Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

Purge server cache

March 21

[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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Superpower

[edit]

This page looks like complete junk. It is filled with redlinks. It has citiations and quotes in non-sensical places. After reading it I'm not even sure what it's about. Delete as Decief Tobyk777 06:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Incomprehensible. Looks like Original Research and POV. Reyk 06:25, 21 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 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purerave.com

[edit]

Delete - non-notable website, Alexa ranking of 72,676. discospinster 00:03, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soap dispenser

[edit]

No claim to notability of soap dispensers. If there really is something special about soap dispensers it should be part of Soap. Schzmo 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is an example of why PROD is working so well. Within two hours, there are significant changes to the article eliminating reason for delete. Please consider PROD if you don't already use it. FloNight talk 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Soap dispensers are pretty separate from soap as a whole, and I'd be interested in knowing more about them - for instance, when they started appearing in public restrooms, how they work, various types, etc. This article could be expanded to include that stuff, and the soap arrticle could link to it. Excellent topic for an encyclopedia; if I can find any info I may write this up myself. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Pez dispensers with Pez; soap dispensers with soap. Bucketsofg 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soap and soap dispensers have a different relationship from Pez and Pez dispensers. Soap has a whole history and life outside of soap dispensers, whereas Pez doesn't have any real history outside of Pez dispensers. Soap and soap dispensers are just not as inextricably tied together as Pez and Pez dispensers. The two subjects are less "of a piece" and don't need to be in the same article in the way that Pez and Pez dispensers did. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I imagine we could expand this article with a more elaborate explanation and some pictures. Royboycrashfan 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and expand --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soap dispenser is different from soap FloNight talk 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substub, then enter as an article request. This is not an article, this is not the start of an article, this is not a good stub. This does not provide any information that is not implicit in the article title, and its presence in Wikipedia performs no service to anyone. This is the expression of someone's desire that Wikipedia have an article on soap dispensers; that is, it is an improperly executed article request. The topic itself is perfectly good, and any time that someone has enough information to write a decent stub they can re-create the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more! FloNight talk 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably mention that I took the liberty of actually making that merge. It seems clear to me that "Manual soap dispenser" and "Automatic soap dispenser" probably don't deserve separate Wikipedia entries. --Hyperbole 01:33, 21 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 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banana tooth

[edit]

This is a disputed prod. The editor who removed the prod template claims it's a legitimate term, but I can find no references to this usage of the term on Google (search results). Delete as unverifiable and non-notable neologism.--Muchness 00:35, 21 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 Missionary. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic missionaries

[edit]

Inaccurate and unencyclopedic. This content is already addressed at Missionary. Kerowyn 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the votes here are for the article as it stands. If someone was to write a proper, encyclopedic article on Catholic missions (or any other flavour for that matter) then I'm sure opinions would change. --Aim Here 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you want a seperate article, just start adding info on Catholic missionaries in a section of the missionaries article, eventually people will be forced to fork it for you. JeffBurdges 04:05, 23 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 01:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Gusain

[edit]

Article for a non-notable person, apparently written by the subject. Article was prodded, but the author deleted both the prod AND what assertions of notability there were (namely that he had a teaching job in John Hopkins Uni), which is why I'm AfDing what looks like a speedy-able article -- Aim Here 00:40, 21 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 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent MySpace members

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. Listcruft, forumcruft. Also OR, unless proof is provided for every assertion. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 21 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. Sango123 (e) 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellbound Saints

[edit]

No claim to notability. Google search yields 38 (as of this writing) unique hits, most of which aren't reliable sources. Their homepage is on myspace, which makes it quite obvious this is vanity. I can't seem to match any WP:MUSIC criteria, either. Delete. Royboycrashfan 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capiche

[edit]

Prodded as a slang dict def per Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy; challenged on the grounds that it "could grow into a useful article based on numerous cultural references / much context". --Muchness 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking the same thing, though either option is fine by me. Royboycrashfan 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that much to it. It's a common Italian usage, like the Engish "get it?" or Spanish "comprende?" at the end of a sentence. It got used as dialog in Mafia movies. (By the way, the appropriate answer is, "Capisco.") Fan1967 03:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE NEED THIS ARTICLE I'M DOING A REPORT ON SLANG AND THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.245.215 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox River Valley Conference

[edit]

nn high school athletic league.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:25, 21 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 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sargis Bkheera

[edit]

Appears to be either OR, or perhaps a fringe historical viewpoint. 7 distinct google hits, but they seem to be reprints of the same paragraph from http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline ..Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:30, 21 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 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KNHS radio

[edit]

nn high school radio station with 559 google hits, some of which are not relevant. One of the google hits indicate that it closed in 1991. It appears to be of little historical interest.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite it then, wikify it! Mike (T C) 07:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as repost of previously deleted material. Postdlf 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations

[edit]

I don't know if it is the same as it was the first time it was deleted as I am not an admin, however, it is an onlione game, but its website doesn't work. I think that says enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyber_Nations Previously deleted version AfD'ed on February 4. This version contains even less information than previous article, so CSD4 condition obtains. I'll be brave and tag as such now.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dishman

[edit]

Nonsense entry from the Lancaster University vandals. Jokestress 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I think this should have been prodded. Carlo 01:24, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hennessy

[edit]

Prod was removed by creator and improperly replaced by anon. moving to AfD instead. Few google hits per prod, true, but was able to confirm that he's a real councilman and that he's really 21. See Google results. Ordinarily, a Bay City councilman would be nn. Does that fact that Chris was elected at 20 change that? You decide. For my money, it's Keep - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... not to mention that it inspired the name of Bay City Rollers. Fan1967 03:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your right, if he ever get an article for another reason, such as being a less minor politician, then I'm sure some admin will see the old deleted version, and include that information. So abstain. JeffBurdges 15:49, 26 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 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Cope

[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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Dinky Robbery

[edit]

A University prank is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Only 10 (4 unique) Google results [3]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Let's see if there are more sources...Joaquin Murietta 15:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should definitely be kept. It is a rather well-known thing around Princeton and it does have historical significance as the last time a train was similarly held up in the North-East, and perhaps even the US. I've edited the article quite a bit. The robbery took place in the spring of 1963, not the fall of '60 as originally cited. I also tracked down a list of names from an alum friend, that seems to jibe with an article in PAW that I added to the links list. Scharferimage 10:43, 24 March 2006.
  • Merge with Princeton Branch. --dcandeto 08:28, 25 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 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Sands

[edit]

Nn author of a book published last month, amazon sales rank of 183,000.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as a patent nonsense. abakharev 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of L'Viv

[edit]

Possible hoax, no google results and the article does not cite its sources --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:56, 21 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 (CSD A7) by User:Alex Bakharev. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Keaton

[edit]

Possible hoax article about a general from the War of L'Viv, another possible hoax article. Only 9 Google results [4], none of which are relevant. --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:06, 21 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 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency analysis, more concisely

[edit]

Original research. Xanzzibar 02:17, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaan suwat suvaco

[edit]

Non-notable monk. Delete. DMG413 02:29, 21 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 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card-Curling

[edit]

Promotional vehicle for (the author's?) new game. Tom Harrison Talk 02:30, 21 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. Feel free to set up a redirect to the relevant merged page, though. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Express (Sydney)

[edit]

No point in having a single page for one bus route, especially one that was discontinued several years ago SM247 02:57, 21 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. DS 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Makhan Shah

[edit]

I tagged this for speedy, but, in view of an objection raised on the article's talk page, I figured I ought to bring it to AfD. Essentially, the text is a Sikh story taken from this website (I don't think that there's a copyvio issue). Were the article a summary of the story, it would perhaps be appropriate; it seems summaries exist here for sundry Bible stories (e.g., Genesis. As it is, though, the article reads essentially like a fictional account (I should say that perhaps my atheist tendencies got the better of me when I added the speedy tag, inasmuch as I wrote that the text was "like a fictional story"; I do not mean here to suggest that the story is apocryphal, only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic and akin to that one would find in a novel or the original source). Moreover, were the text of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website; a Google search for a short portion of the text, though, returns just one result, the website supra. Thus, delete keep (with tags). Joe 03:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above No vote for now. Once the article creator finishes on improving the article I'll vote for keep Strong Keep, good job on cleaning up the article --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As the writer of this article, I make the following comment: It is interesting to note that this article was tagged by Joe for speedy deletion as Joe thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. He had failed to notice that the article began with: " Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)". Further, mid-way down the article is the line " He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?
If Joe has the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – He would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by User talk:Royboycrashfan that this is "original research" is laughable. 654 hits with Google and this is original research!! And what is surprising is that he is supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Follow the leader!!
Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a Sakhi, which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, Joe changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from this website". So in 4 minutes he has done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. How can someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter and has spent very little time be allowed to take such a step?
Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by Joe – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.
Further, he says that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What he does not tell us is the Google finds the following:
"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and
"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.
Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how he can say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" another site is completely unjustified.
So I believe that these criticisms are totally ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!!--Hari Singh 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please calm down. First of all, with quotes, Google only shows 138 results, but then again Google is not very reliable for articles on non-English related subjects. Second of all, I suggest you cite your sources as well as rewrite and clean-up the article using the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your guide to make it so that the article sounds more like an encyclopedia article instead of a fictional story. If you need help, you can always contact other editors. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I suggested on Hari's talk page, there is "certain[ly]...a different way in which to include the story, one short of the insertion of the story itself" (assuming for the sake of argument that the story is indeed notable, as I think it likely is). If there seems to be a consensus for notability here, I would be happy to withdraw the nomination and remove the AfD tag and instead tag the article as needing to be Wikified, cleaned up, and sourced. Joe 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author has written an extensive reply to this comment on my talk. I've copied it to the article talk page. Sandstein 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Initially if you folks had said that the style was not good and it should be improved – Well, I can understand that and we can discuss that. – But that is not what was said. Please read the initial posts. First it was a fictional story, then it has been taken from another website or may be it was original research or school project! Well what is it?

