Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

Purge server cache

March 11

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd_Haley

[edit]

Another not-a-biography page with disreputable references, toxic hyperbole, buzz phrases "50% Mercury by weight". It is Thimerosal controversy being re-written along with conspiracy theorising, Gulf War syndrome and WP:OWN by the usual author, Ombudsman. An academic Chemist with not a single published paper referred to in the article. Not notable, at least, on nothing like this basis. Not WP:BIO Not good. 'Speedy DELETE Midgley 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some rewriting on it. Has anyone told his university/department the article was planned? That might be ... appreciated. Midgley 14:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPA

Then the article should be edited. There are lots of biographies about individuals known for one strongly held opinion, especially if it is controversial.--Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is very difficult for you to understand this concept, but here it is. Even if you disagree - and maybe especially if you disagree - with Boyd's point of view, it is critical that people who want to be educated on the controversy know something about the people who make them. If Boyd is deleted, then it is open season on all kinds of people. Of course, precedence means nothing here, only mob rule. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Obviously notable, 50K+ Google hits on "boyd haley autism", for example. Whether he's a crackpot or not isn't relevant; he's a reasonably conspicuous participant in a high-profile public controversy. He shouldn't be written out of Wikipedia on a rationale that borders on censorship; instead, the article should be cleaned up and made into an NPOV presentation. Monicasdude 14:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as it has more than 50000 Google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Jim62sch 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Common sense indicates that the concerns expressed by an eminent researcher of Haley's stature should be taken seriously, given that the combined effects of neurotoxins upon humans, especially in utero, are unknown and of paramount importance considering the acute crisis of the autism epidemic and rising prevalence of autoimmune diseases. Too, a goofle search for "Boyd Hayley" produces over 30,000 hits, making this AfD one of the most absurd ever to be attempted. Ombudsman 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The top hit of those 30 000 (I have not checked all of them) is the famously unreliable Whale site, and the next few are rather similar. When you get down to http://www.chem.uky.edu/research/haley/ which is what the Haley group says it is about, you find no note of toxicology, and no note of autism or mercury. But you don't find any note of any of that in the article. The problemisn't with the subject, who is as notable as many people are, it is with the article, which is not actually about him. SO yes, Prof Haley may well be worth biographising, but this is not his biography. It is eyt another of a string of articles pushing a very restricted POV of Ombudsman's att he expense of real information or an accurate view of the people whose names are used to cover them. Midgley 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Notable researcher, even the nominator says he "may well be worth biographising". AfD is not the answer if you think an article has POV problems. David Sneek 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect relevant NPOV info to Controversies in autism. If the subject is notable, and he is a leading scientist / crackpot / whatever who misses the bar as an individual, that's where he / this belongs. I'd be tempted to keep (or at least not delete) if this looked like it could be kept NPOV and verifiable, but I'm betting that would be a problem. Deizio 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Doubt" should translate into "keep" - WP has a bias for inclusion. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to controversies in autism. A search of verifiable sources available through my public library system refers to two articles in Biotech Weekly and Vaccine Weekly respectively both titled "Autism: Lawsuits accuse companies of mercury poisoning". There is also a mention of him in relation to a 1992 New York Times article on Alzheimer markers. Academic Search Premier came up with nothing on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete --Khoikhoi 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen Wikipedia articles for people who own ad agencies, not to mention creators of favorite anime. The bar for who is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is not all that high. This is a professor who obviously has a following. He seems to be important to supporters of alternative medicine, so mobbing on this for deletion could be considered a political/ideological action. --Pansophia 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soapboxing and walled gardening by one editor with a known strong anti-vaccine and autism-related bias. JFW | T@lk 05:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who starts an article is irrelevant, and you know that. The soapbox element should be edited to be NPOV, and the wall garden is nothing but a spurious charge, disappointing especially coming from you. --Leifern 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the starting that bothers me, it's the writing. In the present form the article is biased towards Haley's work in mercury, while his academic interests are underrepresented. There are significant WP:V problems as well. I reserve the right to vote delete when an article appears beyond rescue. I also support the invocation of WP:BIO - this researcher does not need his own page to cover the material mentioned; this is Ombudsman's well-known tactic of maximising his desired content - writing about the personalities. That's walled gardening to me, period. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known. --Masssiveego 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A search on PubMed --the database of medical articles (for everything 1966+)-- for Haley B(au) AND autism yields three articles, the first of which is published by a German group and possibly someone with the same name. Haley BE(au) AND autism yields one hit on PubMed. On NONE of the PubMed papers is Haley first author (i.e. the lead author). Haley isn't an expert in austim in my books-- if he has no more than three publications listed in PubMed and a not a primary author on any of them. As for Google hits -- I got 15,900. There are things that had more hits (e.g. Church of Reality) and didn't get an article. Nephron 06:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I agree he deserves a mention in Controversies in autism. The way it's written now is a soapbox for a point of view best raised elsewhere. -- Samir (the scope) 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just another attempt to suppress a vaccine critic. Boyd Hayley is the most notable scientific critic of thimersosal. Typical Midgley, see attempt to delete most notable medical vaccine critic [1], and so on. john 09:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if Midgley doesn't like the content, he can edit. Haley has lots of credentials and is an important person is a ranging controversy. Midgley, btw, is a known knave at Wikipedia, prone to chronic personal attacks, sockpuppetry, impersonating other users, and confusing the debate. Any AFD or CFD from his should be met with suspicion. --Leifern 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an outrageous personal attack. Also essentially untrue (I was so irritated by an IP addresed user calling himself "the invisible anon" I registered the ID (making a literal error and registring the completely unused "Invisible Anon" which has been described as a sock puppet). I accept that that was WP:POINT and don't propose to do it again. AN admin commneting on it remarked that it had followed weeks of provocation - by Leifern, Ombodsmun and the IP address user referred to. If you look at Leifern's history, you will see that the first contact he had with me - triggered by Ombudsma - was a vitriolic attack on me, and an incoherent attack on a page I started called anti-vaccinationist which he has sustained. If you look at other edits I've been involved in, you'll see they mostly go smoothly, despite being in subjects not always free of controversy. (Try fast breeder reactors, Exeter, Smallpox, Edward Jenner which is now a Good Article. If you have a look at http://ganfyd.org you'll see that I wrote the licence and was an instigator and am a sysadmin etc there and it works very well. Look at leifern's early edits and you'll see that one of the four subjects he is very obviously non-objective on is the presence of anti-vaccinationists in the world (I can understand the psychology of the other 3 but that one I'm unsure of - possibly it is the reaction of someone who makes his living from rationality finding that he is keeping company he cannot accpet as an organised group but must regard as coincidental agreement arrived at independently but this is a digression). I think this sustained pattern of behaviour against me is outside WP policies and norms and worthy of comment. It certainly is an ad hominem attack here. Would admins take note of this, please. Midgley 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this off the AfD boards guys, yeah? Leifern, your comment should have ended with the word "controversy" and you know it. Midgely, your response makes this a candidate for a bad faith nomination. You guys seem too involved with the extreme ends of this debate, maybe others are better suited to judge this topic. Deizio 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would challenge anyone to find a clear example of my taking an extreme point of view on this issue, or any other - or that I have "lied" to anyone. All I have asked for is that a controversy be presented fairly and accurately. As for Midgley's sockpuppetry, impersonation, etc., it's a matter of record and not a personal attack. I think that anyone who stoops to such tactics deserves suspicion if not scorn. --Leifern 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to write an encyclopedia. I assume that Leifern posted in such fashion to make it appear that this is bad faith. In the end people have to make up their own minds, but should not be lied to. I agree that this is not a place for such an argument - Leifernstarted it and will not stop despite firm administrative guidance - I don't know what else to do about it, and as one might expect and I think is intended, it is upsetting. I note that other people have simply left WP in esponse to such tactics - I'm one of the ones you want to keep. Midgley 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make this AFD, you did, so I'm not sure how my objection to it could be done in a way that makes the AFD look like bad faith. As for firm administrative guidance, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As for being sober, thanks again for your medical insights, but yes I am sober. --Leifern 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Here is some firm guidance you have managed to know nothing of. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Norman&diff=43488887&oldid=41759444

I would think better of this behaviour if it was not sober. I read the WP article on sockpuppets, and apart from WP:POINT which I shan't do again, but Leifern is continuing to commit, none of my use of the invisible Anon was harmful - no voting, just a demonstration that if one wants to be called {name} then following advice from several people to actually register {name} is sensible. Leifern's behaviour has been from the start unreasonable and obnoxious, as demonstrated here. Since he started editing WP he has been pushing a particular POV, forcefully, and in several instances by sustained rudeness and uncivil behaviour - see his history with User:Geni over Thimerosal, Mercury and autism. It isn't coinciental, and it isn't me. Midgley 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further cluttering by defending myself, see User:Leifern/Accusations by Midgley --Leifern 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: As pointed out elsewhere, Haley is perhaps the foremost scientist investigating the neurotoxicity of heavy metals, an area of utmost importance with regard to the global epidemic of autoimmune disorders. His research and outspoken opposition to vested interests profiting immensely from contaminating the environment and poisoning medical patients is of extreme relevance to many significant health and safety debates, making this AfD one of the most ludicrous and preposterous examples of gaming the system yet perpetrated. The motivation for this AfD is beyond highly suspect, since it inherently relies upon both a lack of understanding of the issues by many or most Wiki editors and the built-in advantage of having the dubious wind of medical orthodoxy at its back. Haley's research isn't simply about the role of thimerosal in the iatrogenic autism epidemic, it has ramifications with regard to the wisdom of the ADA's refusal to allow dentists to speak with patients about mercury poisoning caused by mercury-laden amalgams, upon the understanding of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's, and upon the understanding of the etiology of autoimmune disorders. There are plenty of fictional characters and soap opera actor biographies to nominate for an AfD, rather than gaming the system to suppress important information of a highly regarded scientist who is serving a critical role by actively investigating the devastating effects of neurotoxins that have ravaged the health of millions. Ombudsman 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google:neurotoxicity of heavy metals --> 56 300 hits. The top one is the US national institutes http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/neurotoxicity/neurotoxicity.htm which looks distinctly WP:RS but doesn't seem to be where Dr Haley works at present.
neurotoxicity of heavy metals Haley --> 568 hits, but the top ones, in a pattern that is familiar here, are Whale, Mercola etc. At the top of the page we see 3 scholarly article hits, and on the first page there is one potentially reputable source the FDA giving what turns out to be a straight presentation (I think the US calls it testimony) on Hg and Alzheimer's disease. No comments attached to it from those who heard it, but I note the FDA has not changed radically as a result of it. After that it is all the way to page 6 before I see anything remotely academic or WP:RS and that - [ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-12/correspondence.html] - although in an environmental health journal turns out to be a mis-hit, a different Haley.
"Neurotoxicity" is quite specific, if one looks at Google --> toxicity of heavy metals the spread is still quite complicated but high on the first page is emedicine which is a very WP:RS. Looking at the references in that article which is as all the emedicine ones are, Honcode, long, attributable, peer-reviewed, and in something more than principle sue-able/actionable upon if bad advice caused incorrect actions - points to books - expect to see Haley in the references in Harrison's? You shouldn't. On page two we find another reputable source a CDC minute
Looking more closely if we restrict sites to ac.uk and .edu (the US equivalent, I understand) we get much smaller numbers of hits which are much more distinct IE differ from each other in their content. They are also highly likely to be [[WP:RS]. Haley? The first inviting one in the .edu is IOM meeting agenda] with slides and audio. WHat stands out there is that yes, Haley is among people who one would expect to be well-recognised, and therefore probably is in his field, which there is given as in vitro studies. He is among others who deal with whole people, or make them ...
Conclusion of comment This does not to me make Dr Haley's reputation out as described above. It is a disservice to an academic or scientist to blow them up as something more than what they are - one of many - and the underlying reason tends to be that few scientists share the particualr point of view lauded. Actually, Haley has a reputation for doing competent and interesting work in fields having nothing to do with any of this, and that points up even more strongly that this is a non-WP:BIO piece of an article about Autism and Thimerosal controversy, not about Haley, and not an effort to biographise him. An article might be written, but this is not that article, any more than Peter Fletcher was. Midgley 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite if need be. Seems reasonably notable. Jcuk 23:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not adequately balanced, not convinced he's notable enough. This is not about Haley but about a theory, and I don't go along with "personalising" theories especially when dealing with contemporary not historical figures, it doesn't make for objective treatment of either the person or the theory Gleng 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another example of the disservice of disinformed statements by certain diningenious editors with regard to Haley and the avalanche of hard demonstrative evidence that provide proof of the iatrogenic debacles that are the hallmark of mainstream medicine. If anything, Haley's research findings have nailed shut the coffin of medical orthodoxy's dead on arrival theories unconscionably proffered to excuse the unexcusable continuance of its idiotic insistence upon using thimerosal in vaccines and quicksilver amalgams for dental fillings. Haley's use of birth hair, blood and urine analyses, not to mention use of highly advanced biomarkers, are not mere theoretical indicators, these have been used to provide overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of ongoing harm perpetrated by the medical industry. Ombudsman 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to pick out one thing from that unWP:CIVIL unWP:AGF comment, amalgam is _dental_ amalgam, not a medical thing at all. And while Haley's work is interesting, there is a need for someone else to actually succeed in repeating it before it convinces everyone. Thimerosal is pretty much abandoned now, and it is time the incidence of autism was shown to have changed as a result, if the cae for a connection is to be made - it is very classic really: make a hypothesis that A causes B, stop A, observe B decrease. We might avoid the stage of restarting A and observing B rise again in challenge - if it happens. WP:RPA does seem a useful semi-convention, and actually once it is appleid, the content of comments gets easier to pick out. The character of the argument of course doesn't of itself demonstrate the falsity of the arguments, any more than the ad homenem and more precisely ad personam attacks demonstrate anything about the article, the AfD or the science, but they are quite characteristic of anti-vacinationist and the fringe medical campaigners and IMHO out of place in the construction of an encyclopaedia. Medical orthodoxy by the way, has been assembled from whatever came to hand and worked, which is why so much that isn't orthodox doesn't work. We have been doing free and open copying of knowledge for generations longer than WP has, and approving of it. Midgley 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Man, lots of RPA links. Okay: I say, keep. Boyd Haley is notable as a professor; head of a department, with describable contributions. However, the POV edit war thing has got to be resolved somehow. AfD is not the way to do it: here, we should decide on the notability of the topic. I advise the editors to try dispute resolution. Mangojuice 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by all means, but trim it. His article is longer than those of most heads of state. A couple of paragraphs should do for a scientist who is a proponent of a theory. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was consensus to keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Hansen

