Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

Purge server cache

May 4

[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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeHouse Digest

[edit]

Fairly well written article about a magazine that hasn't been published yet. Francs2000 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories: Rick James

[edit]

This is a textbook example of WP:CRUFT. I thought this skit was very funny, but I can't see a single reason to keep pages of text on no more than ten minutes of TV. These articles chronicling everything ever broadcast are tedious. This may be suitable for a fansite, but not a general interest encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has withdrawn his nomination (though I think prematurely). Someone else nominate this or retire the AfD! - Richardcavell 05:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Rick James; there is already some there, but it should be expanded somewhat if this article is deleted. As memes go, this was a reasonably notable one; it was mentioned several times on The Daily Show, and got some press coverage after almost all the election signs for some city councillor in Mississippi named "Rick James" got defaced with ", bitch!". --Saforrest 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why are you so keen to delete? WP:CRUFT is not a reason for AfD, it is an essay. Check out the Wikipedia mailing list for a current discussion on the term. The articles might not be tedious for people who are interested in the topic. It has enough content for its own page, why get rid of it. Ansell 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, to hell with it. Nomination withdrawn according to WP:SNOW. Brian G. Crawford 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge I agree with the nominator, not every single piece of pop culture deserves an article. IrishGuy 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 10:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe merging it would be a good idea. In my opinion, articles about TV skits this short shouldn't be written unless the skit has had a lasting impact on television. Jared W 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories are the skits for which Chappelle's Show is mostly known for. Seeing as the show is extremely successful and is also an extremely high selling DVD, and also the fact that you will see people uttering the phrase "I'm Rick James bitch!" in many different contexts, its value as cultural phenomena is well ingrained, I say keep it, but maybe add more to it. For example there should be some more information about the skit when Charlie Murphy plays basketball with Prince. Besides, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it can function as more than just a basic general encyclopedia, but also a pop cultural encyclopedia. IrishGuy's articles on magicians have no more credit than this one for example, this article has far more relevance to a larger amount of people. Haggis101 9:17, 4 May 2006
  • Merge a condensed summary with Rick James. Otherwise, I totally agree with nom, there is already way too much fancruft material on WP, making WP an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). -- P199 17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the suggestions above. Eusebeus 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most important information into Rick James per above. joturner 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chappelle's Show. This is a well-known sketch from Chappelle's Show, but it is already adequately summarized twice in that article. Articles about television programs don't need to go into such detail as this. Note that the plot description of this 13-minute television sketch is longer than the plot summary of War and Peace. Again, I'm not saying we should ignore this sketch on Wikipedia, but we don't need to do more than give the basics in Chappelle's Show. --Metropolitan90 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is pretty famous, but it looks like this AFD is voting towards merge. So a merge with a redirect should be fine. Cvene64 04:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely don't delete. - Richardcavell 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nn-band). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denis canary

[edit]

NN band which fails WP:Music. Article itself is written as nonsense. Article admits they are a local band who are no longer performing. Ataricodfish 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn) without prejudice to possible merger with Mallrats. Metamagician3000 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Bruce

[edit]