    You know that the world has over 6 billion people and there are just 1million articles on this site – that a tiny fraction – This site does not represent the views of the globe or even all the English speaking people – If you don't listen and allow other to tell you their story, how will you know how they feel and what they have to say!

    If you care to look, I have written over 400 articles for Sikhiwiki (http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page) and Wikipedia on Sikhism. When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?

    It would help me if constructive comments were made rather than irrelevant and incorrect comments! Many thanks to all of you who have been constructive and have taken your time to improve things rather than move backwards! I am much grateful for your help.--Hari Singh 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tags. I put {{tone}} on it -- Astrokey44|talk 12:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Sheesh read the rules and style guidelines here and follow them instead of trying to bully us with talk of how you do it elsewhere. Your whole tone is defensive to say the least, and the article explains nothing really, it just looks like a boring story of little interest to anybody outside of sikhdom. Williamb 12:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's definately notable and deserves a Wikipedia entry. However, it needs cleaning up (a lot) and it needs to be moved to Makhan Shah. We should refrain from adding titles unless necessary (in this case, Bhai means brother). Essentially any relatives of the Sikh gurus or close associates all deserve Wikipedia entries. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Computerjoe's talk 19:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that, consistent with the comments of Sukh and the discussions several of those who posted here have had with the article's creator on his and other talk pages, it would be fair to say that there is a consensus for keep. The article, as it is now, still needs a great deal of work, but the appropriate tag has been added, and it appears that Hari understands how best to write the article in order that it should conform to Wikipedia conventions (although I am a bit worried by his comment supra: "When a Sakhi is told, it is told as a story. That is how these were recorded in the "Janam Sakhi"s which have existed since Guru Nanak in the 1500. What is suddenly wrong with this style? Was there a reason why this style was used? And because of Wikipedia, this style has to change?"). This can't be closed as a speedy keep, but I do think it should now be closed as keep. In the future, I do think that a proper procedure for us to follow when presented with an article such as this was in its first version, consistent with the "On deleting pages" section of WP:DGFA, is to vote "delete" and then list the article on WP:RA. Joe 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrokey44. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hari removed the AfD tag from the page. Because I fear that he may infer malign motive from my re-adding it (even as I've now supported the "keep" position), I'm not re-adding it (though it was removed out-of-process), especially because I expect that this will be closed as keep soon. Joe 05:15, 23 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 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latitudes Home Care Inc.

[edit]

Delete. This page is clearly just an advertisement CharacterZero 03:44, 21 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 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clydex the Platypus

[edit]

Non-notable: character from the fredthemonkey.com website, which was already deemed non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred the Monkey.com) —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 21 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 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake's Mom

[edit]

Non-notable: neologism, article notes it is severely limited geographically. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksky

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game is still a year away from release. Article is also the only article the original author has contributed to. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vapourware. Encise 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Game is not vaporware. Game can be downloaded and played on a PC as well as sample music files from the game. The downloadable portions of the game are playable and contain a scenario to play. In essence, it can be considered a demo, or a short game in itself. The playability of the game is however not complete of what the author wants, as the game will continue to grow and become bigger, and will be released upon the web accordingly. There is no crystal ball, no predicted event, game is playable and has already happened and has been online for 10 months. With each version release, new content and new gameplay will be added and changed. Viperg 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably should shut my mouth, but I'm too much a passionate, truthful and tactless person to do so.
1. I am the other developer. 2. I would login but wiki refuses to deliver my new password.
Onto the matter at hand: I find it highly amusing how wikians and their admins love to talk about vanity while they're measuring everything upto their humangoose ego and penis sizes. I always thought it is entertaining how ERROGANT wikipedia is to discuss the likes of Jack Thompson when they're so not too different in their behavior themselves.
This game is a project, a highly ambitious one to admit (and since when reaching far is wrong? Would you like to go bash Will Wright now?) which strives to satisfy the lacking needs required of today's games for ourselves and whomever may share our gaming desires. If you think what David wrote constitute as crystal balling, then I have no problem editing it out to stick to the facts. It will take years to develop, it will contain what I have in mind for it to contain and as was detailed and more.
But I think the problem really is, as said, phallic in nature. Simply put, BlackSky doesn't have the huge hype of celebritation which wikipedia require, though unlisted and I doubt you'll acknowledge its existance, it's a MAJOR consideration for you. So, just like you removed Pet Professional for it, I expect this to go down. Of course, if Pet Professional become a successful webcomic enoguh for you to notice, you'll come running to create an article for it. Sad hypocracy, is all I can say. Then again, the wiki rules never mentioned wikians need to be holding any virtue, merely trollish behavior to jump on every new post and nitpick it for violations, like any common forum trolls who got nothing better than 24/7 crawling around looking for someone to post something they can beat up like little nerds.
Anyhow, I never liked wikipedia, it is a failure and a good lesson in socio-dynamics, its "citizens" are more like an elitist geek society than a community of researchers and historians. So do whatever, not like I expect you to keep this. Don't know what David expected by posting this, I guess he doesn't know wikipedia too well. I'm off to work. Shrug. --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
You may want to read Vaporware (as well as WP:CIVIL). Catamorphism 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh, certainly, let us adress the biased wiki as a source of knowledge, there be a laughter. Vaporware:
<jargon> /vay'pr-weir/ (UK "vapourware") Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place). The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows.
Seeing as how there was a release taking place, quite a few at that although the content of these releases may well be argued of, prior to announcements of any nature I don't see how this applies. Quite frankly, I don't see what is the big problem.
History is written by the winners, and wikipedia is no different. The eggorant presumptionous of its admins/users to believe or psuedo-aspire to have anything writtin inside being nothing but an objective account of facts is completely bogus as well as ridiculous. Wikipedia is entirely made out of "common's concensus", simply put, the most favored/popular oppinion is that which takes place at the center of the stage with fragments of what-may-be factual information taking sidekick placements to decorate the former.
The best example I have for such and the earlier claim I made regarding popularity/celebrity/hype/phenomena being the most considered factor for placement on wikipedia is how something as silly and rather sideline as Leeroy_Jenkins having an entire article dedicated to him. The simple first statement in the discussion area sums it all.
"This article has had a long journey to its current version. It has been the subject of mutliple deletion reviews and finally was unanimously voted for undeletion"; Indeed, wikipedia is motivated by nothing short of masses admiration. It is not, never was nor ever will be the online-dictionary-recordsholder it claims to be or claims to strive to be.
And before you jump on the "he's envy" cry-wagon, allow me to say this much: I could care less about BlackSky being listed on wiki in this context, I certainly see no good coming out of it. Personaly, I've been objecting to any sort of advertisment as I believe and forsee public reaction being nothing short of the leeching troll's "this isn't finished, this got bugs, where's my game" yawn-der and as you wikipedias reacted thus far (GG for the courtesy to say David is one full of vanity, he's nothing BUT, let me tell you, or this "article" at that, if anything it's a sincere obligation/mission statement. I would rather walk out with the project, or at least the game engine being half-done and then letting people I know of it and asking for feedback. But as said, this is not about BlackSky, this is about my grasp of wikipedia and how I see its denizen's.
This is what I'm angry about, what I "care" about. "You people" act immoraly and errogantly while forcibly applying rules of virtues and make self-proclamations regarding things you hold dear...if anything, YOU are the vaporware which has failed to deliver since then, now and ever. Hypocracy at its worst, and it is nothing short of utterly disgusting me.
One good thing did came out of this though, it grants me the notion of looking upon pushing further morality as part of the game's core design. Richard did good with ultima 4, sadly he forsoke soon the ideals of teaching good vs evil in his games since. He said once that games, especialy mmorpgs, should be made to educate people proper social behaviour, I believe that in a sense he is quite right. We'll see... --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
I'll continue to attack this on the merits of pedia's definition of vapourware, for the sake of argument since I'm such a righteous-aspiring person. Since I believe I've covered the "release" issue, skipping a bit forward..."The term implies deception, or at least unwarranted optimism; that is, it implies that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility."
Deception this is not, never was, nor intended to be and I apologize if it has been grasped as anything of the sort.
Unwarranted optimsm, perhaps, unorginized amatuer indie developing always is and I'll be the first to admit and say that I've been part of many such and watched 90% falls through. Being a pessimistic in nature myself, this isn't easy for me to defend against, but...sigh, here's hoping. David, fail me and I'll crush your scronie(sp?) neck. ;)
Too soon? I'll acknowledge, as the article statements succinctly (and I could expand without a problem) that we're in "too early a stage" to make responsible statements probably other than "this is what we're setting out for - and this is where we are currently".
Feature set, by most is definitely something I could make a responsible statement about, of course it isn't set in stone and is subject to change, yes yes yes, but for the most part this is what I'm looking to achive (hell, the "article" is so...generic&minimized, it doesn't begin to describe what -I- will refer to as feature set), if anything I'm looking to expand and append features rather than to decrease (from the get go I'm looking at this as designing a strong highly capable engine rather than just "a game", so if anything even featuers which won't be used in the game will be available to the engine, why the fuck this is important? because "the game" will be 100% modifyable, er-go, you can use anything in the engine to change the game, IE, we're making it ships, you could make it tank wars or I dunno...does aerial monopoly sounds too far fetch? meh (lemme think about it for a few bits...well it own't be transport tycoon (aw, sweet game, thanks sawyer!) but I can definitely see key engine feature elements being redirected and geared towards such).
Completion date? Always moving, can't, didn't & won't make a "responsible" statement about. Personaly, deadlines always flactuate, I forsaw mid 2006-2007 as a good deadline with the initial progress rate for finishing the engine, however, with the current delay and to factor in a beta (as in having actualy begun to create the actual game's content) I predict it to slide well within deep 2007, perhaps even 2008? We'll see...
Feasibility? As said, independent developments tend to turn vapor/canceled/dissipate/however you may wish to call it. If we (David, or if need be ever sadly (here's hoping not) his predecessor(sp?)) stick to it I'll say that its 100% most definitely feasible, the scope is large so it simply takes time - being independant and all, but feasible? The current programing technology and what limited resources such an almost non-budget development is by far, wide and large more than the required to lunch such a thing. Of course, go pitch it to a publisher (they're all looking for quick&easy money cows that has AWEEEESOME 3D gfx and utilize the latest 3dfx card or something to the like) - it won't fly, which is why indie devs games are known for their type/genre which the pubs are scared to do and why this one is being made for free and is&will be provided for free. Meh. ^_^
Someone should sue Interplay for misusing the "by gamers for gamers" motto.
Wow, I rambled lot, but at least I'm sincere, can you say the same? What you read is what you get. Off to do some actual productive actions. --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I'm not at all sure why you're apparently so interested in having an article about this game remain on Wikipedia when you also seem to be so convinced that Wikipedia is laughable and irredeemably biased. Can you explain? Catamorphism 09:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I'm not. What I am is arguing against what I perceive to be an irrational and biased act of self-induldgment. It's in my nature (or alter-ego of sorts) to fight that which I grasp as stupid and/or derived of "dark side" (hate, tyranny, censorship, greed, corruption, etc. negative/malevolent human traits), typical corporate/government/dicratorship behavior, in an essence. I'm logicaly-righteous beyond repair, it's a character flaw... ;) --Ori Klein
  • Comment: The difference between Leeroy Jenkins and this article can be found about two sections into the article on Jenkins: "Leeroy was given a substantial boost in notoriety by the publication of an article in the August 2005 issue of PC Gamer UK by author Craig Pearson, entitled 'The Ballad of Leeroy Jenkins'." Jenkins was the subject of major media attention; he was something worth writing about before he got a Wikipedia article. Has anybody other than the developers written anything about Blacksky (other than in the AfD discussion)? —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AKA, Hype. As said, popularity, nothing more, nothing else. Importance, weight of the matter - so to speak, ramifications of the event in question, etc. they are all negligible. Only one thing matters on wikipedia, the one thing "online geeks" can ever agree on (couldn't notice Everquest lacks an entry, I doubt its because none attempted to create one, but rather due to the, so-called, "contributors" being unable to agree on one single fact to be a fact and not a personal oppinion), the common's concensus of the masses. I found the leeroy movie funny, but nothing beyond that. To go onto the lengths that "article" assumes and try to go...sad. It was a short fad, nothing more. No more than the "juggernaut bitch" and that starwars3-trailer-parody and so on and so forth. Amusing, good for a laugh, but not something one is to give substance and weight for. Yet, there it is. Why? One reason: "everyone loves to ""hate"" leeroy", so to speak. And of course, the large masses love WoW as well. Ori Klein 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re-add if it becomes notable after its release. —This unsigned comment was added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep What exactly do you mean by "notable?" Notable amoungst. . .? Since the game provides real demos (I know, I've actually played them, have you?) it is obvious that this isn't just some sort of elaborate gimmick or whatever. It is an independent, and currently freeware, game that seems far more developed than most all that I have seen in sourceforge.net or other games with non-profit development strategies. How many more releases are needed before this game becomes worthy of a wikipedia page? Or does it only become real when a commercial media organization takes a break from covering one of hundreds of US criminal cases (often no longer even relating in some way to a hollywood or sports celebrity,) and provides coverage of the project? --DS —This unsigned comment was added by 69.179.59.136 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sorry this is a waste of time here, just let the article go up and end this useless debate. Clearly he has something that is real and which can be played. Otherwise what is the point of having a future tag to let people know a game is under development? Oh, only the "mainstream" games currently under development can be mentioned, bunhca crap imo 12.36.117.2 18:46, 23 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 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Machine books