[edit]

Non notable. Article fails to assert notability. Performer has done roughly eight movies from 1997 to 2004, barely averaging 1 per year. Delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per new information provided in this AfD discussion. It is highly ironic that it took an AfD nomination to improve this article and bring everyone out of the woodwork, per se. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Probably meets the notability bar; needs cleanup Bucketsofg 05:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (15 delete, 3 delete or merge, 7 keep, one move and one merge) Stifle 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrines, mosques and graves

[edit]
  • Comment. There is no requirement to comment on a prod removal, and there's no point in bringing it up here. · rodii · 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is important that the administrator closing this up and fellow Wikipedians know about the prod removal especially so that they understand why I didn't prod it first and to the lengths that this poster goes to prevent his articles from being deleted. I understand you have objections to my moves in the Spinnwebe article but don't let it trancend into afd's that have nothing to do with that. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most people did vote delete, since there was nothing to vote keep on. That is changed now, the article is expanded greatly [9]. I suspect it has some pov sentances here and there, and some grammar errors, so i request help with that. As is now, the article can stand on its own merits, in my view. --Striver 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, Striver frequently does this on afd's to try and stop his articles from being deleted. He says "I updated the article" to try and invalidate delete votes already cast and then usually sends messages in talk pages of his allies to get keep votes. I am getting real tired of it and an admin should know that before closing up this afd. Either way, the additions of which are alot of original research don't make the page any less of a fork.--Jersey Devil 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the content of wikipedia is a honorable thing to do, invinting people to vote is a wikipedia guildline, accusing me of adding original research wihtout even bothering to read the references is, well you know. --Striver 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While adding to the content of WP is honorable, this article isn't salvageable. It is a POV fork. If it actually survives AfD, it should be moved to some more informative location (such as as Salafist destruction of shrines mosques and graves (this is also a horrible name, but it fits a horrible article & is descriptive). --Karnesky 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Why do you regard it as unsalvagable and at the same time acknowledge that it is a topic meriting a distince name`? As you see when reading the article i just expanded, the practice is real, sourced, notable and actualy raises quite heated debates, that is if you read the references i provided. --Striver 22:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is a fork, just tell me where the info should go, ill merge it there and change my vote to delete. --Striver 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is already a Wikipedia article called Ziyarat, which covers Islamic pilgrimages other than the Hajj, and this article mentions Wahabi/Salafist persecution. Any real info could go there. Striver could put his energies into making a list of shrines that attract ziyarat and creating articles for each shrine, with pictures. Westerners know about the Hajj, but don't understand ziyarat. Info and pictures of the beauties of the shrines would help. Zora 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the significance of Shrines, mosques and graves is crucial to many Muslim practices. While Ziyarat is also an important practice to visit those places, Ziyarat will be a huge article by itself. I would say the article is a good stub that needs lots of work and it might end up being a huge article. I even started something similar to this in the Arabic wikipedia under categories. I was even planning to create something similar to this article myslef. The Peace Worshipper (aka 129.)Talk to TPW 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the talk page for the ziyarat article, MPatel suggested a division into Ziyarat and Ziyaret -- that is, pilgrimage practices and places of pilgrimage. That seems workable to me. No one but no one is going to be looking for an article entitled "Shrines, mosques, and graves". I admit that ziyaret is not an English term and that no one will be looking for it either BUT ... it's unambiguous and we can direct people to it from Islam, Hajj, mosque, pilgrimage, shrine, mausoleum, and other articles. Zora 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i see, and we cant do that for the present name? I get it. (not that i endorse the present name)--Striver 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because we aren't interested in mosques and graves per se -- there are millions of mosques and graves that aren't places of pilgrimage. We are interested in the mosques and graves that are pilgrimage centers. There is no word for this in English, but there is in ... Persian? Arabic? Anyway, ziyaret is a good word to import into English as meaning "Muslim pilgrimage center not the Kaaba or the Medina mosque". I would be willing to give it up if someone could come up with a better phrase, however. Zora 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montville High School

[edit]

non-notable high-school; we don't need articles about every high school in America Jim62sch 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this...As long the information in the entry is accurate, there is no need to try and save the bytes of space that this webpage might take up. And no, I do not have an affiliation with this school.

There is no reason to delete a perfectly legitimate hs, there are a number of reasons people might want to search for information about it.

  • Comment If the article can be improved, and maybe if it noted one semi-famous grad I guess keeping it would be OK, so if you want to close this out as a keep, go ahead. Jim62sch 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus after consideration. Recommend renominate the articles separately instead. Mailer Diablo 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Kids

[edit]

Delete WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising EricR 01:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Also adding the following pages:[reply]

*Delete - They're all a bunch of pointless lists. --Spring Rubber 01:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Barker

[edit]

Non-notable bio about a student with extremely marginal political influence. Autobiographical. —Cuiviénen, 01:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sungsu Kim

[edit]

Non-notable academic bio. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Very interesting. Delete philosopher becaue he is not famous or universally known . Keep article on the every single episode of Buffy the Vanpire Slayer, on the other hand!! I'm beginning to get the basic idea around here: the name should be changed perhaps to Populo-pedia or frivolo-pedia.. What nonsense. Keep or get rid of Buffy and all the other crap that you wouldn't find in any self-respecting encyclopedia except the Populo-pedia.--Lacatosias 09:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Where are such issues discussed?--Lacatosias 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as inclusion of academics, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. For Buffy, I don't know. In this case, I say Delete: according to my quick search, this person has barely any publications or citations; this would be forever a stub or a duplication of his CV. Mangojuice 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UC)
Yes, to be clear, I'm not nearly as concerned with keeping Sungsu Kim (or every single academic philosopher) in the Wikipedia, as I am in getting Buffy, the Simpsons and other such popular nonsense off of it. I am fundamnetally an extreme deletionist, on other words. There's far too mcuh crap on here. This problem needs to be addressed. In the context of all this crap, I begin to thing it's not inappropriate to add a vanity page for each of my hundreds of relatives. Until I find out how to delete Buffy, I still say userfy so I can illustarte and discuss some serious deficiencies that I have found in the selection process for the inclusion of articles in the Wikipedia.--Lacatosias 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree (at least in part) with your views on popular culture (I think it's OK to have a concise article on Buffy, but not a whole family of articles on every detail, character and episode), keeping this bio to make a point is not the correct way to go about discussing this change. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocafe

[edit]

Spam, the article has only external link and no one article links to it. A5b 01:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Delete 10 Keep 6 Merge to Nikah Mut'ah and/or Mut'ah of Hajj 4, Merge 2 --> 62 percent for deletion. Not enough consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah

[edit]
changed vote to keep after article improvements. Oscar Arias 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See that for my responce --Striver 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
to Striver - When you do an update to this, you may want to explain (briefly) what Mut'ha is (at least in the context of this article). The wikilink goes to a disambig page and I'm not sure what definition applies. -Oscar Arias 06:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very contructive critique, i will try to comply.--Striver 11:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just expanded the article to show why it is notable. --Striver 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete. Lacks context, if context is added becomes copy of other articles. The quotes from the speech are Wikisource material (or even better a separate web site systematically collecting the full writings of a religion). Zillions of itty bitty context-free articles on religious trivia are unhelpful to the reader of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a religious scholar.) Weregerbil 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, i just added context? --Striver 13:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, these are really about the Sunni/Shia thing. Articles to argue against the other faction? Withdrawing "merge" suggestion, just plain old delete as POV pushing. Weregerbil 13:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you do agree that the topic is both verified and notable? In fact, so much that it is used in "the Sunni/Shia thing"? If you came to that conclusion, why are you voting delete? If the article is pov, it needs npoving, not deleting, and i need assistance with the article, i cant to perfect articles on my own. --Striver 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is notable enough. As to "npoving" and "perfecting" - no thanks, been there, tried to do that, met furious resistance and deletion (or "moving") of all criticism, will try to keep well clear of it if possible. Weregerbil 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability, you seem to have missed this link from al-islam.org, it clearly shows that the hadith is very notable in a prominent Shi'a/Sunni topic. As for "its hairspliting, see See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 18:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Per what, detete per Sahih Muslim AND Al-islam.org being "an unverifiable page"?--Striver 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "instead of standing alone", Please see Matthew 1:5 --Striver 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put Matthew 1:5 up on AFD and I'll vote Merge/Delete. It is even less notable than this article. kotepho 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Consensus on individual verses of Matthew is that they should be merged or redirected. Esquizombi 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about all hadith, we are talking about this hadith. If merged, where? And do we duplicate it to all other articles connected with this? Isnt it better to give such a notable hadith as this its own article and just link to it?--Striver 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs a bit of a re-write, but this is verifiable, and Striver has given it context beyond Wikisource. -- Samir (the scope) 05:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. If you had a question about the source, the corresponding talk page should have used. Though, no source was provided on the Sunni and Shi'a views. However, this article should not exist, nor should other hadith articles. Despite Striver's example of Matthew:5 or whatever verse he keeps flaunting as precedence, I still don't think each individual hadith needs an individual article. Perhaps Zora's suggestion to create a Hadith cited by Shi'a article should be considered and these hadith could be merged their, instead of having thousands of individual articles floating around. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. In theory, I see every hadith as notable, though I don't think every hadith should have its own article. Especially with the length of the articles as they are now, with the hadith itself taking up a significant portion of the article space. If it is significant in discussing, it needs to be discuessed in other articles. That is why we have external links, citaions, references, etc. You can link to the hadith and mention any specific commentary in the article and cite it. If it warrants in the future, I suppose an individual article may be created. I think something more formal needs to be organized on hadith, and individual AfD's should not be taken as precedence. Pepsidrinka 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "layers"? Why not creat the "layers" instead of deleting sourced, verfied and notable material? --Striver 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this google search. No one else besides Wikipedia uses the title you have given it. The most rudimentary part of the article and it is original research. gren グレン 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is explained in the second sentance of the article. Anything else? --Striver 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon updated this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling, but i need to sleep now :)