One of several articles about characters from Kevin Smith movies that should probably be reviewed. Character appeared in one movie, Mallrats, and that article looks like a much better place for this info. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Two, if you count Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. As for the article itself, I have no opposition to its existence. If it goes, it can redirect to Mallrats. Fluit 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, agree with existence of article in principal, but strong WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Brodie may indeed be an anti-hero with some interesting facets to explore, but somebody else needs to have explored them first, and you need to show us where. Deizio talk 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying not to be bias since I wrote the article, so I mostly agree. This may just be my relative unfamiliarity with WP politics and procedure, but why not propose to merge this article with Mallrats, rather than delete it? I also believe there is a relatively strong precedent for fictional characters having their own articles on WP, especially if there are some interesting things to be said about them that depart from simply rehashing events in the movie. And yes, I will go dig up sources for talking about Brodie as a sage and anti-hero. Again, why not flag the article as not citing sources, instead of deleting it? Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 02:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable characters from notable flicks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending sources, otherwise Merge with Mallrats. I agree with Aguerriero that AfD was probably not the most appropriate tag here. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not the quality of the article -- even with sources, I would have been inclined to nominate. I'm just not persuaded that the character has a strong enough presence outside the film to warrant his own article. Are we expecting people will do searches for this character without first going to Mallrats? If not, then it's a little too close to fancruft for my tastes. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, given that he's in two movies, not one, and that the actor has recieved more prominence as of late for his role on that TV show, I think it's a reasonable expectation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article seems to assert that he does, so it might have made sense to request verification first. And in any event, don't you think a merge & redirect would be better than just outright deletion? --Cheapestcostavoider 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into mailrats M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I withdraw the nomination. I'm still not convinced this character should have its own page. However, I'm fairly new to the whole delete/merger thing and in my inexperience, I acted hastily, and failed to follow the correct procedure. Clearly, this isn't the proper forum. Aguerriero, if you still strongly feel that the character deserves its own page, I'll let you work on backing that up and properly propose a merger should I still disagree. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 05:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We simply do not need articles on every single movie character for which some claim of notability can be made. I think a compelling argument needs to be made why this should be separated from the movie's main article page, which is not the case here. Eusebeus 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking about this question of whether fictional characters need their own articles, and I offer this thought - in most of the "universe" phenomena in the entertainment world, characters have their own articles on WP. A "universe" is defined as an entire body of work in which the films (or shows), comics, books, and characters are packaged and embraced as whole. For example, the Star Wars universe, The Simpsons, Buffyverse, and of course, the View Askewniverse, from which Brodie and Mallrats are derived. In all of the examples cited above, individual major (sometimes even minor) characters have their own articles, simple becase a large and enduring fanbase is interested in reading them. Does there need to be another reason than that people want to read it? Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite being a Kevin Smith fan (at least, a fan of his first four films), I was on the fence on this one- I love the movies, but I wasn't sure if Brodie merited an article. But Aguerriero just convinced me. If minor Star Wars characters have their own articles, then major View Askew characters certainly should. -- Kicking222 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR Brian G. Crawford 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to something Kevin Smith-related. once you delete the editoralizing commentary, you're left with nothing anyhow.Roodog2k 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant character in more than one film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, per above. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Mallrats. Certainly doesn't merit outright deletion. Badgerpatrol 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ewlyahoocom 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant character. I've seen other smaller articles in Wikipedia that just one/two line character descriptions.--D2K 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With Mallrats. Beno1000 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britt World Wide

[edit]

Amwaycruft, advertisement, non-notable; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization et al. Paul 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Britt

[edit]

Amwaycruft/advertisement/NN; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization et. al Paul 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of sponsorship

[edit]

Amwaycruft; can either be merged into Amway/Quixtar etc or deleted entirely; see also Quixtar Motivational Organization Paul 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7. Tawker 02:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gasparello

[edit]

Per WP:BIO, a high school principal isn't really a subject for an encyclopedia article. 186 G-hits, 80 unique. He was quoted in the news once when some of his students got arrested. Most of the info in the article is utterly unverifiable, and what's verifiable is a sub-stub. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art "Smokehouse" Lindsey, III

[edit]

Non-notable personality Bennie Noakes 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Ambassador

[edit]

WP:NOT a directory; this article is nothing but. More Amwaycruft. Paul 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers media

[edit]

An article about a non-notable fansite; google search came up with three hits relating to it, all of them are self references Hobbeslover 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. See the discussion itself for details. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush

[edit]

This debate has become too long to be transcluded onto the day's AFD page. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) to comment.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portaltop

[edit]

Non-notable project. Google can't find a project page, and the article was recently edited (by creator) to the future tense, implying that it doesn't even exist yet. Either way, it's neither verifiable nor notable. (PROD was attempted and failed.) Zetawoof(ζ)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zooids

[edit]

should be wikitionary JBEvans 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NinJo

[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement of software by SUN microsystems (see links) Pflatau 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Ought Six

[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7'd. Tawker 05:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Filkovic

[edit]

Delete No Assertion to notability, external links don't support this either. Librarianofages 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme Coffee

[edit]