[edit]

Not sure why someone would bother, but this looks like a hoax. None of these titles googles (except the first, natch). No vote for now. Denni ☯ 04:26, 21 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 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Rutkowski

[edit]

This article is possibly vanity and falls under WP:NOT 7:6. RobbyPrather (talk) 04:48, 21 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 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflefest

[edit]

Prod removed. Prod text was: Not-notable wafflevanityspamcruftisement made up in school one day--Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense, though its interesting to note that there actually is a relatively notable comedy festival in Texas also called "Wafflefest" [9] (but its clearly different from the festival described in the article nominated for deletion) --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflefest is very much a real thing and so are the ideas behind Waffle World. This is event is the creation of a group of people who share the same ideas, passions, and personalities. The idea behind the article was to produce the entire history of the event from its inception to today. People have been requesting the history of Wafflefest, so I have produced it. In my opinon, it is very notable.--MickelMouse87 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed with all of the negativity towards Wafflefest on here. Wafflefest is far from being just something that was made in school one day. It has been in planning for month and has a good following. I'm sorry that you do not see the relevance. I felt that it was interesting thing to share with the world. Do as you wish, but I do not see the harm of restoring the article.--MickelMouse87 03:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to change the article back to the prior version. I think it's too confusing to have an open AFD with the article text not at all what is being voted on. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:28, 22 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; if there's disagreement in the future, feel free to reverse the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion_theory

[edit]

My understanding is the theory is called the "nebular theory" or the "solar nebula theory" and is already covered on the article solar nebula. This Accretion_theory article is barely a start anyway. It should be deleted, and all references to this article should be directed at the existing solar nebula article. Can some other people with astronomy backgrounds concur? Myrrhlin 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm new to this process-- I hope it's appropriate for me to respond in this fashion!) Can you give a reference to your statement: 'accretion theory is the valid over-arching name?' My original objection is precisely that that term is -not- the 'valid over-arching name'. Furthermore, the nebular hypothesis and theory referred specifically to our own solar system historically because there was only one solar system known-- that does not mean planetary scientists think it is not applicable to other systems, it simply means they only recently began to test it and think about revising it. an article about the solar nebula theory can't be written with complete generality to other solar systems, because there is no consensus yet in the scientific community how to improve the model. we are still very early into this process! — Myrrhlin 15:16, 24 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. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Exchange

[edit]

Subject does not seem notable or relevant ("idiosyncratic non-topic"?). Article was added by an anon user (their only contribution) in July and has not been edited since. No talk page, no internal links to or from the page, and no categories. -- Chris 05:14, 21 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■ 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week

[edit]

Page is essentially a book review, albeit one with many excerpted quotes. As a compilation, it would seem to fail WP:OR. In any case, if it is to remain as a book summary, it would need serious cleanup. Because there doesn't seem to have been a clamor for a synopsis of the book before (especially in view of only one Dave Barry work's having gotten a page), I think the article should be deleted In view of the changes made (and those that editors will surely continue to make), the article surely no longer seems to fit any particular criterion for deletion and surely belongs; consequently, keep. Joe 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title appears on the bio in the non-fiction section. Joe 07:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then there is no further need for this article.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable book. JIP | Talk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, non-negligible book by conspicuously notable author. Just being a lousy article isn't grounds for deleting the subject, and saying that an article should be deleted because parallel subjects don't have many articles is arguing that Wikipedia should not improve its coverage in areas where existing coverage is inadequate. Monicasdude 16:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOf course, I expect we'd quibble over where existing coverage is inadequate. Many new pages extend coverage to areas that were not previously covered, but many of those areas are not covered for a reason. When I noted that only one of Dave Barry's non-fic works has a page, I meant to suggest that a consensus already existed to the effect that the books were non-notable; one may perhaps disagree as to the propriety of my making this inference or to the validity or veracity of the inference. Notwithstanding that, I adduce the Wikipedia page for Al Franken's wonderful Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. The differences between that page and the current one are readily apparent. It is always my policy to vote "delete" where a page is wholly substandard, even if I believe the topic of the page to merit inclusion here. General policy would seem to suggest that my voting is inappropriate, but one also observes that, at WP:DGFA, it is suggested that, as one deletes an article, he/she may, believing that the article should exist in a different format, instead list the article at WP:RA. I am always concerned about votes to keep deficient articles, because those who say that the articles should be cleaned up rather than deleted don't often take part in the cleaning up (I don't fault anyone for this; it's very easy to take on other projects here and to forget what one intended to do). Joe 20:57, 21 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 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Institute of National Affairs