--Striver 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that took long time. Phew! Ok, now its updated, im sure nobody can state that the hadith is non-important now. --Striver 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Delete 5 Keep 5, 50% for deletion, not enough consensus to delete. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Umar and foretelling

[edit]
  • Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (only one questionable source used), possible fork. Created by User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete as per User:Jersey Devil -- Oarias 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC). Changed vote to MERGE, Striver you have to understand that unfortunately there is a certain Anglo-centrism to Wikipedia. Instead of arguing with people, make the article easier to understand by explaining (in laymans terms) what is a Hadith who is Umar and what is the importance to Islam. I suggest that the articles be merged at first, worked upon by whoever has knowledge of the topic, and then be put back as separte topics when they are ready. Just some constructive criticism please don't bite my head off, it's just when it comes to a topic of Islam, you can not assume that people reading these articles will have ANY clue about even the basics. -Oscar Arias 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: You don't have to re-create what already exists in other articles, but a short sentence or so for each of the mystery terms would help non-Islam readers tremendously! -Oscar Arias 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bite your head of? How about giving you a big hugg? Thanks a lot for giving some contructive critique of what CAN be done instead of giving a rant on "striver wrote this, delete now!". Again, i really appreciate your advice and are going to implement them right away, in hope to improve the article to the point of you chanching your vote. Dont hesitate to on telling me how i can improve it further if i didnt improve it enough. peace!--Striver 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, look forward to it! -Oscar Arias 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to KEEP. - While it still needs some work, your recent edits make it a reasonable stand alone article. Will change my vote on other articles if you do the same there. -Oscar Arias 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, i love you in the most platonic way! --Striver 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep nominator afd's since i created it, he does not know anything about the article, or even hadith knowledge. He claims the sources is questionable . THe source is Sahih Bukhari [12], the umber one most trusted book in Sunni Islam. No much different than saying the bible is a questionable source. User:Jersey Devil has a problem with me personaly and is consuming wikipedia time in the proces, that is all. I suggest he does that witout claming Sahih Bukhari is "questionable" sources.--Striver 12:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. Lacks context; context is provided in parent articles, no point in adding context thereby creating copy of other articles. A maze of zillions of context-free article about religious trivia is an unhelpful way to inform a reader. Weregerbil 12:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added conext, but it needs grammar fix and sourcing.--Striver 13:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Matthew 1:5 for a example of how a single bible verse can contitute a entire article.--Striver 13:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "Merge/delete" to "delete" as the whole group of articles keeps getting more and more about "Shia view" trashing the "Sunni view" soapboxing. Weregerbil 13:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you do agree that the topic is both verified and notable? In fact, so much that it is used in the Sunni/Shia arguments? If you came to that conclusion, why are you voting delete? If the article is pov, it needs npoving, not deleting, and i need assistance with the article, i cant to perfect articles on my own. --Striver 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not agree, and please do not try to put words into other people's mouths. There already is a huge article where you explain the virtues of the Shia religion against the Sunni religion regarding Umar. It's not useful to have that spill to even more individual articles to give you more soapboxes to promote your bias and trash competing religious factions. Weregerbil 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, delete per Sahih Bukhari AND Sahih Bukhari are questionable sources? --Striver 21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It is certainly verifiable and it does seem to be a topic of debate. It would be better merged somewhere else instead of standing alone though. kotepho 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup It appears as an important point in Islam. However, the shia view appears to be unreferenced, and the view of one wiki editor in this section who adheres to shia counts as original research, not a valid reference.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, i need to find the reference. I just hurried to add the text and controversies so as stop people from calling it non notable. I need to go through http://www.answering-ansar.org and some other sites to find the links to the reference. --Striver 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. In fact there were several citations. If you had a question about the source, the corresponding talk page should have used. However, this article should not exist, nor should other hadith articles. Despite Striver's example of Matthew:5 or whatever verse he keeps flaunting as precedence, I still don't think each individual hadith needs an individual article. Perhaps Zora's suggestion to create a Hadith cited by Shi'a article should be considered and these hadith could be merged their, instead of having thousands of individual articles floating around. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. We're missing a whole layer of articles necessary to make individual hadith articles worthwhile. There is no way that will help users systematically understand these hadith in context which might explain the importance of this. Basically, I agree with Pepsidrink and Zora. gren グレン 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "layers"? Why not create the "layers" instead of deleteing sourced, verfied and notable material? --Striver 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update in accordance to Oarias suggestions, i have uppdated the hadith to be more "western friendly". I hope he is pleased with the resuls, and i also hope this is what Grenavitar was leaning towards. Please give me more feedback on how i can improve this article, and please remeber that there is no single place that this hadith can be merged to. Peace--Striver 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am kinda starting to see Strivers argument about these hadith articles. I believe that if we can have hundreds of entries for Bible chapters and verses (not to mention hundreds of Pokemon cruft articles), then we should have ALL the hadith entries as well. (I don't care if it's 10 or 10000 articles, we've already set a precedent with Bible entries) Just for the record, I currently consider myself agnostic, I believe that God is unknowable and everything written about ALL religions is pure speculation, but that is strictly my POV. I believe Wikipedia should be NPOV when it comes to these religious topics and should have the teachings of ALL religions (I don't care if it's Christian, Islam, Judiasm, Taoism, Buddhism, Hindu, whatever). So I say bring them ALL the hadith's in if you want, but please make sure that if you do please make sure to keep NPOV if there are different interpretations between Shi'a and Sunni (and other) factions. As I mentioned above about Anglo-Centricism in Wikipedia -- to prevent votes like this from coming up in the future make them understandable by us Infidels. Otherwise someone (like I did initially) will vote to delete articles where they have no "frame of reference" (this is probably what Grenavitar was talking about when he mentioned "layers of articles" a few votes up. Anyhow, I've said my oberservations the rest is up to the Wikipedia community! --Oscar Arias 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should only have the articles if they are notable enough. The Bible entries are being paired down and there is even an Arbcom case involving them. Two wrongs don't make a right, so only make the articles if they are actually needed. kotepho 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, nobody is going to bother bringing all hadith here. --Striver 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the whole reason Striver is putting these articles up is that there is some differences in interpretation between Shi'a and Sunni on these Hadith, thus making them notable. Kinda like discussing different interpretations of Bible verses by Catholics and Protestants.--Oscar Arias 16:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Delete 8 Keep 4 Merge 3 Neutral 1, 66 percent for deletion, not enough consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Umar and prophecy

[edit]
Bite your head of? How about giving you a big hugg? Thanks a lot for giving some contructive critique of what CAN be done instead of giving a rant on "striver wrote this, delete now!". Again, i really appreciate your advice and are going to implement them right away, in hope to improve the article to the point of you chanching your vote. Dont hesitate to on telling me how i can improve it further if i didnt improve it enough. peace!--Striver 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The article does have sources (and had them at the time it was submitted to AfD). Even if they were disputed, the article wouldf be unverified rather than unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator afd's since i created it, he does not know anything about the article, or even hadith knowledge. He claims the sources is questionable . THe source is Sunan al-Tirmidhi, the number five most trusted book in Sunni Islam. User:Jersey Devil has a problem with me personaly and is consuming wikipedia time in the proces, that is all. I suggest he does that witout claming Sunan al-Tirmidhi is "questionable" sources.--Striver 12:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. There are thousands of hadiths; is this really an article about a single sentence? Lacks context; context is provided in parent articles, no point in adding context thereby creating copy of other articles. A maze of zillions of context-free article about religious trivia is an unhelpful way to inform a reader. Weregerbil 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added text to show notability, dont have time to find sources and fix grammar right now, would appreciate help. --Striver 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Matthew 1:5 for a example of how a single bible verse can contitute a entire article.--Striver 13:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a weird article! There are some notable passages in the Bible (the first sentence, the "gave His only son" bit, and... uh, that's about it as far as I'm concerned :-) but that one seems just random and unhelpful. It gives zero information to a kafir atheist pagan infidel agnostic such as myself. The AfD it went through is also ...interesting reading. Weregerbil 13:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto Jersey Devil, Oarias and Weregerbil. I don't think it can be merged because there are just too many hadiths. This kind of "hair splitting" with these countless mico-articles relating to the Islamic Schism is making a mockery of the encyclopedia article standard.--AladdinSE 13:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AladdinSE is a sunni that haves a long history of opposing Shi'a editors. Further, AladdinSE is addresing the whole idea of having Hadith at all and you only need to see Matthew 1:5 and remeber that this is not a paper encylopedia. I really liked the part where he stated that it is bad for wikipedia to go into details. --Striver 13:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not twist other peoples' words like that, it's rude and convinces nobody of your viewpoint. Weregerbil 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Striver You have NO IDEA what confessional class I belong to, if any. Unlike you, I don't go around boasting of my Ayotollah relatives or blatantly waging a fanatical sectarian crusade in an encyclopedia. What's more, I made no statement whatsoever "that it is bad for wikipedia to go into details". Try and remember this is a voting page, and stop attacking me for holding views different from your own.--AladdinSE 13:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i was to hard on him. We simply do not mix. See Talk:Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations for a example of the conflict between me, Zereshk, others users and AladdinSE. Not even Zora gives him full suport. Enough of this, as AladdinSE said, this is a voting page.--Striver 13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable? Like in "it can NOT be verified? Did you even bother to chek the reference? Sunan al-Tirmidhi is Unverifiable? Its not a fork, its two different hadith, this one is not included in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari, like the other one. --Striver 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You maybe missed the "[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]" part of the article when voting "Unverifiable"?
--Striver 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example? --Striver 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umar and Shi'a view of Umar. kotepho 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we duplicated it in all other articles that would also mention it, for example Imamah, hadith of position, Hadith of Umar and foretelling,Shi'a view of Umar,Sunni view of Umar, Seal of the Prophets and so on? --Striver 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed as I do not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision and thus do not believe I can vote for its deletion. I still do not believe it deserves its own article but I cannot tell you where it should go. kotepho 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, where do we put it of

Do we duplicate it all over the place? As i showed you, this hadith is wiedly quoted by Sunnis anytime they iterate Umar's merits, the hadith stands on its own, even if there was no other articles refereing to it. --Striver 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, see Category:New Testament verses and Matthew 1:5 --Striver 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity articles are more well developed... they may be at a level where it makes sense to create verses and put them in an understandable context... also, Bible verses don't involve such sectarian struggles that hadith do. So, under that logic I'd probably keep a Qur'an verse if it had information but I'd delete most hadith. (also, where do these names come from?) gren グレン 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More developed is great, lets have it more developed. The arguement "involve such sectarian struggles" only makes the hadith more notable, not less. People dont "struggle" about non-notable stuff. Exactly what about the article lacks context? If you could point it out, i would be happy to fix it, since i cant see what is out of context right now. Further, people dont end up here out of the blue, they have probably cliked through some article to get this deep in, and if nothing more, that should give them some context. --Striver 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. We're missing a whole layer of articles necessary to make individual hadith articles worthwhile. There is no way that will help users systematically understand these hadith in context which might explain the importance of this. Basically, I agree with Pepsidrink and Zora. gren グレン 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what layer? This isnt the front page for the Islam related articles, this is deep deep in. --Striver 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling --Striver 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Delete 6 Keep 3 Merge 4 Neutral 1. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Umar and religion

[edit]
See that for my responce --Striver 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The article does have a source (and had it at the time it was submitted to AfD). Even if disputed, the article wouldf be unverified rather than unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator afd's since i created it, he does not know anything about the article, or even hadith knowledge. He claims the sources is questionable . THe source is Sahih Bukhari, the number one most trusted book in Sunni Islam. No much different than saying the bible is a questionable source. User:Jersey Devil has a problem with me personaly and is consuming wikipedia time in the proces, that is all. I suggest he does that witout claming Sahih Bukhari is "questionable" sources. Ill give the article some more context in a minute. --Striver 12:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. Lacks context; context is provided in parent articles, no point in adding context thereby creating copy of other articles. A maze of zillions of context-free article about religious trivia is an unhelpful way to inform a reader. Weregerbil 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gave a context, need sourcing and grammar, ill go find the sources, but i need help with the grammar. --Striver 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "merge/delete" to "delete"; a quote from a religious leader for the main purpose of having some place to deride a competing religious faction. Little encyclopedic information, does not educate the reader, and the majority of the article (religious infighting trivia) shouldn't be merged anywhere. Weregerbil 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hadith it prominently used by Sunnis:

[18], [19], [20], [21].