Prodded (by me) as "Non-notable coffee shop." Prod tag removed with the edit summary comment of "It has been proposed that this article be deleted because, according to some, Gimme Coffee is a "non-notable coffeeshop". Merriam Webster defines notable as "worthy of note" and in NY, Gimme is." The initial reason I prodded this page is that there is no real notability stated in the article. However, looking at the press page on their Web site, they do list a few publications in which they are mentioned [2]. I'm not 100% certain this meets WP:CORP though. In any case, I thought it's worth an AfD discussion. If the article is kept, then it at least needs to do more to state notability. ScottW 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I'm a native New Yorker who hangs out with coffee-holics, and I've never heard of it. I'd have to go through the list of sources to figure it out- the NYT mention doesn't count, as it's just a very passing reference, but I'm not sure about the others.Captainktainer * Talk 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral. The criteria for this is per WP:CORP, which states that a company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I found no coverage in mainstream media apart from one article in The Sydney Morning Herald, where Gimme Coffee is mentioned twice. Kevin 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a second look on their press page they do have a reasonable amount of media coverage. Unfortunately, "non-trivial" is quite subjective, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. Kevin 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is where my uncertainty lies. There are certainly several substantial articles in the local media, however, my local newspaper eventually will do a few articles on every restaurant/cafe in town--most of them not-notable. The most notable articles in the global media section are mostly brief mentions. Do these constitute non-trivial works? I would have a lot less trouble keeping this article if it had any sort of encyclopedic content or substantial edits. As it stands at the moment, I'm not sure this article could be made encyclopedic. ScottW 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN as above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP, see their press page, that's definitely multiple independent mentions. This is a minor cofeeshop franchise chain, definitely notable. Ok, admittedly, the articles on their web page are copies, and I don't have the issues in question (and web searching doesn't seem to work), but I just don't believe they'd have the balls to lie that much on their web page. Mangojuicetalk 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, does not assert any particular notability. Any USAns who are familiar with this coffee shop chain can probably supply me with more information. JIP | Talk 18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 stores?!? Being in New York doesn't make one notable, even though 87.3% of New Yorkers appear to believe that. --- GWO
  • keep please it is notable enough for wikipedia Yuckfoo 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was on the fence when I initially nominated this article. However after thinking a bit about it, it seems to be at best borderline WP:CORP. My biggest problem though is that, at the present, I don't see this article expanding to something encyclopedic. So I lean delete ScottW 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing of note in article, easily recreated if or when the chain ever becomes notable. Ewlyahoocom 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull assasins

[edit]

Speedy delete - patent nonsense Nv8200p talk 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

List of Star Wars references in Drawn Together

[edit]

Fancruft. Pugs Malone 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haldane

[edit]

Non-notable Vanity bio. Previously tagged for speedy deletion [3] but deemed not speedy-able [4]. I prodded it [5], but prod tag was contested (removed) [6] by anon whose only edits were to the article [7] Anon gave no reason for tag's removal, and is probably the author and subject of the article, Jjhaldane (contribs), just not logged in. I suggest deleting the article as vanity and failing WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Alliance at SUNY Albany

[edit]

non notable college organization Reid A. 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 advert. Tawker 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Rent a Car Los Cabos

[edit]

Patent Nonsense / Advertising: Site serves no other function that the company page would. Granite Learner 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saidu hospial

[edit]

This looks like rather a spam addition, has no links and is incoherent. If you feel you can improve it to sort the content and make it usefule please do. SpamBilly 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Vollans

[edit]

Very dubious accuracy. Google does not acknowledge the professor in question, the two universities listed do not exist, there are no references or citations. Ollie 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the sophomoric people who voted delete above, could you please supply a website or publication which verifies the information in the article? Per WP:V, an article has to be verifiable. Even if the article is true, we need something to verify the article. Show me evidence of verifiability, and I'll reconsider my vote. Otherwise, my sophomoric delete remains. --Ataricodfish 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Professor, top-ranking police officer, one of Britain's finest law theorists and academic celebrity? Is the University of Sevenoaks also a 6th Form? Even if the man exists, i remain unconvinced of the factual accuracy of the article. I will, of course, reconsider if verification is provided! Ollie 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://proxy:81/6thformweb/Law/Documents/Module%201%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20&%20Judicial%20Precedent.doc