[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 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upside down font

[edit]

Not particularly verifiable, it's written as though it's a very weak spoiler encryption technique along the lines of ROT13. If there's a page on "webpage spoiler hiding", it deserves to be merged there, otherwise it should probably be weakly deleted. I've listed it primarily because it was tagged as speedy, which I don't think applies. stillnotelf has a talk page 05:49, 21 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 01:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real music

[edit]

Prodded as original research rant, and that's what it is. PROD contested by author, so here we are. Sandstein 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great source for new bands for people to learn of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahProffer (talk • contribs)

Including your own, which just happens to be on the list. · rodii · 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I know you? Anyway, that was for a little self-promotion, I meant it completely modestly, but I just thought that I would add it onto the list. How did you know that anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahProffer (talk • contribs)

I assume that's intended for me. It's because you used your real name and my magical friend Google checked it out. Self-promotion, or, really, promotion, is not what Wikipedia is about; not is it a web directory for people to find new bands (or stuff). It's an encyclopedia. I applaud your impulse to share good stuff with people, but not here. Actually, your user page would be a fine place for this. (PS: Please sign your posts by appending four tildes, like so: ~~~~.) · rodii · 12:41, 23 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 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{deleted}} as well. — xaosflux Talk 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Room 21three

[edit]

Re-re-re-re-created speedy deleted room, ensuring conensus for last delete-- — xaosflux Talk 06:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE, I've already speedily deleted this article 3 times, yet the article creator keeps recreating it. I suggest a block. --TBC??? ??? ??? 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect, as has already been done with Room 213; consider a block. bikeable (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Truly Genius article. I saw a documentary on WHYY PBS out of Philly on this remarkable living arrangement. The comparisons to Haight-Ashbury were particularly poignant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.127.29 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This is a film project put on by our film production company, these are the basic premises of a new modern/independent film we are making. It is just about college life/discussions in the modern era. It's a project for our school, we thought the ideas/rhetoric of common college students would be educational and deserved to be up on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursday615 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment A rising success where many others have failed. Reminds me of the years of planning I went through in college to finish a similar project. Great to have for future research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.123.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Joke article? --KJ 07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon creating Wikipedia in 1992, I expected it to become a bulwark of academic discussion and a key point on the web for democractic dissemination of ideas. That being said, I think these boys' article might just be crazy enough to work. Let's give them a shot [User: Creator of Wikipedia] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.127.29 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRCmax

[edit]

Delete. Spam. CharacterZero 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

17:21 [ircmax] -!- Welcome to the IRCMax IRC Network
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Your host is IRC.IRCMax.NET, running version Unreal3.2.3
17:21 [ircmax] -!- This server was created Tue Jan 24 2006 at 04:47:52 CST
17:21 [ircmax] -!- There are 42 users and 23 invisible on 9 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 operator(s) online
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 channels formed
17:21 [ircmax] -!- I have 14 clients and 7 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Local Users: 14  Max: 287
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Global Users: 65  Max: 544
17:21 [ircmax] -!- - IRC.IRCMax.NET Message of the Day -
Not to mention that the article is horrible too. kotepho 22:19, 22 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 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 123 Book

[edit]

Advertisement for a Hong Kong coupon book. I fail to see the notability here. PROD removed without comment. Sandstein 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a book of coupons is obviously not notable enough for Wikipedia --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable book, no Amazon rank. (I couldn't resist.) --Kinu t/c 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now. obvious advertising. Dolive21 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain this is a product description, absent any sales pitch. it is no different than the myriad of articles written on other products. are the video game articles produced by user TBC any more relevant or notable? Are these advertisements? if you feel the description is unobjective, edit it. Major book sellers have taken note (other than Amazon), heaps of restaurants, and loads of charities have also taken notice. No reason to delete a simple product description & one that could actually help people (charities, consumers, visitors, businesses).


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratbot

[edit]

The page is about a computer program used by a high school, so I'm guessing its not very notable (no hits for it on google). It also mentions a quake bot, no idea how notable that is. The article is badly written, so if it were to stay it would need a good clean up. I think the article should just redirect to Guided rat. - dr.alf 06:40, 21 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 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Saribay

[edit]

Apparent vanity bio: teenager whose claim to fame is that he founded a website that is of dubious notability itself. Sandstein 06:42, 21 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 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Darius

[edit]

"Darius is also the author of several self-published books..." Bzzt! Delete as vanity bio of a non-notable person (WP:BIO). Sandstein 06:46, 21 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 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Games Guru

[edit]

Delete. He does sound pretty unbeatable... CharacterZero 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, nn-bio. Mike (T C) 07:04, 21 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 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Riser

[edit]

Delete non-notable webcomic. Fails WP:WEB. No apparent media coverage. Very few relevant Google hits (many false hits for the brand of bicycle), and Google shows nothing linking to it outside of its host site.[10] These reasons were put forth in a {{prod}}; the article's only author removed it without addressing any of the issues (though he took the time to add such highly relevant wikilinks as fire, earth and life). Postdlf 07:58, 21 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFX releases publishing system, ROFX format

[edit]

Delete - Alexa lists website as ~2million. No claim of notability. Also, corporate vanity/spam. Wickethewok 08:08, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zikan

[edit]

Continuing the clean-up of Soviet WWII articles, this is another highly suspect article which deals with a person never identified by name, but referenced once in a single non-authoritative book. Wikipedia cannot afford to be misused to further misinformation, simply because much of the Western world is ignorant of Soviet WWII personalities. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as unverifiable. The book "Stalingrad" does mention Zikan — in exactly the one sentence mentioned in the article. Googling for "Zikan sniper" seems to reveal that same sentence copied verbatim (and a lot of Call of Duty players with that nick). Since Zikan means "cheater" etc there is a good chance he was a war propaganda hoax. Unless sources surface either delete, or mention the probability of war propagaganda in the article. A published book and a couple of hundred ghits — just on the fence of being a notable hoax. Weregerbil 13:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better verified. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note possible propaganda as per Weregerbil. If Zikan really existed, Wikipedia should have an entry on him(or her), and if not, the possibility of a hoax should be clearly noted, rather than allowing people to make conclusions without all the facts. Yvh11a 17:00, 25 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 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bischoff, Jeff Bischoff, Herr Wunderbar, Jeffrey David Bischoff

[edit]

Delete - was prodded, upon a google search few relevant notable results. Wickethewok 08:39, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baptiste Sipido

[edit]

CSD was challenged on th talk page, therefore we need a discussion on this one paragraph entry with no context, references, or statement of notability. I'd vote delete. Harro5 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable person, only 29 Google results [11] --TBC??? ??? ??? 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was never a legitimate speedy candidate, as mentioning somebody as having attempted to assassin the Prince of Wales is, at the very least, an "assertion of notability". I've found a few references. The Times (obviously) reported on the case, There is an article by a "Dr Speyer" (no first name is mentioned), "The Legal Aspects of the Sipido Case", in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 1900. There is also an entry for him in the WBIS Online with a reference to a Belgian biographical dictionary (I'll see if I can find that one in the library). As an alternative, we could consider deleting Sipido and adapt Wikipedia policy to report on things in exact proportion to the number of Google hits, in which case we really need to get up to speed with increasing our coverage of naked blonde women with big boobs. u p p l a n d 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I challenged the CSD, so here's why: Sipido took part in a real, if minor, historical event that played a part both in the history of anarchism and the history of the British Empire. An assasination attempt on the heir to the British throne during a time of imperial war is important and notable. I'd like to see a better article here (it should be tagged {{expand}} and probably {{cleanup}} too) but I don't believe this should be deleted. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should cover this sort of material. Gwernol 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Back from the library. The Belgian Biographie nationale, vol. 42 (1981), has a fairly long article on Sipido on pp. 662-679. A Google Books search also turns up a couple of useful hits. u p p l a n d 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded. At the very least, the article needs to decide whether it is about the event (in which case the title changes) or the person (in which case it needs to be rewritten as a biography). JPD (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything in notability criteria that distinguishes between assassins who shoot and kill, assassins who shoot and wound, and assassins who shoot and miss. Squeaky Fromme, John Hinckley, Leon Czolgosz. Monicasdude 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An assassination or attempted assassination of an important person makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per above Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 23:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs work, but worthy of coverage. -Colin Kimbrell 14:48, 22 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 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanz

[edit]

Delete - webspage with no Alexa.com info, makes nn. Also spam/corporate vanity. Wickethewok 09:23, 21 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 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makeaquiz.net

[edit]

Seems largely autobiographical, numerous grammatical errors, no pages link here, seems to add nothing to the content of wikipedia


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agenparl

[edit]

Delete. Vanity or vain page. No link to this page. Panairjdde 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is important, why no other article links to it? Are we going to have an article for every press agency in the world?--Panairjdde 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't even close to grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's revert the question. Is it important? No, delete.--Panairjdde 18:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant isn't the same as non-notable, otherwise articles like Bulbasaur, Air Force Amy, and Phil Linz would be long gone. Monicasdude 19:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Linz?! Why are we picking on Phil Linz? He hit two home runs in the 1964 World Series - not too many people can say that! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nackman

[edit]

Delete This article appears to have been written by the subject of the article. Sperril 10:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cleaned it up some. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since meets WP:MUSIC, Monica, please remember WP:AGF. I don't see any evidence of bad faith here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. We can disagree about whether there is sufficient evidence of bad faith, but to say there is no evidence at all is not, I think, a reasonable position. Nominator 1) stated an invalid ground for deletion and 2) ignored a clear assertion of notability satisfying WP:MUSIC. Monicasdude 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me like nominator simply had a misunderstanding of the rules for vanity articles. If you prefer, replace "any evidence" with "at all strong evidence." Furthermore, such an error probably is under WP:BITE. JoshuaZ 14:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BITE applies to newcomers, not to somebody who first edited about nine months ago. Isn't it also fair to ask you to apply WP:AGF to yourself and consider that some of us might actually check on that point when making a statement here?Monicasdude 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I guess we looked at different things. You looked and saw that the user had been around for 9 months, I looked at his contribution list, of which he has a total of 150 or so edits, only about 6 of which are to deletion related pages. So for all intensive purposes Sper is a newcomer IMO. (I think I may need a wikibreak when I'm arguing over the proper application of WP:AGF and WP:BITE ah well...). JoshuaZ 15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm also sorry, but I do still consider myself a newcomer. After reading the relevent links that both of you have posted, I agree with the sentiments of those who voted to keep. I assure everyone involved that I had no prior knowledge of who Alex Nackman was, and did not act with any bad faith or malice whatsoever. I do maintain my position that persons who are intimatly involved with a biographical subject should refrain from creating articles about the subject because of the possibility of bias. I also disagree with the definition of notablility that is used under WP:MUSIC. That being said, it is an agreed upon policy that I'm now familiar with and will abide by. I was also unaware that the very act of putting an article up for a vote could be considered bad faith and I promise to use a lighter hand in the future. Upon reviewing the history of the article, I think that MusicMan5 has done a very good job in updating the article to be more in line of something approaching encyclopedic, but I still think the article reads like an advertisement for the musician. I have found reviews online that are both supportive of, and critical of the artist and the article falsely indicates that the press is only supportive of Nackman. In any case, I will not edit the article because of the accusation of bad faith on my part. -- Sperril 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author, but not the artist. I used to manage the artist, so I know him well. I certainly wasn't deliberately trying to break any rules. I hope the article can stay. I tried to correct some of the mistakes with citing sources. -MusicMan5
  • Keep. The notability of the subject is clearly established by the article. Carlo 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough per WP:MUSIC. I see no bad faith in the nomination. --kingboyk 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject seems important enough. But the article needs significan restructuring. --Soumyasch 13:21, 24 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Zahradník

[edit]
  1. Substubby, unmaintained.
  2. Founded by his co-author (of an elementary undergraduate textbook) and obviously friend.
  3. I sincerely doubt his notability: he's just another of dozens (or hundreds?) of Czech assistant professors (? the Czech title is docent) teaching teaching mathematics, or whatever it is - even his official department page is pretty much empty template, no publications to be seen. Nothing much elsewhere in Google, except from white noise from a TV station manager of the same name. --Malyctenar 10:47, 21 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 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noran bakrie

[edit]

Non-notable web artist. 12 Google hits. Instead of speedy, I chose prod, but the prod tag was removed, so I am taking this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 10:59, 21 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 gone. DS 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foglerapz

[edit]

Non-notable rap song, scores a magic 0 googlehits [13]. Eivindt@c 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article or A7 biography. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gnass

[edit]

Someone's nn high-school teacher. Article was speedied but author deleted the tag and inserted a reference to him being named as an important philosopher, which is probably bogus. Article doesn't claim any actual philosophical achievements, for one thing --Aim Here 11:02, 21 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. Sango123 (e) 02:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gapping

[edit]

Neologism from the future? Crystal bollocks? Eivindt@c 11:14, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casandra Stark

[edit]

This article was written by User:Roger Quid thirteen days ago, which amounted to his only contributions ever. It has been tagged for verification, importance explanation and clean-up, but looking at the history or the user contributions doesn't look like it will ever be fixed. Delete as a non-notable film maker. JIP | Talk 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. again, per Aero Deizio 14:27, 22 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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Boatman

[edit]
  • Delete as biography of non-notable person. I did not speedy it as some claim of notability has been made, but is not substantiated by any evidence. Google searches confirmed my suspicion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No apparent notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis that his company[15] is the sole distributor of the Taser in Britain, and it is a controversial weapon. He has been the subject of some articles and interviews on the topic of non-lethal weaponry. He may also be somewhat controversial as he held a 50% stake in the company while still serving as a police officer. — RJH 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the company is notable, the article should be on the company itself. Note that he is just a Director of Operations. When there isn't an article on the company, should there be an article on its Director(Sales). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please elaborate the controversy you are talking about so that we can take a better(informed) decision. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A primer - (article from the Times). Guy's a real slimebag, and the Taser thing is an emerging issue everywhere as a new form or arbitrary and uncontrolled police power over civilians. Notable issue, notable controversy, notable player in controversy. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd is not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course quite right, and I'm sorry for my sloppy English. Sliggy 15:43, 22 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 KEEP. Harro5 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Island Sound

[edit]

non-notable, almost no google verification, only results are for [16] which has nothing to with this--152.163.100.13 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

my mistake. change non-notable baseball team, to non-notable basketball team, still falls short of notability, as the new google search obviously confirms--152.163.100.13 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the sports organization the team belongs to already has its own article, the team should have one too. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This team meets every single criteria for retention as a professional sports team playing in the American Basketball Association. The nominator seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that the Strong Island Sound is in fact a basketball team, despite the fact that it is the seventh word in the article, within the name of the league in which it participates. The first Google search provided only lists 40 hits, which could be because the nominator appended "baseball team" to the search; that anything was found by that search is a borderline miracle. The second Google search provided as "justification" for the AfD lists 11,700 references to the team itself, which has everything to do with why it should be retained immediately as a Speedy Keep. This is yet another unfortunate example of how the AfD process is misused and abused, and why AfD's should NOT be accepted from IP Addresses. Please actually READ the article before ignorantly suggesting it be deleted. Alansohn 12:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a nice lecture and everything, but since you wrote the article, obviously you feel it's notable, but thanks for making a cheap shot about how anons shouldn't create afds, guess what, anons can't create afd pages or any pages for that matter, seems like someone else should pay more attention before pointing fingers, and it isn't me. A non-notable basketball team isn't any better than a non-notable baseball team--152.163.100.13 15:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Strong Island Sound" Google search is up to 11,800 items, almost all of which are clearly referring to the professional basketball team in question. The fact that a search appending "basketball" yields a smaller number of hits is not only irrelevant to justifying an AfD (after all, most people don't refer to a team with the name of the sport included), but the nunber of pages found, in and of itself, is evidence of notability. The fact that this IP Address user's entire experience on Wikipedia consists of two AfD's should also be cause for concern. Alansohn 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I am NOT the author of the article, as a prefunctory review of the article's history would have shown. I did not touch this article until some three months after its creation, when I linked here from another article (that I had also not created) that was in my sphere of interest in Wikiproject New Jersey. The article was wikified and copyedited and -- both then and now -- deserves to be retained. This article meets every single objective criterion for notability for a professional sports team. Google is simply not enough to justify keeping OR DELETING an article. There is no arbitrary threshhold number of pages that you could specify that would justify deletion of this article, given its content and nature. Please find some objective standard that this article doesn't meet and let's stop with the Google War. Alansohn 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted since the intersection of notable musicians and musicians with Myspace pages is the null set. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loyd

[edit]

Non-notable amateur musician. Author deleted {{db-bio}} without comment. Henning Makholm 11:52, 21 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 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Knights

[edit]

I doubt this passes WP:SOFTWARE[17] Eivindt@c 11:52, 21 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 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penguinoids

[edit]

Simple flash game which has no features that distiguish it from the thousands of others out there. At best it may warrant a mention in the "variants" section of breakout. Deli nk 13:10, 21 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 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un bidonville

[edit]

Badly named article, with content half original research, half already contained in shanty town (where bidonville already redirects). No sources. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is offering an explanation to the word 'bidonville' in addition to the aticle mentioned above. It should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordj005 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Etheridge

[edit]
  • Delete: My name is Dan Etheridge, and I'm not entirely sure how my details got logged onto Wiipedia in the first place. Flattering as it is, I would agree that I'm a non notable, so do delete me... but surely you must have heard of Derrick Evans, my good friend?