Also, this hadith have made Sunnis to reach the following conclusion in regards to interpreting dreams:

SHIRT: Wearing a shirt in a dream indicates adherences to the religion. The longer the shirt, the greater commitment to Islam. [22]

--Striver 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as for "to many articles", See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to take a look at Matthew 1:5 before arguing "to many details" and "to many articles". Remeber that this is not a paper encyclopedia and that the hadith is notable on its own--Striver 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak deleteNeutral It is verifiable and it is notable in the context of the Shi'a/Sunni debate but not on its own. As noted in all of the other AFDs for all of these articles to give the context needed would be duplicating information all over the place. How can a tautological statement be so controversial (Some of the shirts were X short and some of them were longer. Huh?)? Are there other references to people's clothing in dreams in Islamic texts? kotepho 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also notable in Sunni and nothing more context. Didnt you note all the sunni links to the hadith? They view the hadith as one of the major merits of Umar: [23], [24], [25], [26].
Its Sunni alone notable, its dream interpretation notable, its Sunni-Shi'a debate notable. Heck, its much more notable than Matthew 1:5. --Striver 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is only notable in the context of other things. As I said in the other AFD put Matthew 1:5 up for AFD and I'll vote to axe it. Why can't this be covered in Umar and Shi'a view of Umar? As it stands just reading the article you are not likely to know who Umar even is from just reading it and if you add the needed context to all of the other ones you end up with having to add context to multiple articles instead of putting them all in one place. kotepho 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basicly, both Shi'a and Sunnis use the hadith, so it does not belong to either "Shi'a view" or "Sunni view" of Umar, in that case it would be duplicated in both of them, and its better to just link here. Also, the narration has to detailed content to be added in the main article, it would be tossed out in a minute. --Striver 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would need to be duplicated in disscusions in Hadith of Uthman's modesty and the hadith of Abu Bakrs belief. In short, when a hadith touches many subjects, its better to have give it its own article and have the details covered there, and just linking to the hadith from other articles. For example, the Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah tuches subjects like Sahih Bukhari, Stoning, Abrogation in the Qur'an, Nikah Mut'ah, Ibn Abbas, Umar and so on... Its best to just give the hadith here and link to it, rather than duplicating it everywhere. --Striver 02:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to neutral as I do not believe I have enough knowledge of the subject matter to decide where it goes. I still think it should go somewhere else but I believe Striver is correct that there will be duplication no matter which way you cut it. kotepho 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. It was explicitly mentioned under the Reference section. If you had a question about the source, the corresponding talk page should have used. However, this article should not exist, nor should other hadith articles. Despite Striver's example of Matthew:5 or whatever verse he keeps flaunting as precedence, I still don't think each individual hadith needs an individual article. Perhaps Zora's suggestion to create a Hadith cited by Shi'a article should be considered and these hadith could be merged their, instead of having thousands of individual articles floating around. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, pepsi, do we duplicate it all over the place? What article should it be merged to? Remeber that all the info about the Shi'a and Sunni view of the hadith needs to follow on the merge. Where do we merge it? --Striver 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linking to this article give lots of context, people dont end up here at random, unles they did click the "get random page" - What layer do you propose? --Striver 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to accomodate, and gave it a bit more context. How about it? --Striver 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

updated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling--Striver 04:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Engineering

[edit]

PROD tag removed by author, who then made the page a redirect to Knowledge-Based Engineering (by the way, redirects to article sections do not work), "not implying equivalence, rather it denotes a particular domain mapping". In any case, the term is a neologism/protologism not in wide use (a tiny handful of actual Google hits, most of which point to the author's web page [27]), apparently made up by the author. To the extent there's an article at all, it's definitely original research. The redirect to Knowledge-Based Engineering is inappropriate; delete. MCB 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Nolight

[edit]

Yet again another nn podcast. I wish we could speedy these. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protein-protein interaction prediction

[edit]

Original research doesn't belong on wikipedia, as per WP:OR Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nominator. Jude <(talk,contribs,email) 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-Update This is not original research it is the overview of a field of study. please explain how it(the article) is original if:
    • it has no "unpublished theories"
    • it has no "unpublished data"
    • it has no "unpublished concepts"
    • it has no "unpublished arguments"
    • it has no "unpublished ideas"
    • it has no "unpublished interpretations"
    • it has no "unpublished analysis'"
    • it has no "novel narrative or historical interpretation"
it is just a summary of what is published on the subject.help me make it more apparent if you wish Tim 03:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep"the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." The article does this, therefore this page does not violate WP:OR and should stay. "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. " upon inspection of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Original_research you will find that the page in question is not Original research. And it does belong in Wikipedia. Until someone says something intelligent or any argument at all in opposition I will try to keep the page --Tim 04:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you are upset or offended but if you are unwilling to recognize the opinions of others and work with them you will find a hard time being accepted here. And, frankly, if the consensus goes against you, the article will be deleted whether you like it or not. Your best bet is to participate with an open mind and at least a little respect for more experienced editors.Thatcher131 05:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how this is original research. It cites a great deal of secondary sources and it is not making any unfounded claims or analysis. I do not know much about the subject other than it exists and this is a valid area of research. kotepho 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massively rewrite and cleanup. Tim@, to be honest this looks like a college project or a first attempt at writing a review article for a journal. It's not original research but it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Bioinformatics. Articles here should be intended for a general audience. Ideally you would explain in terms a high schooler or college freshman could understand, 1) what are protein-protein interactions, 2) why it is useful to be able to predict them with a computer, and 3) the general principles involved. The only wikipedia article I have ever seen with 150 references was on Rathergate, and that because it is so controversial. You should aim for no more than a dozen, preferably review articles from easy to read journals like Current opinions in ______. You also need to review the Manual of Style and become more familiar with writing wiki-like articles. My recommendation is that you voluntarily withdraw the article and copy it into your user space (see WP:USER.) User pages are a great way to work on a complex article or figure out how to write a wiki article and they are not subject to (most of) the content guidelines of main article space. Thatcher131 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't understand Support_vector_machine either but it follows the general principles better, opens with a general summary; gives some specifics, and ends with a representation of the literature.Thatcher131 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131, who didn't vote delete, but I agree with the principles, if that makes sense. Tim, it looks like you have a broad perspective on the literature for a field that isn't covered by Wikipedia well enough. Rather than try to add all your knowledge at once, why don't you start with smaller articles on individual methods? The narrower the topic of an article, the easier it is to avoid original research while tying it together. Once you've built such a foundation, it would be relatively easy to write an article named "Protein-protein interaction prediction" that links to the more specialized methods and draws on only a couple of secondary reviews. Melchoir 06:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite and cleanup per Thatcher131's most excellent advise. (I don't agree at all with Melchoir's suggestion of starting with smaller articles on individual computational methods.) Lambiam 09:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This very clearly is not original research, but it may be over-complex for WP. There are many sicence articles that are equally complex, yet they do not have the number of references that this article has. It looks as if the author is prepared to learn how to make it acceptable, so why not withdraw the nomination for now and let him do it. I am only on the fringe of this sort of computational science, being more a small-molecule quantun computational chemist, but I do know this is important and it needs an article. Do not bite the newbie. Let him have a go. So Keep. --Bduke 11:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update help make this a good Wikipedia page by commenting at User:Tim@/PPIP--Tim 15:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question? is this issue settled, can i replace the delete box with a {{cleanup}}--Tim 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will replace the delete box with a {{cleanup}} in one day unless someone objects?--Tim 03:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm objecting. You can not do this. It is against WP policies. The consensus is probably for keep, but you have to wait for an Admin to close off the debate, unless you can convince the nominator to withdraw it. --Bduke 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i did not know that is how it works; thanks for filling me in--Tim 13:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete references are arbitrary, does not acknowledge much better already existing wikipedia pages on the same subject and does not add any content, also a alot of unsubstantiated and frankly wrong points of view e.g. folding docking methods unworkable, clearly the work of a tendentious amateur Zargulon 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but massively rewrite and cleanup. Great advice from Thatcher131. It would be inappropriate to delete this since it does not seem to be original research but writing on a topic at too high a level; that is an issue for clean up, not deletion. JGF Wilks 11:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: Zargulon the article states that folding docking methods are currently unworkable on a genome wide scale because the best algorithms from CASP are given a month to find one fold. Taking 50,000 months to fold the proteins of a genome and then 2500000000 months for docking (assuming the same time frame for a single prediction) after only 7 days to sequence it is to slow for use.--Tim 02:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not because the CASP experiments give a month that the servers take a month to make a prediction, with the threading techniques a model is built in half an hour to a few hours, this varies with the length of the target sequence and whether homologues are known or not. If there is no known homologues, only ab initio techniques can be used and are restricted to small sequences, although the fragment approach is being developed with promising results. In addition, you are assuming that the genome wide experiment would be done on one machine, whereas this would be a massively parallel work. The servers involved in CASP are often clusters that are able to work on several targets in the same time. The limitations are more from the theoretical point of view, e.g. better potential energy functions, better detection of remote homologues... By the way, I can't find where the article states that folding docking methods are unworkable because of the time used for folding prediction algorithms, there is no mention of CASP either? Blastwizard 05:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am staring at that section of the article, and it does not state what you just said it states. Rather, its implication is that folding and docking will always be unworkable. In fact is so badly written that I cannot begin to suppose what the intended meaning may have been. It also incorrectly categorizes docking and folding as "dynamics methods" - short for molecular dynamics? or dynamic programming? either way it's wrong. Most docking and folding methods do not use either technique. Even if you felt that truly representative literature search was beneath you, how much trouble would it have been to inform yourself by taking a quick look at the Wikipedia articles on protein structure prediction and protein-protein docking? Zargulon 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the recent changes make the article more clear to you. You can of course contribute a solution as well as pointing out a problem. in any case, thanks for the help. --Tim 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. All you did to the docking/folding section was wikify it.. how is that supposed to make it "more clear"? I have already contributed a solution. Deleting the article is an excellent solution, because it will disabuse people of the wrong belief that there is a meaningful entry on protein interaction prediction, so that maybe some people will write one. It is not constructive to take an important page and fill it with gibberish. If you can't do any better, you should wait patiently for someone else to. Zargulon 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree to disagree with you on that point because I believe nothing is ever perfect and everything is a work in progress and should be respected as such until updated with a better version. I believe this article provides at least some hints as to what PPIP is, how it works and how to find more in-depth information on the topic. I can not see that a blank page (however perfectly blank) is better than what information is provided. --Tim 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are a lot of things which do not deserve respect. Respect has to be earned. Please allow this page to be deleted and started from scratch.. that will earn you my respect. Zargulon 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is full of errors, inaccuracies and dreams from the author. Protein-protein docking does not work with predicted models but with structures solved by X-ray crystallography, if the rest of the article is the same type of fantasy, there is a lot of cleaning up. The description of threading for protein folding prediction is a bit funny. The sequence method described assumes the contiguity of residues involved in interactions, if patterns were to be found. I also object the wrong use of many terms, for example the active site is certainly not the site of interaction between two proteins. The best we can do is predict the residues that may be involved in interactions, providing that both the structures are known the rest is pure speculations. So far I don't know anyone who knows about proteins who would venture yet in such a hard problem. What is the point of an article on a method that is unworkable? Wikipedia is not for original research, there are peer reviewed journals for that Blastwizard 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}} There are plenty of secondary souces to be found to support anything that is not original research. Cleanup is not a reason for deletion and neither is it being unworkable. kotepho 09:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is disingenuous. This article doesn't have to be cleaned up, it has to be started again from scratch. This is best indicated to potential editors by deleting it. Zargulon 10:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fixing this article is a good idea, sometimes when a car is not roadworthy, the best thing is to scrap it and get a new one; that's my medication for this article. May I suggest instead that someone adds a few lines on the perspectives offered in protein-protein docking (but no more than a few lines) that is all there is to say. Blastwizard 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; While this is a valid topic, the concerns raised by Blastwizard are troubling, and worse, Tim@ (talk · contribs) has resorted to minor-league talk page spamming to bring his article to peoples' attention. In the best manner possible, I'm trying to avoid WP:BITE because it seems he's making a genuine attempt to contribute in an area of his interest, but with the more speculative nature of this article than some may realize it falls under OR.  RasputinAXP  c 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it undergoes major revisions per Blastwizard. The use of references is rather odd. A lot of the papers seem to be completely unrelated, remove every thing that doesn't relate directly to the text (e.g. the first 3 papers listed). Tim, I think the first thing you want to look at is to make specific citations in the text, to references you think support your claims. I might want to have a look at some of the things I think look sketchy, but I don't want to read 30 papers just to edit this page. I think you have to be careful not to confuse docking of experimentally determined structures with docking of proteins without a known structure. I would be highly critical of results from the latter, so this requires good references! Kjaergaard 06:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment please see protein-protein docking and make sure this is not what you are thinking of. Kjaergaard 07:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bduke - he works in the field and knows the area, and says the article makes a valuable contribution; it is VERY well referenced, and the allegation that it is original research does not seem to be substantiated (from the perspective of a literate non-expert). It does need to be cleaned up a great deal though. --SilverWings 22:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think he works in the field? This article should be deleted not because it is original research, but because it runs the gamut between highly misleading and completely incomprehensible. Zargulon 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author has no clue about the field nor has he a clue about biology. If it was an exam paper it would have a very bad mark, if it was a scientific publication it would be rejected by the reviewers. I have looked at the article in details and made my comments are in the article talk page. In addition, looking at the history of the article, it looks like it started as a copy from a book, was somewhat well written and well referenced but obviously written by someone else. Then it was edited to this incomprehensible gibberish. Blastwizard 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not seem to be primarily original research at all, many sources cited. Tag for cleanup. Herostratus 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August Albo