Comment The above link is located on the school intranet and will not work from the outside. However I've supplied a screenshot that shows Mr. Vollans notes on part of the law used to teach first year sixth formers. The picture is not faked or doctored in any way (because I'm not that bothered about the whole thing to take the time), and I would include the whole article at request, however I'm not going to due to the fact the notes should stay within respected students possession. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a46/iamstewart/LOLOLOLOLOL.jpg
Comment. The context of this debate started out with suspicion of a hoax based on fictitions university names and unverified assertions of fame which would lead one to think that the professor, if as noted as stated in the article, would at least have one mention on the billions of pages indexed by google. I now think this person may very well be a real person. However, this does little to address the underlying verifiability and notability issues. Even if he is a real professor, is he really "considered to be one of Britain's finest law theorists" who often consults with the House of Lords? Who and how many consider him to be so and how does this translate to wider fame? Does he have any publications? Newpaper/magazine write ups. Yes we started with the question of whether this was a hoax, but the same problems that led to that conclusion, still lead me, at least, to believe this person is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please address the underlying verifiability of the claims and substantiation of his fame. The hoax issue is not the relevant inquiry to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that Google does not provide the answer to everything. However, I do appreciate your concern in relation to the professor's academic success. Unfortunately, I do not feel I can provide further citation for the time being.217.33.207.195 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I am not implying google "answer's everything." It was a tool used to attempt to substantiate an article with no sources. Now that you have added some substantiation that he is a real person, you or anyone else who wants the article to remain must substantiate the assertions contained therein. The burden is not on us to find those for you. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 daleted as A7. Bonus marks for spelling colour correctly, but still no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Revolt

[edit]

Also including Colour revolt, which is basically the same. This is a rather strange situation: Colour Revolt and Colour revolt were created as basically identical articles; Colour Revolt was tagged with {{XD7}} with reason "no AMG entry, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines" and Colour revolt was tagged with {{mfd}} (uncompleted), then both were recreated basically identically without removing the tags. On to proper procedure: delete, User:Friday's reason for XD7 is good. TimBentley (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, then redirect. Mailer Diablo 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion keyblade

[edit]

not notable Reid A. 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 11:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Miller

[edit]

Looks like a vanity page to me MUSpud2 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pending verifiable assertion of notability that meets inclusion criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Keep I must have been drunk. I could swear when I looked at the article there was no bibliography, but edit history doesn't lie; Amazon.com confirms book listings.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO states that a published author with an audience of 5000 or more are notable. One of his books has been in print for 18 years, so it's hard to believe that it would have sold less than this. According to Amazon.com his works are also cited in multiple other published works. Kevin 12:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Life in the Marvel Universe

[edit]

Not worth an entire entry on Wikipedia, evident by the lack of research and citations that have gone into this fancruft listing. Just a collection of non-noteworthy details, some only from a single comic book. SilentTannenbaum 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First, it's everyday life, which is already lame. Second, it's in a fictional universe, so it should probably be merged there if not deleted. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It got put into a new article as it had grown too large for the original article about the Marvel Universe that contained it. There is information here which I didn't know, and I'm a big fan of Marvel comics. It's no worse than the hundreds of articles about Pokémon. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...hundreds of articles about what?? What?? WHAT??? ;) Deizio talk 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a minute to realize what he meant, too, Deizio, but if you click edit page, you'll see he was saying "articles about pokemon", but he put a category link which which puts the marker you see at the bottom of the page instead of the text in his entry. Elijya 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why today's log is in the Pokemon category... Deizio talk 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it so it will appear now. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry everyone. Satan's Rubber Duck 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pushing the fictional universe fanpulp series beyond the pale here. Everything in the list is entirely incidental to the importance of the Marvel stories, no encyclopedic content. Deizio talk 14:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I personally found it informative, there's no reason this information shouldn't be here. Yes, it is tied to a fictional universe, however this fictional universe is arguably the largest one ever created, which necessitates the division of information into different articles. And I hardly think the assertation that "everyday life...is lame" is a meritous argument for deletion. Elijya 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With stipulation that more sources need to be cited. This article would be too unwieldy as part of Marvel Universe but does provide further canonical information about the Marvel Universe. Psyphics 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify? This article contains mostly a bunch of separate lists of companies, people, groups, etc., basically, all things in the marvel universe that are mundane. I think most of the content here should be in one or more lists... but what lists? List of notable non-mutants in Marvel Universe could be one, et cetera. The first couple of paragraphs are interesting, but could easily be merged into Marvel Universe. In theory, I could see an article about how everyday life is portrayed in the Marvel Universe, and I could see it being interesting, but this is just a big list of ordinary things and not informative. If I must pick a vote, I would say "keep and tag for attention", because there's too much splitting to be done by someone closing an AfD; I think editors will have to actually get involved here. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Deiz: totally fancruft to the limit! --P199 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify One of the lists would be Public identities of Marvel superheroes, which would cover much of this. Septentrionalis 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, usually I would consider this fancruft, but the Marvel Universe is big, detailed, and famous enough to be notable. JIP | Talk 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change name to Fictional brands in the Marvel Universe as part of the Archive of fictional things. Ihavenolife 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the article's creator and contributor of 99 percent of the content, I find myself in agreement with the nominator. I have contributed more and more to Wikipedia, and I have come to think this list really does not belong on this site. It's fan service stuff; something I have enjoyed compiling, but even some of the lists that it is being suggested as being split into seem inconsequential and non-noteworthy. I'd rather it bedeleted from the site; I have kept a copy for myself so perhaps I can continue this for my own private use or share it with others elsewhere. Either way, it doesn't follow the rules of Wikipedia, because it's a different kind of project. Just think of it as a pet project that got put in the wrong place. Please delete. Thanks.--Chris Griswold 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually found this quite interesting, but it's too much like original research, grabbing bits and pieces to put together a novel construction of the author's own. Metamagician3000 10:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, when I read about Original Research on Wikipedia, that's when I knew what I had done didn't fit here. It's not just a normal listing, it's one with an editorial slant to it. I'm not at all saying that the work I did wasn't good; just that it doesn't fit the purpose of Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is famous enough to be notable Yuckfoo 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything in this article is either important enough to the Marvel Universe to merit its own article already, or utterly sub-trivial and not worth mentioning at all. -Sean Curtin 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boring comicbook filler Ewlyahoocom 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per page creator's request. Inherently biased to a particular POV (who defines "everyday"?) and OR. Vizjim 09:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya And Nancy: The Opera

