [27] [28] [29] and when he was told to stop he created this article as a vehicle for his and other non-notable "parodies". Apart from that, this article is vanity and verges on WP:POINT. It explicitly does not include notable animations that are on Badger Badger Badger, and therefore is entirely non-notable by design. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole LaPlaca

non notable actress (though she's been a minor part of some notable films). 450 Ghits = barely more than me. Rory096(block) 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faust (Programming language)

author objected to {{prod}}, see Talk:Faust (Programming language). No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Defer I've looked at the web site and the language is real and interesting, but a micro-stub like this article isn't useful. The article author in the talk page says more is coming. I propose suspending this AfD for a week or two and seeing what happens. Alternatively, might mention in some list of special purpose programming languages or in a signal-processing related article. Phr 19:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a better argument for deletion. Actually I see no reason stated at all by nominator. Where does the 5000 number come from? I see Wikipedia:Notability (software), but (a) that is only a proposed policy; and (b) it has no such criterion. LambiamTalk 03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, as the stub author I'd like to note number of downloads is not relevant, or even avaliability to download. The project is an interesting research project, with a limited userbase for the time being. The language has interesting articles published around it, and is quite unique, thus notable. Oyd11 14:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no evidence of notability in substub of an article. Being a "unique" research project does not make it notable. Where are all these articles about it? Pete.Hurd 04:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are one link away from the link at the stub ([30]), I'd be suprised if anyone with DSP or audio-programming background would concider this not-notable. WP is full of much less notable programming language pages. Oyd11 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. (I'm the person who originally proposed this article for deletion.) Until we have have written a proper [[Wikipedia:Notability (programming langauges}guideline on programming languages]], being the subject of an article in an academic journal would be good enough for me. —Ruud 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Albrect

Non notable martial artist. Only 84 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7: group of people with no assertion of notability. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver (band)

Probably a nn-band, prodded with no reason given, so I'm Afd-ing it. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 17:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*keep actually, it sounds like it may pass WP:MUSIC as they have an album, which I am assuming was on an "indie" label. Roodog2k 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 § 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Lane Blacktop

Fails WP:MUSIC Pal5017 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
  2. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  3. ^ Examples:
  4. ^ Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies, Webby Awards or Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
  5. ^ Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais has a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15&oldid=48588562"