[edit]

The article itself says he was an obscure artist. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Albo is a tremendous talent that is known in circles of advanced art discussion. His notability should not be questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.15.43 (talk • contribs)

A search of verifiable sources through my local library including Grove Art came up with nothing. While I have have seen "Free as the Wind", there are problems with verifiabily and notability. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sestilio

[edit]

Delete, no relevant Google hits, all other contributions by the author have been vandalism. -gadfium 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q32 (bus route)

[edit]

Pointless article that is poorly linked and contains very little info. If users want to refer to the route, then they may see either Casey Stengel Bus Depot or MTA New York City Transit buses simply. --I Am Ri¢h! 04:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clicksor

[edit]

Website article that started as blatant self-advertising. It was trimmed to its essentials, but no one has provided any new info on it. Google hits include only its own promotion and a mass of Usenet, discussion forum, and other general links — no apparent Reliable sources. Delete unless some neutral substance can be developed for this otherwise commercial page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit Blogs

[edit]

A simple collection of blogs. No references that show that all listed blogs are non profit. No assertions of notability for any blog mentioned. Any notable enough blog could have its own article. This could be a category, not an article.DeleteTheRingess 04:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESP Productions

[edit]

Was {{prod}}ed as an "advertisement," but it seems notable to me. Has produced half-time shows for major college bowl games, Monday Night Football, and others. Decided to bring it here to get other opinions, carry out the {{prod}}, and (if it is notable) get some attention for clean-up. However, no vote from me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kralnor

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

The result of the debate was Delete Stifle 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub focus

[edit]

Three albums on an indie label, but it doesn't look like a notable one thus not meeting WP:MUSIC. Plus the text's purely promotional. Daniel Case 05:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a prominent figure within the drum n' bass subculture however, and fulfils many of the criteria for "performers outside of mass media" under WP:MUSIC. Agreed that the text is too promotional though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.155.74 (talk • contribs) .

User's first and only edit. Daniel Case 17:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry if that somehow invalidates what I was trying to say, I simply noticed I could add my viewpoint to this page so I did.

...

I have no promotional interest in his music. I'm simply a fan who finds his music to be quite impressive at this point. DNB artists that achieve great commercial success and almost a universal acclaim from dnb pundits is a pretty rare thing, and he's been achieving that lately. I tried to be as objective as possible in the description of the music, pointing out some elements that people might not outright like about his music. But once again, I have no promotional connection at all. I see tons of wikipedia artist profiles that are way more in love with the content than this one.

Also, I just edited the "future music" section so it sounds less promotional and more...constructive. hope that helps this a bit.

-Sianspheric


It's kind of hard to present notability because the media existing to judge an artists notability or notoriety within drum and bass, is usually all web-based. But judging from his record sales within the genre, and judging from the response from followers of the sub-culture on the two main web outlets, dogsonacid.com and breakbeat.co.uk, he is probably the most quick selling, and one of the most respected popular artists within the genre right now. Unfortunately with drum and bass, there arent many mainstream media outlets that I can refer to his notability such as there is within pop music. -Sianspheric

Sad to see that DNB gets no credibility on Wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzt (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. Flowerparty■ 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead and lovely

[edit]

Not The Susie Salmon Story, but an apparent student film that has no ImDB entry. Unverifiable and non-notable even if it is. Daniel Case 05:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IShare

[edit]

Contested PROD. Try as I may, I cannot find any evidence of this metric in use. Googling for ishare+television seems to yield zero relevant results; most are about finance or misspellings of the phrase "I share"... so it's a possible hoax. Delete. --Kinu t/c 05:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 10:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan_Jensen

[edit]

Delete (Vanity) Spooty3 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Record of the Year 2005

[edit]

This is basically a copy of The Record of the Year with some extra, but incomplete, information which could easily be moved to the aforementioned page. Philip Stevens 06:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass The Buck

[edit]

Contested PROD. Article is about the musical equivalent of a vanity press. Website is on Tripod. Most Google hits are irrelevant (they are about the expression "passing the buck," i.e. vis-a-vis record companies). Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Delete. --Kinu t/c 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with pride

[edit]

Original research, not encyclopedic. dbtfztalk 08:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolow

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libronix Digital Library System

[edit]
Your site is currently blacklisted (see [34]) due to spamming of WP pages. Rewriting the Libronix Digital Library System page with less links to your site, and in a more neutral way, not giving the feeling it's an ad, should be a good idea. Croquant 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer khan

[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion. I feel it doesn't meet the criteria, so I'm bringing it here instead. No vote. Punkmorten 10:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stoned Monkeys

[edit]

a Insane punk, simplistic gamma metal [sic] band from the UK, doesn't seem to have played any gigs yet, so WP:MUSIC is pretty far off for them. Creator of article is anonymous with 1 (one) edit, so probably WP:AUTO as well. Eivind 10:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Fuquea

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komedy Kollective

[edit]

Delete. Non notable theatre group. Has been in existence for less than 3 months. Blue520 10:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secular Party of Australia

[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable minor Australian party. I was going to nominate the article for speedy deletion, but I think that's stretching the speedy deletion criteria to their limits. Proposed deletion is a no go because at least someone will probably object to the listing. So here is the AfD reasoning ...

The party appears to get only 61 google hits, but not counting repeated hits the party only gets 21 google hits, many of which are either wikipedia-related or blogs. It cannot have participated in any major elections because of its age, but I could only find one minor media mention, where it appeared to conduct a single survey. The party is far from notable now, and appears not to have made an impact on the Australian political scene. I sympathise with many of its views, but I believe it does not deserve a wikipedia article ... yet. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that advertisements for the party's policies appeared in Prime Time last year offers it some significance to escape deletion [37] Lefty on campus 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I have recently been asked to support this party and I do not. While I support its views, I think these have to be worked through with the larger parties. I do not have an axe to grind here. This is a very new Party. The article is clear and concise. Lets give it a chance. If the Party turns out to be a dud, then we can delete it later. Meanwhile, some people might want to learn something about it and this article does that. I suspect it will get more Google hits as the year progresses but whether it will grow as a Party I do not know. It might well be a notable Party by the end of the year. Why waste the effort that someone has put into this article? --Bduke 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* delete it now and restart it later if it turns out not to be a dud. --Isolani 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To become registered I think you need 500 signatures. Xtra 11:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep because a politicial party is as much a state of mind as it is a legal entity. In Australia, in order to become a political party recognised under law, you have to jump through many hoops but that even if not recognised by law that doesn't make them any less of a political party under a democracy. Anyone can set up a party, there is just a system of registration available to those who wish to seek it. If they do, they get benefits like money for election funding and their party name can be printed along side their candidates name. Are they notable enough ? That's where Xtra's point comes in probably, they may be a very lame wing of the Humanist Society in NSW but they are probably inherently notable. --2006BC 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me that if you are not registered as a political party at the AEC then non-notability applies. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an actually existing political party should be included.--Soman 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The more complete Wikipedia's information is, the better. An actually existing political party should be included. --Sumthingweird 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my eyes, until it has registered with the AEC it is not a political party. At best, they are a lobby group. Besides that, this article does not seek to discuss the party in any substantive terms and seems, rather, to focus on secularism in Australia - which may be a better place to continue its themes.--cj | talk 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for political parties. Sumthingweird says "The more complete Wikipedia's information is, the better"... but we don't have any actual information here, because the only source is the party's website, which is unreliable. Political parties are emphatically not inherently notable, they're just groups of people who said 'yeah, we're a political party' and maybe paid a few registration fees. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- mmeinhart 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampygames

[edit]

Non-notable and probably made-up "video game company". The article, I feel, speaks for itself. Sandstein 11:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Geogre as A7. -- JLaTondre 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bunting

[edit]

Delete. Non notable biography, per WP:BIO. Blue520 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The way I count it out, the votes are as follows: Delete: 11 Keep: 5 Delete and Merge: 2. Counting the 2 Deletes and Merges with the Deletes, that come to approximately 70percent in favor of deletion. I find the arguments for Deletion very convincing. The article is not well cited, and checking of what citations do exist by others has raised questions of the credibility of the sources cited. I do not find the arguments for Keep nearly as convincing. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible und Muhammed

[edit]