[edit]

nn play. Deprodded. It has 384 google hits, but none of the international media reports it purports to have. It started two days ago, a university production, and basically all the hits were from university noticeboards and random bloggers.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable sources are provided for the "international media reports". Gwernol 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote to Keep, there are enough sources cited below to verify this and it is notable. The sources need to be added to the article though. Gwernol 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I did find an article from Sports Illustrated, which is a major publication, here [9]. The Australian Herald here [10] (although it appears to be a reprinting of an AP wire, which might have been carried in other markets). I don't know if this qualifies it as being notable yet, however, as most of the press is for the novelty of the production about Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan. Maybe the article is too soon and perhaps should wait until it reaches a major production? --Ataricodfish 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, good point then, so I'll strike that out. Probably just copying the AP article. However, Sports Illustrated is definitely a major publication. I don't know if it's only in the online issue of SI or in the print magazine, though. This does show T&N is in the news, but perhaps it fails WP:N? --Ataricodfish 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alright, after researching WP:NOT, I strike my weak keep. Wikipedia is not a news report, and as of now, article is of a non-notable play which is currently getting minor press for its goofy newsfriendly topic. Should it move to bigger venues, win awards, gross a substancial amount, etc., then we can reconsider the article in the future per WP:N. --Ataricodfish 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The opera was mentioned in a number of media outlets around the US that were not just copied from the AP. All are available on LexisNexis - search string used: [tonya w/4 nancy AND (music! or opera!)]
      • For example:
      • The Orlando Sentinal (May 4)
      • Baltimore Sun (May 3)
      • Seattle P-I (May 3)
      • Boston Herald (May 2)
      • In addition, this got coverage last October in the New York Times (Oct. 18, 2005 - Arts Section, page 2):
        • Anyone searching for an opera built on violent conflict more recent than the Trojan Wars need look no farther than Tufts University, where plans are in progress for a spring production of Nancy and Tonya: The Opera, based on the rivalry between the ice skaters Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding that led to an attack on Ms. Kerrigan before the 1994 Winter Olympics. PlaybillArts.com reported that the opera, with a libretto by the novelist Elizabeth Searle and music by Abigail Al-Doory, a Tufts graduate student, features an aria based on Ms. Kerrigan's lament: Why? Why? Why?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.78.224 (talk • contribs) .