Non-notable biography. {{db-bio}} tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 13:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete as Mr Etheridge is an integral person in the Soul Action and Soul Survivor charity. His ongoing work and research into social injustice is important for the devloping world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.163.70 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squelchies

[edit]

This is a non-notable online game. Where (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. However, it has been a de-facto standard for quite a bit. If we included an article on every little thing, it would be harder to maintain article quality. If you would like to discuss why you think the article should be included, please state your reasoning. Where (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Game names mean little. Without a description, nothing can be concluded from the name. Since one game on the same list had an article(Lottso!), I believed it acceptable to start one for another two(Squelchies and PoppaZoppa(which I notice is not up for deletion)). Unless you want all three of the game articles deleted, do not target any of them. BioTube 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that game names mean little without a description, so perhaps it would be a good idea to shorten the list to just a couple of games, or just to add a short one sentence description after each game. I'm not sure. I think it would actually be a good idea to put the other non-notable games up for deletion, but that we should wait for this debate to finish first. Where (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For most games a one line description should do. We'll have to wait and see if others require a larger one. BioTube 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:40, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daystar (hacker culture)

[edit]

Unverified non-notable neologism/dicdef. This search returns a lot of mirrors and other sites probably not consider reliable sources. Even if it is a term it wide use it should be moved to Wiktionary. --CrypticBacon 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already in Wiktionary, actually. I'll add a link accordingly. If this is deleted, Daystar (the disambiguation page) should be updated to have a link to Sun in place of the link to this article. My vote is Keep, because this term is not a neologism. I've found use of the term (in this sense) on USENET as early as 1999; earlier usage might be found with a more thorough search. Here are some early (1999/2000) uses I've found:
Reference from 2000: [18] Another reference from 2000: [19] From 1999: [20]
For reference, better search terms than "daystar hacker" would be something like "evil Daystar" or "rumors of the Daystar". Those appear to be the primary early usage contexts, although we cannot discount "Daystar" by itself. Unfortunatly, the prevalence of other meanings makes it hard to distinguish. "Hacker" as as search term is pretty useless, though; there's no indication that "hacker" would be likely to be found in close proximity to "daystar". Powers 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:45, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CKX, Inc.

[edit]

Advertisement, text copied from the company's website. I PRODded it but it was contested by the article's creator [21]. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep (changed to Keep following Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.'s edit) there's so much to dislike about this article. The content is a direct lift from the one linked webpage (could be copy-vio?). Its horrible vacuous management speak. As it stands this article is horrible. But, the company owns Graceland and the rights to Elvis Presley's image. That's pretty notable. I'd much rather see this properly wikified and expaanded than just deleted. Like it or not, companies like this are an important part of our contemporary world and an encyclopedia should cover them. Sigh, Gwernol 18:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and keep - It owns the rights to Elvis and part of the rights to the Idols franchise; that's notable enough for me, even if all we can get is a stub.— stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and keep as above; the company's notable. ProhibitOnions 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as the company itself may be relevant, the entry is badly done and shouldn't stay there until someone does rewrite it. If there are wikipedians knowledgeable enough about the topic, they'll do a new entry. Meanwhile, it is against the purpose of Wikipedia. Evillan 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gotta agree with Evillan on this. You can't just slap up your corporate spam on WP and expect others to NPOV it. Wickethewok 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrote - keep Notable company. Cleaned and rewrote; now a valid corp-stub with useful info. Still needs verification and some work. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Elvis connections creates reasonable notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:15, 22 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty Saints

[edit]

Original research, gangcruft. While this may be a legitimate gang, all of the information in the article comes from "Official gang websites" and not from other sources. As gangmembers themselves are likely writing this page and the source sites, this thus qualifies as original research. I had tagged it at one point for cleanup, the successive editors 70.235.210.206 (talk · contribs) and Samtron (talk · contribs) simply removed the tags without further edits. The first editor has only done one edit to WP, this article. The latter editor has only worked on two articles, this one and People Nation, an article which may be gang/listcruft, but at least it's not original research, as it has a valid reference. み使い Mitsukai 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article was recently blanked by 70.225.237.242. --Hetar 20:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Ezeu 02:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gang life is a real in this world; don’t just put it in the back burner.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samtron (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006.
  • Delete, nn-gang. Stifle 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what is the Difference between this page and the Latin Kings page???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.221.242 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Frankly, that one is close to gangcruft as well, as the vast majority of it is unverified and original research. It hasn't been AFD'd because 1. it's got a legitmate link, unlike the above article, and 2. I wasn't aware of its existence. Bear in mind that now that you've mentioned it, it will probably be looked at and some editor may decide to put it up for AFD as well.--み使い Mitsukai 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gang life is a real in Chicago. As for what I know about the Roman Saints, or the later the Saints, the author has taken great pain in putting together the history of a club where there wasn't a lot of references. Considering that Wikipedia allowed someone to refer to the Hells Angels as a motorcycle Gang verses a MC Club, I think the Saints entry has a lot of merit. Unless Wikipedia wants to eliminate the history of gangs altogether - which means Al Capone, John Gotti, and any organized crime must be deleted, I think gangs are a big part of American History. PS: There are people who are interested in gangs and study them, plain and simple, and are not gang members.151.198.117.251 06:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)151.198.117.251 18:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera[reply]

I suggest this author then provide some links that prove the gang exists or was a part of Chicago History like: The Saints to help the people understand better. jbutera 00:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)jbutera

  • Keep. This gang is real and the article probably just needs to be cleaned up. Not sure why people think this is a hoax when the Chicago Tribune did a feature on the gang and its history in 1998 [22] -- JJay 03:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recall anyone saying it was a hoax. What the charge is that it is original research, which is a different problem altogether.--み使い Mitsukai 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the comments on this page. Other than that, large swathes of the article are confirmed by the TRib and I think there are other good sources available. -- JJay 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am reposting what I mentioned to Jbutera on his talk page:

The problem with the two articles is not that they're fake - I'm well aware that these gangs likely do exist (I'm not from Chicago, so I don't know). The problem is that they are both original research, and not cited for the most part (in fact, when I nominated the Almighty Saints article, it had no sources, and it wasn't until the first one was AFD'd that both articles got some sort of slap-dash citations).

The websites they lead to are written by gangmembers, not news organizations, law enforcement agencies or whatever, so they can't be taken as accurate, even if they likely are. As an extreme example, someone could write on one of those pages that "We have nuclear weapons", and there'd be no way to verify it, other than to take them at their word. That's original research, and that goes against WP:NOR, which is WP policy.

If someone can actually give valid (news, law enforcement, etc.) references, that may sway the vote. But until then, my vote on it stands, and if Latin Kings isn't fixed in another week, I'm going to recommend that article for AFD as well.

It's been a few days since, and I have yet to see any real change on either article, despite others stating that it's all verifiable, even from the Tribune, as you say. If that is the case, then citations need to be made, not just slapping an article from the web as has been done with both articles. I have no problem with gang pages being on WP if they're notable. I do have a problem with the original research. If an editor is calling it a hoax, it's not because (s)he doesn't know, it's because there's nothing to back it up.--み使い Mitsukai 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just discovered this AfD last night and it took me just five minutes to find the Trib feature. Why didn't you post the Trib feature? Why didn't you correct the two editors on this page who followed your lead and called this gang a hoax? Why didn't you leave a message on the article talk page asking for more references? Did you even try to find references for the article yourself? Its very easy to call something OR when you know nothing about the subject and then refuse any that are provided. Lastly, where is the proof for the bizarre, and borderline slanderous accusations that "gangmembers" are writing this article (not that it even matters)?-- JJay 13:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & work with it Needs work, possible cutting of OR, and better verification, but this is a case for the cleanup squad, not AfD. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep still problems with OR so still some further cleanup required despite the addition of some sources. Also I'm further concerned re notability - is this really a notable group of people? A google search for "almighty saints" gang doesn't throw up too many responses. I have a lot of sympathy for Mitsukai's position and it's only my lack of context to compare notability of minor gangs that makes me lean away from delete. On the subject of gangs, it is right to be cautious about fansite style references and if I had come across the article, I may well have AfD'd it myself as a google search for "almighty saints" doesn't throw up a promising start as Southampton football club dominate the early hits. MLA 10:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The print citation seems to address some questions of verifiability. If it's stripped down, I think there'll still be a reasonable amount of meat left. -Colin Kimbrell 14:54, 22 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blades of Heaven

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Angr/talk 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks non-notable. At the very least, merge with the game's creator, Indinera Falls. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no point in merging, seems like Indinera Falls' entry will be deleted as well. (I'm confused, does the re-listing mean I should vote again? If not, please make this a comment. Mackan 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Changed to comment per request; no you don't "vote" again but you're welcome to make another comment of course. --kingboyk 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 14:24, 21 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 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franczek Piper