A very, very confusing article formerly known as Islam in the Bible, which at least made some sense as a title. Hard to do this justice, but basically it seems to be about a genuine encyclopaedic topic, Islam and Christianity, that has been spread over a walled garden of articles including Bible und Muhammed, Islamic view of the Bible, Islamic Christianity studies and others, most of which bear the hallmark of User:Striver. This one, though, is so full of mostly unintelligible unsourced and/or original research and/or exotic forms of POV that I' wouldn't know what parts could be usefully merged somewhere. Sandstein 11:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename back I dont know who or why they reneamed it, but they shouldent. Can a admin rename it back to Islam in the Bible? Ill try to find sources, its not origina reaserch, i spent a lot of time in this field reading articles in sites like answering chritianity and the book Islam in the Bible. I made mental notes of everyting, but ill go back to the sources and link them. Otherwise strong keep. Thanks for sharing your concerns.--Striver 11:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that both the book and the websites are included in the article. Ill try to give more specific reference, but it will take some time, im on dial up (problem with my adsl) and its a narrow field, but its not original research, try reading the links. --Striver 12:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, i didnt make the Critique section. some other guy did. I cant source that, so feel free to delete it if you think it does not belong there. Or maybe move it to the talk page. I didnt delete it since i didnt want to upset anyone. --Striver 12:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was made by the same guy that renamed it to the bad faith new name [39] [40]. --Striver 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, sorry, but I took a look at the websites that are linked to as "sources". And let me tell you, I don't think it's a good sign if one source chosen at random begins: "The following is an email I received from brother Silent Wisdom" and then rambles on in terrible English about something that, while not quite clear, consists largely of quotes from the Bible and the Qur'an trying to show how they connect. Or another whose title is, in what I assume is 150 point size type, "The lie of the crucifixion!". Indeed, all "sources" that are not Bible verse links go to [41], which at first glance is one individual's ranting website about how the Bible is supposed to prove that Islam is the true religion.
Don't get me wrong: I am completely in favor of having an article on how Islam views Christianity, or on why Muslims think the Bible proves that Islam is the true religion. But this rambling, unintelligible mess of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR violations is not it. Or in other words, if we don't have the Wikipedia term of art "religioncruft" already, now we have it. Best regards, Sandstein 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
those perfectly valid comments belong to the articles talk page, they are not a arguement to delet the article, maybe to remove some parts of the article. Oh, i see the reference of the book [Islam in teh Bible] is deleted, ill readd it. --Striver 21:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem with the title is that it presents an existing POV without attribtuion. Had it been called "Islamic view of the Bible", the would be no problem about it. But hey, we already have an article Islamic view of the Bible, why have two? Pecher Talk 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it pov? The aritcle name does not say there IS Islam in the Bible. It could just as well be read "Islam [is not] in the bible" as well as "Islam [is] In the Bible".--Striver 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, in fact it could not be read that way, don't be disingenuous. If the article is kept, another name would be appropriate. Esquizombi 22:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean is that it does not state that Islam is in the bible. Its like talking about "cookies in the jar", it is a valid frase even if the jar is empty. One could say there are cookies in it, and a critique could counter that there are no cookies in it. --Striver 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "cookies in the jar" would in fact mean cookies are in the jar (any grammarians here?). Anyway, I'm not sure it's a good analogy, because a jar (particularly a cookie jar) would be expected to have cookies in it at times, whereas the claim that islam is in the bible is a controversial one. Esquizombi 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because User:Blubberbrein2 moved it to that title. kotepho 01:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even all German. The German for 'Bible' is 'Bibel'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that i dont try, i get so many other things on my hand now thank to Jesey Devil. But ill get to it as soon as things calm down a bit, or you could read the book Islam in the Bible and help me get the page referenace, the who book is about this topic. --Striver 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not OR, please read the book "Islam in the Bible" that is included in the references. I want to work on this article, but had simply not had the time due to a user going on a afd rage [42]. He have been heavily critizised, see his talk page, but the damage is done and i needed to put my energy to save those 20+ articles. Again, read the book or wait till i can get time to work on this. Or help me by googling out some sources. --Striver 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Outdoor Fight

[edit]

Non-notable event from a web-comic Henrygb 12:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Street Baptist Church

[edit]

Delete - Non-notable church lacking verifiability. ClarkBHM 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasNo Consensus, Keep. Delete:11 Keep: 8 Deletion percentage of 58 percent. Not enough consensus. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Heidi Choat

[edit]

I have concerns about this article because it purports to be about a living person and a lot of unreferenced and unverifiable allegations are made. There is only one relevant Google hit, an archive of sex offenders which only states her name, age and sentence [43]. This site is the only online reference cited in the article. The rest of the Google hits appear to be about a West Wing character. There are also no hits for legal documents containing the name in any database on AustLii. [44] In addition to this, given the lack of online references, I question whether it meets notability standards. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does Wikipedia have a special policy concerning paedophilia offenders? Because if there is none this seems an overwhelmingly non-notable criminal (per google). Does Wikipedia treat sex offenders differently from, say, crack dealers? (Assuming otherwise non-famous non-serial-type one-time criminals which this seems to be.) Weregerbil 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a paedophile doesn't establish notability. Wikipedia is not newspaper column about criminality. There are no special policies about paedophilie offenders but common sense says it is not worth of being encyclopedia topic. Pavel Vozenilek 13:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With due respect, Pavel, the article does not cite Choat's paedophilia as the reason for her notability. A detailed explanation of the notability of her case is provided in the concluding paragraph. It is her case even more than the woman herself which is notable. --SilverWings 23:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable criminal. Googling for "heidi choat" teacher gives two mentions besides Wikipedia and a West Wing character, does not appear to be a subject of media attention (though this was in 1999 and the Web was smaller then, so Australians please chime in if this was a major case and a household name!). Weregerbil 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the original author of the article. I have now provided references for this article - as a busy student, this was simply a work in progress (as is the case with many Wikipedia articles, often unreferenced and often with significantly less content than this one). The concluding paragraph carefully provides reasons for the notability of this subject and it is surely tortuous to suggest that this has not been established. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) guidelines include the criterion: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". One might argue about the level of notability / notoriety established, but this case is significant within the specific genre to which it belongs within Australian criminal law and is cited in the consideration of other such cases. This subject is an increasingly frequent matter being dealt with by courts in US and Australian jurisdictions particularly, and certain trends are emerging of which this case forms a significant part. Any person studying the emergence of female paedophilia in Australian schools would welcome this and similar articles as providing a reliable source of information. The fact that the article provides few Google hits is explained by the fact that the case occurred at a time when online reportage was not extensive. This fact might also be used to support the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, since it will provide the only significant online resource about this case. The lack of hits on AustLii is explained by the fact that AustLii only reports on (Australian) High Court, state Supreme Court and Federal Court cases, not cases dealt with by lower level courts in state jurisdictions. I request that the deletion tag on this article please be removed. --SilverWings 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion your referencing (a short database entry and a hardcopy article) is not sufficient for an article which makes serious allegations about a living person. I still do not believe notability has been established per WP:BIO. As an Australian myself, I do not believe this person is renowned or notorious. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading 'People still alive', WP:BIO refers to "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". This case was published as the headline article on the front page of the state newspaper of the state (Queensland) in which it occurred, the article being of sufficient length that it was continued on an inside page. The fact that the case does not register ongoing notoriety does not detract from the fact that it was notorious at the time it occurred and that it has ongoing significance within the genre of such cases. I am glad that you state that "in [your] opinion" the referencing is not sufficient, because a reading of the newspaper article in question will provide ample evidence of the facts to which I have referred. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact for anyone who will go to the trouble of accessing and reading the article, which could be done at any state or university library in Australia. --SilverWings 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do not seem to understand what I mean by referencing. A person should not have to go to a library to verify the content in the article. I think the fact you are suggesting this establishes the person is nn. As does the fact you are only able to point to one newspaper article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed not sure what you mean by referencing, if referencing cannot include items widely held in libraries. WP:RS dos not indicate that only online sources may be cited. Referencing to print and microform sources is still an established practice in academia, research and writing, despite the increasing prevalence of online sources. To suggest that a person "should not have to go to a library" is denying the importance of what is still a major source of information in our community and intellectual life. I am not sure why more than one source is required, if that source is significant, reliable and verifiable. --SilverWings 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not saying that only online sources can be used. I'm suggesting that if this woman is a notable or notorious criminal, there would be some online references to her. I have general concerns about the fact you appear to think tacking adding a hardcopy article and a database entry at the end of the article is sufficient referencing for an article which is potentially defamatory. Also, the photo appears to be identical to the image on Mako (it even appears to have the same creases). This makes me wonder what is going on. If you are from Mako and you did indeed scan that image and make that entry, Mako should be discounted as a reference for the purpose of this discussion. If you are not from Mako and you did not scan the image, you should correct your "self-scanned" copyright declaration. Regardless, I do not feel comfortable with you hanging this article on one single newspaper article. This is my final comment on this page. I shall leave it in the trustworthy hands of the AfD people. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that your use of the term 'tacking' in regard to my reference is a slight to my skills as a writer, and do not appreciate it. The use of the neutral term 'adding' would be preferable. The article would only be defamatory if it were not based on any verifiable sources, so there is no concern there. In regard to the photo: I am indeed definitely not 'from' Mako, nor do I have any connection with or interest in that organization. I would suggest that the similarity in the images is due to their having scanned it from the same microform source as I did, albeit no doubt a different copy of the microform. Thank you for your interest in my articles, and for conducting a (generally) civil discussion. --SilverWings 23:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry but there are serious concerns about defamation and Jimbo has repeatedly asked us to err on the side of caution when dealing when living people. You saying it's not defamatory because you have one newspaper article means nothing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for Jimbo's comments (who's Jimbo, by the way? pardon my ignorance, but I'm not yet on first-name terms with (presumably) administrators here. Can you reference him too please?) Now, as to the newspaper article, I don't 'have' the article, it exists, free for all to access, in probably 300+ libraries in Australia and probably dozens of others around the world. All of the material facts in this article are drawn from the newspaper article, so there is nothing in Wikipedia which has not already been said elsewhere. In regard to conclusions drawn, these are only factual extrapolations from the facts of the case, and do not make value judgments about the individual concerned, so there is no basis for any defamation action. If other evidence was available, I would have cited that too. I would observe, by the way, that The Courier-Mail seems to be a newspaper which withdraws its online articles much earlier than most newspapers - you will probably find that some of thie links where it is cited for other articles are already dead - hence my desire to add print references as well, in the long term. --SilverWings 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil. I think the lack of on-line references does suggest a lack of noteriety. The conviction was in 1999; there were plenty of online sources by then. --Thunk 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a lot of 'me too' notes here, but nothing that I have not fully dealt with in my substantive comments. People who are saying more are still leaving comments about matters which I have already fully replied to. I hope this isn't what passes for serious discussion on Wikipedia! In further reply to one or two items raised: (1) The comment by Thunk that "there were plenty of online sources by then" is very general and does not consider, for example, what was the state of online newspaper services in Queensland at that time? (2) The fact that she "is...not well known in Australia" presumably means that Capitalistroadster has not heard of her; this would be true of many, many Wikipedia articles of a specialist nature, while not addressing the fact that, for those who are interested in the field concerned, this case is significant. (3) The sentiment that "she should be left free to live the rest of her life", while a fine idea on a human level, is not really an argument foror against deletion of this article; that logic could be applied to any criminal, and also fails to consider the fact that her victim would no doubt have liked to be left free to get on with his life, but is unlikely to forget these events. An additional extension of some of my earlier observations, also, would ask editors to consider the basic function of Wikipedia in this way: if lack of numerous online references to a subject be considered reason for deletion of an article, where does this leave Wikipedia as a repository of unique online knowledge as opposed to simply a convenient clearing house for organizing information which is already online? --SilverWings 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I refer editors to this discussion on the Talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which suggests that non-notability is a contentious issue with many grey areas. Surely where an article is the product of serious research and writing and addresses a genuine subject, inclusion rather than exclusion is justified. I also further note that some of the Wikipedians voting for deletion seem to be prominent advocates of deletion of many articles, and I am troubled that people would want to go around destroying the legitimate work of others. --SilverWings 13:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment One newspaper article is not "serious research". If it had been seriously researched and referenced I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of serious research therefore requires quantity rather than quality? That, in fact, seems to be the main thrust of your original basis for listing this article for deletion - that there wasn't enough of various things, rather than looking at the quality of what was there. My own view on life leads me to look at how full the cup is, rather than how empty, and this of course leads me to be an Inclusionist rather than a Deletionist. There are really two issues going on here, and I think they need to be kept separate: (1) the quality (or quantity?) of referencing, verifiability etc; and (2) the notability / worthiness of the subject for inclusion no matter what the nature of the referencing. I have addressed both of these above, and won't labour the point further. Sarah Ewart, I don't see that your comment here adds anything to what you have already said, does it? --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Featured heavily in state papers at the time; these articles may not have online references. In any case, neither count of newspaper articles nor Google hits define notability. - Synapse 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: Victorians should remember the more recent case of Karen Louise Ellis, which was very similar and was the subject of much debate in Victoria. - Synapse 06:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment And the Ellis case received extensive verifiable news coverage. The Ellis case gets thousands of relevant Google hits. This gets two. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, verifiability seems to require, by this standard, a certain quantity of sources without much regard for the quality of the sources. Remoteness in time is an adequate explanation for the comparative dearth of material on Choat compared with Ellis; historians constantly face this issue, and historical writing may be validly based upon a single source provided the source is comparatively reliable. The front page of the Queensland state newspaper would seem to be as reliable a source as could be under the circumstances, save possibly access to court papers which, given the nature of the case, are unlikely to be publicly available. --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's not individually notable. I would however be perfectly happy for all of these to be merged into a summary article on female sex offenders in Australia as there is undoubtedly some good writing here. --kingboyk 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Choat case is a vital link in any comprehensive treatment of the subject of sexually predatory female school teachers, and if it is deleted the remaining articles on the subject become less meaningful. I would not necessarily be against the suggestion of kingboyk to merge the relevant articles into an article on Australian female teacher paedophiles (or a similar article heading - I would probably prefer 'sexual predators' to 'paedophiles', as I believe it is more accurate in describing the motivation for these offences, though it is longer), as I had intended (in time) to write a supervening article tying the individual articles together; it might be more cumbersome to have everything together in one place, but it might avoid the constant worrying over notability which is upsetting some of the deletionists. I would prefer to have the separate articles remain and to eventually tie them together with a more general article; but I do not live on Wikipedia, and this would be something which would happen over a period of time. --SilverWings 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I, naturally, disagree with your 'delete' recommendation, I am willing to learrn and would appreciate any explanation you may care to make about your evaluations, in respect of how they apply to this article; particularly the terms 'unencyclopedic', 'de-tabloiding' and 'NPOVing' (I understand what these terms mean, but I don't see how they apply to this article, so would be interested in your explanation). Please leave your comments either here or on my Talk page. --SilverWings 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I appreciate the interest and support of those Wikipedians and admins who see merit in this article. I want to stress that I have not contacted any of the people who have responded seeking their support, and genuinely appreciate the encouragement no matter the outcome. I would like to observe, by way of probably fairly final comment since the period for submission on this AfD is nearly over, that I do see the debate over this article as somewhat symptomatic of the larger debate in Wikipedia between inclusionists and deletionists. I wish there was not such a debate, to be quite honest. I would rather have invested the time spent on this page in more positive efforts actually writing or revising articles. The difficulty I have here is that, for inclusionists, we can spend hours on writing something only to have it destroyed in a moment; whereas deletionists will have no such concerns, since presumably they will stick so strictly to a narrower interpretation of what should be included that they will never chance to write something about a more obscure topic. (When I use the term 'more obscure', I do not mean 'less worthy'; it is simply the case that while, for example, John Lennon will attract widespread interest, Ha Ri-su will be of interest to but a few, particularly in the English-speaking world). Can I be really provocative, discover if deletionists have a sense of humour about their viewpoint, and suggest that deletionism is actually a form of legitimized vandalism? In case someone takes too much exception to this comment, I hasten to state the obvious, that I am speaking somehwat tongue-in-cheek there - and yet my feelings, as opposed to my intellect, resonate with my suggestion. The beauty of Wikipedia, unlike print encyclopaedias, is that we are not constrained by the physical size of the published work, and this site can continue to grow to encompass the full range of human endeavours, accomplishments, deeds and misdeeds as well as every feature of the universe in which we live. I therefore would appeal to those inclined to delete the works of others to re-think and to adopt a policy of "live and let live", and to delete only patent nonsense and material which is clearly false.
In regard to this present article, I would suggest that it has found a significant readership among those researching more recent such cases which have featured in news reports, and if allowed to remain as part of a small but growing project on this topic, it will continue to do so. By nature, the subject of female teachers dealing with their students in the way that this lady and others like her have done has an interest, indeed perhaps a fascination in some cases, for many members of the community. Readers approaching Wikipedia for information on this subject will find an increasingly comprehensive treatment, and as on so many topics, Wikipedia will be the first online authority, gathering information from a range of print and electronic sources and synthesising it in one location. I would suggest that a deletionist approach will only render more distant the day when online researchers perhaps no longer make Google their first avenue of investigation, but rather turn straight to Wikipedia. Is this not what we would want for this amazing online resource? This is only one article we are discussing, but I believe this debate represents much more. Thank you all for your time. --SilverWings 13:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eutilia N.V.