Comment I fully trust Lexis-Nexis, and as I noted above, the article appeared in Sports Illustrated online and other AP articles. However, is this opera noteable yet? Right now, it's just human interest news, considering it only premiered a few days ago as a college production and is receiving attention primarily for the novelty of a Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan singing. Having reviewed WP:not and WP:N, I don't think the article is noteable or any different than any other student production by graduate students at other colleges -- the only difference is that the subject matter made a nice human interest story for a day. Now, if the play expands to a major venue, wins an award, or makes tons of money, then I'd argue for keeping the article. But right now, it's not yet noteable and is simply a college production which had a good press release going for it. --Ataricodfish 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see your point and where you're coming from. My stance is that it is notable because it is a college production that has garnered national (international disputed) attention. It is extremely rare for that sort of attention to happen, and is the main reason I'd say keep. I definitely appreciate the additional reasoning you've offered, though. --24.50.144.90 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Trust me, I was torn with this, which is why I voted "Weak Keep" originally before changing my vote to "Delete". To use a recent example, there was a cat named Molly that was trapped in a NY wall recently which received a great deal of attention for a week across the globe. It made a nice human interest piece, but then the story disappeared a month ago when the cat was rescued. An article was attempted for Molly the cat, but was deleted as non noteable. My belief is that it's too early to evaluate T&N, as its importance might disappear by next week never to be heard of again. Now, should it follow the path of operas like the Jerry Springer one and become even a small scale success -- i.e., we're still hearing of this opera a year from now -- then I'd fully support keeping this in Wiki. --Ataricodfish 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opera has now been covered by NPR's "Only A Game" program: http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/330/510052/5383921/WBUR_5383921.mp3

This program is carried by about 118 radio stations, so at this point I think it's fair to say that this production, regardless of who is producing it, has garnered significant national attention.

Keep There is another article here that mentions press that goes back a couple years: http://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/114669333737030.xml&coll=7 And here is an AP article in USA Today from 2005: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/winter/2005-10-13-harding-kerrigan-opera_x.htm?POE=click-refer There is also video coverage here: http://www.kptv.com/Global/category.asp?C=36238 And here is an article from The London Daily Telegraph from a few months ago: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/02/10/soicus10.xml Furthermore, the writer, Elizabeth Searle, is notable. She's had several books published and has been reviewed by the NY Times Book Review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.22.42 (talk • contribs) .

Keep From everything above, its pretty clear that the opera is being produced. Its pretty clear that it has gotten some press. It is not for us to judge the value of said press one way or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.19.206 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A1/A3/G2/etc. Stifle (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous nomadic

[edit]

If you look at the first couple versions of this article, it seems the user was just sandboxing and then forgot about the page. Xaxafrad 04:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- borderline nonsense. Reyk YO! 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Club (University of Michigan)

[edit]

NN club at the University of Michigan, where Yahoo! search for "Socratic Club" and "University of Michigan" finds 31 hits including Wiki and a collection of unrelated advertisements [11]. Besides stating that human beings are allowed to go to club meetings, nothing notable is determined in this article, failed WP:N. Ataricodfish 04:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Socratic Club (Oregon State University)

[edit]

Another non notable college club, this time with 88 hits on Yahoo! but again mainly Wiki links, ads, MySpace pages, and the like [12]. Article fails WP:N. Ataricodfish 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Hotchkiss

[edit]

A businessman who is involved in wheelchair manufacturing. It appears to be advertising. Deprodded.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused here. I'm trying to properly contest the proposal that this article be deleted, but I'm new at this and not sure I've got the procedure right. Here's what I said on the discussion page of the Ralf Hotchkiss article itself --
This page is absolutely NOT an advertisement. Therefore, I am removing the request for deletion (as I understand the policies and procedures say I can/should). I added this page because I believe what Hotchkiss and his company are doing is important, is part of a contemporary movement to promote sustainable development, and is admirable and should be known about. You'll also notice that Whirlwind has its own entry in Wikipedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, too, and am kind of shocked to have my first entry attacked so quickly. By the way, I have no connection to Hotchkiss or Whirlwind except as a college classmate who admires him and his work. Mildredofbeulah 05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by MONGO as dicdef. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokhi

[edit]

Wikipedia is not... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Chick Bowen 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fancher, Jr.