[edit]

Delete - Not notable, possible hoax. This article was bravely created in the ongoing campaign to reduce WP:AR2, usually a good thing ... however, after consideration, I think it should go. Other than Wikipedia Requested Articles there is only 1 hit on Google, only one source that such a person ever existed, or said what he is supposed to have said, and that source is ... let's say controversial. I'm all for keeping notable crankcruft, but this is non-notable crankcruft. GRuban 15:22, 21 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 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of charities

[edit]

A list with greater scope than can be covered in a wikipedia article. The number of charities in the world is likely to be at least many thousands given that it is a legal status rather than anything to do with doing good. It is not possible to document the entire list and in any case this list is redundant with Category:Charities. The prospect of deletion has been raised on the talk page. MLA 15:20, 21 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 this is why AfD ain't a vote -- delete. On second thought, I suppose a redirect makes more sense. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Aleutian Islands detailed account

[edit]

This article is an almost direct copy-and-paste of one of its external links. Oberiko 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. --maclean25 02:52, 22 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 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Kostovic

[edit]

Non-notable person; fails to meet WP:Music. Previous version of the article contained link to his company web site, so it's likely a product of wikispamming. Duja 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a pop musician with comparable credits/touring schedule would be undisputedly notable. Classical music performers with lengthy careers are at least as notable as Ewa Sonnet, and Google is not where I'd look for information about classical musicians who retired twenty years ago. If Google was that reliable/determinative, why would anybody need Wikipedia? Monicasdude 22:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on verifiability grounds. If the article is correct, he may well be notable enough. However, it cites no sources and Google comes up with nothing outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. A search of sources including Grove Music and an Australia/New Zealand newspaper index came up short. I would consider voting to keep if we had any verifiable evidence. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 22 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 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa,_the_animator

[edit]

Delete This person does not appear to be deserving of inclusion .. much hype about nothing Jcbalding 17:07, 21 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 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmaderGaan

[edit]

Non-notable website's advertisement, spam. Fails to satisfy WP:WEB. --Ragib 17:59, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norouz

[edit]

Some Iranian users are removing the Kurdish Newroz article and by trying to merge it to Iranian article of Norouz. I wanr every body clarify for them that evey people have their own traditions and must be respected. If this article should stay then the Kurdish Newroz also should saty.Diyako Talk + 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, the article is a current event, its complete and well cited, infact its celebrated today, there is no reason to delete it. --Kash 22:59, 20 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 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pajax

[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software. I am a Ajax-developer and have never heard of pajax. Sleepyhead 18:41, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAJAX

[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software Sleepyhead 18:45, 21 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 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XOAD

[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet WP:Software Sleepyhead 18:45, 21 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 closed, to be settled by CFD. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SOL_theory

[edit]

Here's the article in question:[24]. Fan1967 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to link to this page since it seems to be both an article and a Category page. SOL_theory, Category:SOL_theory, or [[Category:SOL_theory|this link]]? What ever it is, it's a mess. If you can't see it, click on the Category link at the bottom of the page... you'll see. Inappropriate category, wrong place for an article, poorly written fictional entry. Front243 19:14, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-122 Gemerl

[edit]

Article for "Gemerl" already exists--"E-122" is an unofficial "fanon" name. The information contained herein is inconsequential. --Matt S. 19:46, 21 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 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendredi Cheveux Style

[edit]

I don't know what our guidelines for hair cuts are, but I'm pretty sure this article will fail. Can't find it on google. Eivindt@c 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted as author/only contributor's request. — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Spriggan

[edit]

Was a mistake. Don't need this article for now Ominae 20:04, 21 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. Sango123 (e) 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satelitte Ordance Laser

[edit]

Poorly written fictional entry. Front243 20:10, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Patrick Maxwell

[edit]

Handsome, no doubt a good surgeon, and clearly merits footnotes on some pages, but is he encyclopaedic? Midgley (talk · contribs)

  • Comment reply Yes there are lots of Fellows at Johns Hopkins at any one time. Dr. Maxwell was there almost 30 years ago. It's his contributions in that interval which have been pretty extraordinary Droliver 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I've indented that) FOr a general encyclopaedia it probably needs to be brought out rather more what they are. Free flaps are very clever, but would a reader be given an understanding of what they are, and what the improvement by the subject was that is notable? We are clearly going to keep this one, but WP:IS NOT a directory of surgeons, and WP:BIO should not be a hagiography, and should provide context. Midgley 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MD; notable achievements Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who actually practices in the field of Plastic Surgery (and was one of Dr. Maxwell's former fellows) I can tell you that he is arguably THE premier breast surgeon in the world & one of the world's authorities on cosmetic and breast surgery. He travels all over the world as the featured invited lecturer on symposiums on breast cancer and plastic surgery. In an era where Dr. 90210 is Plastic Surgery to TV viewers, Dr. Maxwell is kind of an "inside baseball" celebrity (ironically Dr. Rey from Dr. 90210 sent 2-3 patients a week when I was there that he was afraid to operate on to Nashville from California). If someone of his stature in the field doesn't meet standards for inclusion here, then I don't think anyone would. Droliver 02:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he certainly seems to have enough publications. Catamorphism 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are actually a large number of publications that he has that I know don't show up on Pubmed including a large number of papers, textbook chapters, instructional inserts/videos Droliver 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment textbook chapters are notable, I'd say. A reference in publications with title and ISBN would be appropriate. Midgley 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment reply I added some more references I found google-ing. I'll try to figure out the ISBN tags. I edited some of the text to tone down what someone felt was too promotional (which is ironic as he doesn't advertise his practice at all)
  • Weak delete. While he has an opinion expressed in public and a number of journal articles, there is little to suggest he is more notable than the 1000s of other US plastic surgeons. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, we need proof that he is more notable, e.g. description as "THE premier breast surgeon in the world" by an authoratitive source. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If dozens of peer reviewed papers, book chapters, visiting professorships, and the like aren't enough to convince our community her, I don't know what it would take? If you know a Plastic Surgeon, ask him who Pat Maxwell is & I guarentee 100% of them will tell you exactly who he is and his level of respect in the field around the world. He is a really heavy-hitter in the field and recognized as such Droliver 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Monicasdude pointed out press coverage, the guy's got a 20-year publication record, and not just any doctor gets to be a professor of medicine: unlike most other fields, profs of medicine are not junior academics. And he's a prof at Vanderbilt, a reputable university. More importantly, plenty of decent, verifiable information. Mangojuice 20:35, 23 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■ 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Michael Fiels

[edit]

Delete. Person is not notable enough to merit an entry. Satch 21:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the librarian profession, he's quite notable, being the director of the largest library association in the world. As far as WP:BIO goes, he's co-authored six books which I think meet the author guidelines. I'm aware that WP:BIO doesn't do much to address people who are notable in their field and unknown out of it, but probably every librarian in the US knows this guy. Jessamyn (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author and I went to the criteria for inclusion [26]. Here are the criteria that Mr. Fiels meets:
  1. Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. [While he is not strictly political, it is a national/international organization which he runs.]
  2. Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more [He has written six books for the profession, and regularly writes for American Libraries which has a circulation of over 70,000 monthly.]
  3. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  4. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

Keep the entry for Mr. Fiels Michael Golrick 22:41, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vash (Star Trek)

[edit]

All this information already exists at List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Vash. Philip Stevens 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that List of Star Trek characters, see the comments below. BryanG 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: She appeared in more TNG episodes then DS9 ones. If anything, put her on a Next Generation list. -Mask 23:16, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries

[edit]

This page fails WP:WEB, which states that a site is notable if "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself; the website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation; or the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries does none of these things. Its biggest claim to notability appears to be a brief traffic spike due to a YTMND page about it a couple weeks ago. Its Alexa rank is in the neighborhood of 250,000. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. If we can find that this topic has gotten significant coverage in reputable sources, I may reconsider. We don't need to document the internet as it happens- the Net itself does this. Wikipedia is not google. Friday (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Friday Bucketsofg 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the talk page is mention that this site was the home to the (briefly) famous "OS X/Darwin is evil" article, which was featured on slashdot (the ./ story links to an old host, so is 404) and elsewhere, and still gets mentioned every so often. Not sure if that tips the scales for anybody. I say keep, but I'm a fan of the site, so not very objective. Staecker 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Staecker, also note that there are many usenet posts by people who don't realize that its a joke and are either shocked that its real or are actual fundamentalists posting stuff from it. JoshuaZ 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic --Doc ask? 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't provide much of a claim to notability, and what's there isn't externally sourced. Xoloz 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an encyclopedic topic in my view, except for apparently low notability. Alexa may be all wonky because of the name changes of the site... it may be higher than it looks. I couldn't find many inbound links via a search on Google though so I'm thinking not MUCH higher. Unless further notability information is offered in which case I'll try to come back and change my sentiment, Delete ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is such a well done hoax site that we should be cognizant of the likelyhood of people coming here to verify its status as a hoax or real. I get over 20,000 hits on Google (search term: "Objective Ministries" OR "Objective Christian Ministries" OR "ObjectiveMinistries" OR "Objective 4Kidz"), with only a few false positives. Even if it doesn't strictly meet WP:WEB, I think we should make an exception here because Wikipedia is not paper and the site is close enough to notability under WP:WEB that other considerations should be taken into account. Powers 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recall perusing this site a year or so ago; might have been mentioned in the same context as Landover Baptist. Web notability is probably hard to verify via Google because of name changes. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I for one wanted more information about this site, and since it is such an elaborate hoax plus it has gone through several name changes, it's not an easy task. This site has been also been discussed at The Mac Observer.Bjorneven 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable hoax site. Agree that the general slipperiness of the site makes verifiability difficult, but also agree with the fact that the poker-facedness of the site makes it a likely Wikipedia target. (Incidentally, if anyone can find a valid source for the fact that it's a Zapatatopi side project as asserted on the talk page, it belongs in the article.) Haikupoet 04:06, 23 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■ 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate-jet conservative