[edit]

Does not meet notability per WP:CORP. 500 google hits Sleepyhead 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Medicine (band)

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion2u.com

[edit]

Looks like advertising to me (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 13:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn; few pages link to it and its traffic rankings are not impressive. Where (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Rules of the road, to ensure edit histories don't go awry. Stifle 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side of the road (traffic)

[edit]

Delete. This article is a duplicate of Rules of the road, from where large sections were copied on 11 February 2006. The user who created this duplicate article did not follow the procedure for moving/renaming an article at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#How_to_rename_a_page. Many subsequent edits of this duplicate article by the same user have since already been included in Rules of the road. NFH 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but over 90% of the existing article is about the left/right issue, so the history of that 90% must stay with the article. Therefore you can't just cut and paste 90% of the content to a new article and leave 10% with the history of the other 90%. That's against the guidelines at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#How_to_rename_a_page, where it says "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history". NFH 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if this page should have been put up for AfD. I'm just fixing up the articles now per Talk:Rules of the road: moving that page, redirecting some stuff, moving some bits around. I was going to just redirect this page to that page but now that it's in AfD maybe I shouldn't. It can be deleted if its history is a problem, but I think everyone will be satisfied if it's just redirected. Ewlyahoocom 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the original article Rules of the road was way too long, leaf page would help. This voting should be postponed for say two weeks. Pavel Vozenilek 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Adams (professor)

[edit]

Non-notable professor. According to the editor that contested the prod, he has contributed to a textbook. However, the article itself does not assert that, nor do I think that it alone would be enough to make him notable. JRP 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MillionUsers.Com

[edit]

Advertisement, fails WP:WEB - another one of those milliodollarpage spin-offs... --Obli (Talk)? 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorbar

[edit]

A so-called internet meme whith no verifiable sources outside livejournal. Tim (meep) 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LSUoverUSC Argument

[edit]

An entirely redundant page and a concept that, while certainly worth the discussion it receives in the Bowl Championship Series article, is not worth its own page. Everything here is already covered in the BCS article, in the "Controveries" section, in the "LSU and USC Debate" subsection. StarryEyes 14:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge tag has already been added. W.marsh 05:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Building

[edit]

Delete Not significant enough to deserve an article; sufficent information appears (or at least should appear) in the main Worcester College article. Yellowspacehopper 14:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ploxis

[edit]

Delete Non notable fictional race QmunkE 14:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chao

[edit]

the page contains information that is untrue. Christianlove 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Harnish

[edit]

Is Harnish notable enough currently to warrent a Wikipedia article? Google says 241 mainly links to his podcasts Y control 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche

[edit]

Delete: Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) Appears to be a straight advert, no merit? Alex 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throw a Wobbly

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Stifle 00:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERVE-SCET

[edit]

Created by User:Devanjedi Delete on the basis that an annual event at a college is not notable. If anything, a mention of it can be made on Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology. DevanJedi 14:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII: War of Supremacy

[edit]

An online game, scores about 1,800 Googles including mirrors, many of which are promotional. Comes fomr the same stable as another game which was apparently MPOGD's Game of the Month twice. But that is a claim to notability once removed. Which makes this either spam or cruft by my measure. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily Kept per popular demand — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield Reformed Church

[edit]

users abuse this page, taking opportunities to write lies and spread malicious rumors about the church and people Christianlove 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination: Dead Reckoning

[edit]

Not sure what this is about. It appears to be a book report or complete gibberish. I would have put this up for speedy deletion, but if this is a notable book, than I'd hate to delete it so fast. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 15:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this link shows, this is a book (perhaps for teenagers?). I'm not saying that there's no need for an article on this book, but the article as it stands is essentially nonsense; it looks like just a list of the way people in the book die. This seems completely unnecessary to me. An article which had some real information, like author, plot, etc., maybe. --Deville (Talk) 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writings_by_Westboro_Baptist_Church

[edit]

Delete or Merge This is a POV fork off the main Westboro_Baptist_Church article. According to the talk page, it apparently is a recreation of Gospel_of_Westboro which was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gospel_of_Westboro. Possibly could be merged with the main Westboro article, although it's all so critical that I'm not sure any of the content is worth saving. Xyzzyplugh 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to merge CHIN (AM) and CHIN-FM into CHIN radio. Flowerparty■ 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHIN radio

[edit]

This article is just a duplicate of CHIN (AM) and CHIN-FM. There is no need for a 3rd article. Atrian 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Having considered this a bit, I think CHIN radio should be kept as the main article, the content of the other two articles should be merged into it, and the AM and FM articles should be made into redirects. Since CHIN AM and CHIN FM are both part of the same company, both broadcast multilingual programming in Toronto, I see no real point in multiple articles.--Xyzzyplugh 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and marge as per Xyzzyplugh (wow, that's hard to spell  ;-)) --Deville (Talk) 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Xyzzyplugh -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Xyzzyplugh Bucketsofg 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per xyzzyplugh (that is hard to spell) --Khoikhoi 02:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who has a familiarity with 1970's text adventure games would, of course, spot the obvious combination of the two magic words "xyzzy" and "plugh", and have no problem spelling them. It is shocking and sad that the youth of today are so out of touch. You kids today, with your playstations and your "walkman" radios and your "MTV". Why, in my day, if you wanted to edit an encylopedia, you walked 10 miles uphill to the library, got out your quill pen and bottle of ink... --Xyzzyplugh 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean David

[edit]

Non-notable vanity. McPhail 16:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoftoren

[edit]

"There is no article in English yet on Hoftoren." So translate it instead of creating this entry...! Punkmorten 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC) OK then. Punkmorten 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is better than nothing even for people who do not speak Dutch.--Patrick 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Password

[edit]

NN software, article only exists to advertise the product RJFJR 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab Doll

[edit]

delete as non-notable, could be merged w/band article, but they're non-notable, too Jim62sch 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lowe

[edit]

Had one minor role. RJFJR 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Chick Bowen 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield P. Durbin

[edit]

Delete. This article was supposed to be about Winfield Taylor Durbin, governor of Indiana from 1901-1905. The user who created the article incorrectly used the middle initial "P" instead of "T," but then created a stub article correctly titled Winfield T. Durbin. Because the incorrectly titled article is only one sentence long, I recommend deletion rather than merger. Cuppysfriend 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: are you commenting on Winfield T. Durbin? You should put it for AFD, then, although I don't think it's a nn speedy. Fetofs Hello! 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Moved to user page and deleted per author request --Obli (Talk)? 18:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sblnet

[edit]

Reads as an advertisement, written by a user with the same name as the article (vanity), one and a half million-ish Alexa rank, Google doesn't even recognize sblnet as a real word (suggests another spelling). --Obli (Talk)? 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to nominate it for AfD. Strong Delete. James Kendall [talk] 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Article's Author: The article has been edited so it's quite clear that it's no longer any more of an advertisement than any other organisation's page (ie: contains 1-2 links at the base). Google suggests different spelling, because "sblnet" is not a real English word - any idiot would actually realise thats not a real word by itself; but google, wikipedia or msn are not "real words" either; so I'd say, based on that - there's no longer any reason for deletion; oh, unless my apparent vanity counts. (user: Sblnet)

The alexa rank is low. So it's a NN site, and therefore not worthy of a Wiki entry. Why not put it as part of your userpage instead? James Kendall [talk] 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:WEB and WP:VANITY. There is nothing asserted about "sblnet" that makes it notable. There are no supporting citations from unrelated published sources. The "real word" comment can be ignored; it's not a reason to delete. There is no encyclopedic content here. Also read WP:NOT. Slowmover 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for 'slashdot', it's not an English word, either. --Obli (Talk)? 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Article's Author: Alright thanks, a decent reason was all I wanted =) Can't a just delete the thing myself?
EDIT: Obli - You need a hobby, something that might stop you from being such a patronising fool (user: Sblnet)

OK, the real word argument was kind of weak, but the slashdot comment was just to prove that Google would have accepted the spelling if the site was more published. --Obli (Talk)? 18:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve pattern

[edit]

It's a dictdef+an advert (possibly a way to try to slip the advert in) RJFJR 17:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perappu

[edit]

Article consists mainly of original research and guesses. Oarias 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do decide to delete we WILL (I can assure you) re-create them when the movie comes out. Highway 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are confirmed pokemon so just keep them and what is the point on deleting them that is like deleting mew or pikachu it is pointless seeing as they are on games already and also in a few months they are going to have to be put back on there seeing how pokemon diamond and pearl are coming out. and Oarias if you dont like the new pokemon just dont buy the game and stop complaining about them on wikipedia for christs sake


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic comparative religion

[edit]

The article completely lacks substance apart from the links to several pages related to the Islamic view of Christianity. On top of that, the article presents no evidence that the field of studies known as "Islamic comparative religion" actually exists. Must be deleted as a stub devoid of any unique content. Pecher Talk 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emílio Henrique Baumgart

[edit]

Few hits on Yahoo or Google; may be known in his native country (hence the Portuguese article), but non-notable elsewhere Jim62sch 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he's notable, he's notable, even if the people who are most likely to recognize his notability don't speak your native tongue. Monicasdude 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- reading the Portuguese article (yes, I too read Portuguese) he doesn't seem all that notable -- in fact, the English article is a translation of the Portuguese article. In fact, I went on Yahoo Brazil and he has a whole whopping nine hits, including one on Typhus(?). Seriously, the guy is not notable (the argument about living and dying before the internet is specious -- so did Frank Lloyd Wright and he has how many hits on google or Yahoo?)


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter and chocolate chiffon pie

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Christianity studies

[edit]

The article contains no information that could not be found in Islamic view of the Bible and Islam in the Bible. It is essentially a multiplication of the same arguments throughout many articles. Pecher Talk 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bible and Christian theology are different topics, they even have different articles. Why dont you afd those as pov forks? --Striver 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Shutt

[edit]

Non-notable-bio of person who has written a book that has (according version of page before I speedied it) sold 40 copies, has a blog, and has apparently reviewed music on local radio. Page was speedied, but the author disputed it so I figured a second opinion was in order. --Aim Here 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

"Direct quote from previously revised page: The first print consisted of a small amount of 40 copies, and quickly sold out locally in only days. Orders continued to come in via online sales and local sales through the indie-publisher Cafepress."

The book has SURPASSED the sale of 5,000 copies, I know for a fact. I work for a local bookstore, and we stocked the book both online and in our store. At one time an interview was given on a local news channel and our online sales peaked for the book.

Shutt does have a cult following, and therefore i believe that this page is a fair contribution to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setroid (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 speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediting

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a speedy, borderline nonsense Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Família fotológica

[edit]

Protologism, zero google hits [52]. Delete. Fang Aili 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Citing WP:SNOW and the fact that it already does fit CSD A7 criteria, I closed the debate early and deleted it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-2007 Milford High School Elections

[edit]

This info hardly deserves to be merged to Milford High School, let alone given it's own article, but it was deprodded, so it comes here. JPD (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 04:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentrax

[edit]

Advertisement for extremely minor religious concept. Pentrax+Schnapp gets no relevant Google hits. Pentrax appears to be a kind of dandruff shampoo. Chick Bowen 19:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramosity

[edit]

Protologism, 116 unique Google hits [53]. Delete. Fang Aili 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:citanes its in the urban dictionary and as it states in the page it was a editorial page. that fact that it has been brought up for deletion is eveidence of ramosity in of itself.--Citanes 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edendale Hospital

[edit]

An apparent vanity stub about a hospital in South Africa. I think it's safe to say that this is non-notable, even if it's part of the Nelson Mandela School of Medicine. Good enough for me. I withdraw this nomination. --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 10:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Heroes

[edit]

Just a mod, not enough info for a full article, recommend merge or delete.Zxcvbnm 20:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Dehler

[edit]

This page appears to be a non-notable vanity page, edited only by the subject (and myself, putting the page on WP:PROD and then WP:AFD). Quentin mcalmott 20:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee killer

[edit]

Delete. Trivial. Not notable. Any person who is good enough against another team can be considered a "[team] killer." Win777 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (though I frankly that this were a real category and that they'd breed like rabbits!) Bucketsofg 21:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little more than a neologism occasionally used on talk radio. --djrobgordon 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; this was a common expression in American baseball journalism in the 1950's/60's (which, unsurprisingly, is almost unrepresented on the internet). Monicasdude 22:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep rather than being a mere protologism, an [insert team here] killer is a typical and important baseball expression. It is certainly sufficiently notable and not trivial. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. I don't think we have to worry about "Lansing Lugnuts Killer" being added to WP. --Thunk 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per monicasdude --Khoikhoi 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York Yankees: This term is only notable in as much as the Yankees have been the best franchise in baseball for decades now. The fact the Yankees have been the best franchise in baseball for decades is well covered in the New York Yankees article so an offshoot of that fact doesn't need its own article! Add a few names of people that played well against the Yankees to that article and then you're done - what more representation does this phrase need? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wknight94. --mmeinhart 23:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In reply to nominator, the Yankees occupy a special place in sport. Basically, for about 40+ years (1920-1964) and especially in the 50s through mid-60s they were very dominant, more so than the Celtics or Maple Leafs or Packers or whatever, such that for two generations of fans, any contending AL team could assume that they would have to go through the Yankees to win. Thus, even in the early season, a win against the Yankees counted "double" - a win for you, and a loss for the team you would almost certainly be fighting for the pennant at the end of the season, if you ever got that far. This concept was commonly understood, and players that seemed to play well or be lucky against the Yankees were considered especially valuable. I recall Frank Lary in particular in that regard, and his nickname was indeed "The Yankee Killer". Herostratus 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Reck Miranda

[edit]

Nominated for speedy under A7 (person, no assertion of notability), but I feel the last paragraph (the bit about broadcasts and performances) is enough to make some degree of assertion of notability. So I'm nominating here, asking AfD to consider the subject's notability and the article's verifyability. As this is a technical nomination on my part, I don't express an opinion one way or t'other. Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Deltabeignet as G1. -- JLaTondre 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bean melt destroyers

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Wei Jingsheng. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weijingsheng

[edit]

Article already exists at Wei_Jingsheng Jizz 22:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Obli. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in Great Britain

[edit]

Listing orphaned. No vote. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect from Incredible Hulk: The Pantheon Saga. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Incredible Hulk: The Pantheon Saga

[edit]

Page also exists as Incredible Hulk: The Pantheon Saga and that one appears to be used/edited more frequently.--Metros232 22:10 11 March 2006 UTC

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story

[edit]

Poorly written summary of a non-notable wrestling release. This article serves no real intellectual purpose. McPhail 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divas in Hedonism

[edit]

Poorly written summary of a non-notable wrestling release. This article serves no real intellectual purpose. McPhail 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come Get Some: The Woman

[edit]

Poorly written, incorrectly titled summary of a non-notable wrestling release. This article serves no real intellectual purpose. McPhail 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuance of FED's M3 figures

[edit]

First article I've ever seen which was actually pointless. James Howard (talk/web) 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90. Reyk 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Mitchison

[edit]

There is no evidence of any kind presented to establish this person's significance or notability, just a lot of genealogical information. I attached a {{prod}} tag, and this was removed with the comment "reverted" so I've brought it to AfD. Specifically: the article fails to meet the WP:BIO guidelines. It does not establish, or provide evidence for, its subject's significance. Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical information. Delete. Sliggy 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, unless this is not the Denis Mitchison a Google search indicates has been regularly quoted in the British press on the subject of tuberculosis. Monicasdude 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obviously) meets WP:BIO guidelines and some more. He is a notable professor of microbiology, now retired, but it is easily verifiable. It's not as if we have an article on every bloody soap star that's had 5 minutes on Hollyoaks, oh hang on, we do. Secondly, you can be important genealogically; that guideline is to stop you writing about your nobody great-great-grandmother, but if you have lots of famous relatives you fit into a jigsaw. — Dunc|☺ 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on your first point: the article provides no evidence to substantiate his significance, it just says he is a "British bacteriologist". If there were some evidence of his significance or notability included in the article I wouldn't have brought this AfD. I do not accept your second point about some genealogies being OK, but others not. As it stands the article fails WP:BIO. Sliggy 23:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful for reference(s) or evidence for this opinion. Sliggy 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. dbtfztalk 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 05:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan

[edit]

Michael Lohan's inclusion in this encyclopedia is not necessary. He broke the law, but he is hoping to change. Having an article about him is not helping and is only and unfriendly reminder of his difficult past with both the law and his family. Also, if he weren't Lindsay Lohan's father, he would be forgettable, and only gets the little tabloid coverage he gets because of his daughter's status as a star. He has done nothing notable to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Stephe1987 23:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Or maybe not even a redirect. Just delete it! A redirect seems pointless. How many sites give Michael his own page? None. Except Michael II because he was in a movie. Is Michael I even worthy of it? Why even keep a page if all it's going to do is redirect to another page that has one or two sentences about him? It seems like a waste of site space to me. Stephe1987 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect takes up virtually no space—literally, "#REDIRECT [[Lindsay Lohan]]" is all. Perhaps we should check with an admin to see how often the page is read. If it's called up even a few times, the redirect would be the way to go. If not, then a straight delete would be warranted. On the other hand, the redirect also would kill a second bird—anyone looking for her brother also would look for "Michael Lohan" as he is not known or credited anywhere as "Michael Lohan II". :) RadioKirk talk to me 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Religion of Servantism

[edit]

Seems to be a one man sect, out of the 151 Google hits, not all of them relates to this religion, I'm not really sure about the notability, but the current state of the article indicates some sort of POV "sales pitch" --Obli (Talk)? 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RandumNess

[edit]

Recently created webcomic, no evidence of notability, most likely created by author of comic [55]. Delete --InShaneee 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Gulley

[edit]

Nice try, but I don't think he's notable. Deb 23:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, he's got a building named after him, is credited with introducing the signature pie of the University of Wisconsin Madison, and George Washington Carver called him an artist. He's certainly notable in Madison, Wisconsin, and researchers using the Wikipedia should be able to find a little something about him. Rabbet 17:37, 11 March 2006 (CST)

*Delete - Runcorn 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's still borderline. I'd want to know what other Americans think before I'd change my vote. Deb 12:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Deb. It is still pretty borderline. --Khoikhoi 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Segall and Sons

[edit]

I'm sure this will be controversial but the categories Defunct companies of the United States and Defunct retail companies bother me. They seem to invite non-notable entries - what are the boundaries of this project?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaSoft

[edit]

Advert? Hoax? Slop? It just needs to go Jim62sch 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

* Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ice cream and cake

[edit]

This article doesn't appear to be useful to me. It's just lyrics to a song, so it should be deleted. Science3456 23:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_11&oldid=1234127729"