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. It gets only four unique hits in Google.[27] Will Beback 22:07, 21 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localads

[edit]

Non-notable website / advertising. Prod tag removed by User:Localads. -- Cnwb 22:20, 21 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Fray

[edit]

Non-notable author with 94 Google hits. Fails WP:BIO (I originally listed this article for speedy deletion, but inexplicably, someone didn't think it qualified under CSD G7). The article is also highly nonencyclopedic in its tone and reads more like a press release than a Wikipedia article, but since the subject is non-notable in the first place, it's not really worth anyone's time to improve it. Catamorphism 22:24, 21 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASV83

[edit]

Delete - This article appears to about a specific bus in Hong Kong, and there is nothing specifically interesting or encyclopedic about this vehicle or even the route it serves. I can't see any purpose to the article - imagine if there was an article about every bus ever built! RXUYDC 22:26, 21 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 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Good Marketing

[edit]

Delete as advertisement for telemarketing software. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to remove all advertisement from this article. Any guidance on specific verbage that is problematic would be appreciated. Jared 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made some substantial changes to the page. Rather than just opting to delete the page please advise on any additional changes to the article if possible. Jared 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, Jared, but a simple internet search would tell people what your company does...it doesn't take a Wikipedia article to figure it out. From what I have found on the company, I find it difficult to believe that anyone "reading about it" would need any further background information that requires a Wiki article. The fact that you work for the company doesn't help, either, but rather makes it look more like an attempt at advertisement. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable business (irrespective of whether the article becomes less of an ad, although surely I'm happy that Jared was willing to try adapt the article to Wikipedia standards). Joe 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also have to question the validity of the article Bill-Good, which is written by the same author, and contains uncited claims which seem to make the subject notable at first glance, but (to me at least), if you look closely, these uncited claims to fame are not all that notable (e.g. "Fresh out of college, Bill was a statistical analyst in New York with Alan Greenspan"--that's awfully vague about the relationship with Mr. Greenspan). I'll refrain for now from making any move toward deletion, but if someone is so inclined to look into it further... --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as apparent vandalism (hoax/attack page). - Mike Rosoft 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Burke

[edit]

This page is ostensibly about an Australian footballer but turns out to be bizarre when read closely. Smells like hoax, but may also be attempt to attack little-known real person. The googles, they find nothing! Henning Makholm 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bobbertinho is the creator of the page. First version not visibly better than the current one, and recent edits show no clear direction towards encyclopedic trustworthiness. Henning Makholm 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Dauth falls into same category. I'm also wondering if User:Burpengarry and User:Bobbertinho may be related somehow. - Ian ≡ talk 09:47, 22 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 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Toland

[edit]

Notability claimed but not established. User:Jauma23, the article's author has been asked to provide some verification on the article's talk page but has not done so. On this page, Jauma23 claimed he is James Toland. Spondoolicks 23:04, 21 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden democrats Nordic Council story

[edit]

This seems to be a statement of personal opinion on a current event. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Schzmo 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course official dokuments on the Nordic Council's website regarding this. I want to include this story in the Swedish Democrats page, but its to big so i thougt its better to make just a summary there and refere to the whole story. I needed a place to work with it. If there is a problem i will ask Søren Espersen permission to translate this document.SweHomer

The letter is from Søren Espersen own homepage, and a copy if this letter was brought to the Nordic Council as an official matter. I will of cource put the whole story there, but i must start somwhere.SweHomer 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: "I needed a place to work with it." — you should have created this as a subpage of your user page, then. Preparations for a full article should be done in user space, not in article space. No one would have complained. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, Newbie as i am. So delete is. I work with it on my page...11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I dont exactly understand Userfy but if its something like "work more" on the page I be happy. My english is far from perfect, and then i can get more help... SweHomer 03:12, 26 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■ 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effectivity

[edit]

Delete. Apparent commercial/vanity page (article's creator is one of the subjects and all his edits appear to be done to point at this page.) --Calair 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not opposed to a genuine article about effectivity (either here or on Wiktionary, depending on content) but I think it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. While some of the more flagrant bits have been deleted, it's still written more like a sales pitch than an encyclopaedia article. (Note that it still claims 'effectivity' as a trademarked term - so this is really an article about one non-notable company's marketing of the concept, rather than the concept as a whole.) --Calair 22:17, 22 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ibn Ja'far

[edit]

Non-notable →AzaToth 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although from this link it appears that he was "a companion" to the Prophet Muhammad, the article doesn't assert his notability, and I'm not sure how significant companions to the Prophet are. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's important to the national security of the U.S. of A. (Love it or leave it!) to have as much information as possible about Moslem historical figures. The Danes got their asses handed to them for offending Islam. We don't want to make the same mistake. Brian G. Crawford 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability standard for historical article is different to current topics - if theres still information on them after 1500 years than its notable -- Astrokey44|talk 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Companions of the Prophet are inherently notable (see Sahaba); however, I can't find very good evidence through google that he was one. If he was, it's a definite keep. If not, he may not be particularly notable, but I see his name in lists of hadith transmissions, so he does have some notability there, in which case I would downgrade my vote weak keep. It'd be nice to know the details, but probably requires an Islamic library to which I do not have access. bikeable (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the genealogy provided, the man was a first cousin, once removed of Muhammad. His father Ja'far ibn Abu Talib was a son of Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib and a nephew of Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib. Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Muttalib was the father of Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps his familial connections should be clarified? User:Dimadick


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Maria Vidal

[edit]

Delete - prod tag deleted without explanation by author. Does not seem to be notable enough. Also clearly vanity. Wickethewok 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup and keep I agree with Kimchi.sg. I'd rather see this article improved, as Vidal seems to be notable. Perhaps appropriate {{cleanup}} and {{expand}} tags is a better way to go? Gwernol 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep I concur with Kimchi.sg and Gwernol. This is a notable historian and author. User:Georgette
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable per the Amazon listings and rankings. (Also, while the article appears to be vanity, kudos to the author for keeping good NPOV in writing it.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 22 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 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Randell

[edit]

Vanity/not-notable. Child actor with minor role (none, or one line?) in second Harry Potter film. ed g2s • talk 00:01, 22 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 12:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKSPI

[edit]

- The link did work this morning, it has been edited. I have repaired it now. AngloKurisu.


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

Sockpuppet or Anonymous Votes and Comments

[edit]
  • Keep - UKSPI seems to have a lot of information on their website that could be vital to people studying or researching the paranormal. I do not believe this is self advertising, they are trying to help others by sharing their information and facts. They are one of the only paranormal links on this website that have such information avaliable to anyone who may need it.

UKSPI is a non-profit research group from he United Kingdom, and aims to answer one of the most debated questions through self-funded research. Spiritseekers are also linked on the paranormal webpage, yet only have 15 memebers.

  • Keep - This page does have significance to the field of paranormal research. There are a large number of groups who have their links on several paranormal groups, and from looking at their website they seem to be the only group with any sort of scientific research into the paranormal. I have seen other groups who are just as official as them such as Torro, who have been allowed to keep their page on there. It maybe self promotion, but it appears as if their research is vital to the paranormal field.
  • Do Not Delete- UKSPI seems to have a lot of information on their website that could be vital to people studying or researching the paranormal. I do not believe this is self advertising, they are trying to help others by sharing their information and facts. They are one of the only paranormal links on this website that have such information avaliable to anyone who may need it.
This comment is by user:Evenstarbabe, who has no other edits. She is certainly a sock-puppet, thus this vote is discounted. -- Zanimum 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the article, nothing is worth this hassle. I believe UKSPI to have significance to Wikipedia, but it appears that a large well known English Organisation cannot be added onto Wikipedia. I believe this to be a mass injudice, but I will no longer risk the professionalism of UKSPI but arguing with the members of Wikipedia. I am deleting the article now. So don't bother with the voting, enough people view our website on a much more dignified website such as Google, who have always been supportive of us.

Google records everything. It doesn't support anything (ignoring Google.org). There's simply no way to verify the information. Sorry. -- Zanimum 21:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_21&oldid=1116878719"