[edit]

The edit history, the content of the article, and the lack of links seem to indicate that this is a vanity page. A google search for this person reveals nothing. Chaser 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 09:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Workshop

[edit]

This is an advertisement for a skateboard company in Dayton, Ohio. No assertion of notability or evidence that it meets WP:CORP. The company's website has no Alexa ranking. Prod removed without comment by the page's creator. Based on the above I am recommending delete. --Hetar 05:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except, it's not policy. I think there's a pretty good reason to have this article, as there aren't many skateboard producers on this level. Why should WP:CORP overrule that? Mangojuicetalk 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, international, well known skateboard, clothing and accessory brand. Amazed they have such a crappy entry and unranked website, unless I'm missing something here? Deizio talk 14:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit more digging reveals they don't go in for too much self-promotion, corporate history or general showing-off on their site. Imo notable within this field, some of their t-shirts and wallets are approaching iconic, but they don't seem to care that we can't WP:V their wikipedia entry very well. Deizio talk 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most important skateboard companies around, their art and films have inspired many in and outside of the skteboarding world. 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Fourteen

[edit]

I speedily deleted this page as a repost of deleted content. The article creator objected, asserting that the new article addressed the objections raised in the previous AFD. Therefore I am bringing the new version here. Snottygobble 05:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: I am the author of the most recent version of this article. The first article was deleted because it was not sufficiently verifiable and because of suspected sockpuppetry during the original AfD debate. I have added a number of reliable sources to confirm that this is not simply a "neologism" and hope that this debate will avoid another descent into sockpuppetry, which I think really distracted people from the merit of the article the first time around. Even the person who nominated the last T14 article agrees that this version merits inclusion. I welcome any suggestions for further improvement. --Cheapestcostavoider 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: do you know when the term was created? It seems very unlikely that there would be no change in the rankings year after year besides movement within the top fourteen. By the way, some of the links don't work. -- Kjkolb 11:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I've just tried to fix the links; they should be working now. No, I don't know when the term was created, but the US News rankings date back to (I believe) 1987. The point isn't that the rankings don't change, but that the top 14 have been the same schools in every edition of the rankings. The reality is that the rankings do change quite a bit, which is why the fact that the same 14 schools have remained on top each time has struck so many people as noteworthy. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some verification of mainstream use of this term in this context. In all the links I found no evidence that T-14 is a common or notable term. Kevin 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons people voted delete in the last AfD. References and sources in the new article which supposedly addressed previous objections are links which in several cases don't work, or make no mention of T-14, or if they do mention it, its done only in passing and present no evidence which convinces me of it being a notable term. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it a legitimate term? Perhaps. Is it a notable term? Not at all. -- Kicking222 16:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources seem to establish its notability. It also gets 10K+ hits on Google. It's very widely used among law students and the Brian Leiter sources seem to verify this. -Sparklemotion 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article establishes notability via published sources and assertion that prospective students use this list to pick the best schools. Maybe could use renaming (Top Fourteeen Law Schools). Nothing links to the article, though, so that probably ought to be fixed. --Elkman - (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really no substantial change from old version. The sources don't convince me that this is not a neologism -- every neologism is used somewhere -- that doesn't mean they are notable. In the end, a slang term used by some people involved with the law school admissions process shouldnt be included in this encyclopedis. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Xoxohthblaster 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think you can really call this "slang" so much as a colloquialism. A related term that has been deemed notable enough for inclusion is Little Ivies, which is actually much less well-documented, widely used or clear as to what schools it includes. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I really dont see much point in getting into a debate over the meaning of the word "slang" .... Wikipedia is also not a colloquialism dictionary. Moreover, the fact that one potentially non notable topic has not been deleted is not a justification for keeping articles on other non notable topics -- that kind of reasoning could quickly become a slippery slope to a wikipedia littered with non-notable content. Xoxohthblaster 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response: Well, putting aside the semantic debate over what kind of word you want to call it, there's no question that that numerous similar terms have been found notable. It is absolutely proper to use past AfD debates and uncontroversially included articles as precedent in determining whether or not to keep an article. The fact that Little Ivies, which again, has a much weaker case, has been kept weighs strongly in favor of keeping this. It's much more dangerous for the deletions to be made arbitrarily and inconsistently than to use precedent to determine community views. --Cheapestcostavoider 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no significant improvement over the version that was deleted. Brian G. Crawford 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources don't convince me that this is not a neologism. Quepasahombre 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. Normally, there are not articles about these things. For example, things called "big three" just have an entry in a disambiguation page (except Big Three (universities), people love articles about their schools). There are no "big three (automakers)" or "big three (American brewers)" articles. I commend Cheapestcostavoider for his documentation, though. -- Kjkolb 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor tweaking and a few sources does not make a non-notable neologism appropriate for wikipedia. Captaintruth 14:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge with Law School Rankings, where it is already mentioned. This is widely-used by law students and admissions professionals. I think the other people here probably don't fit either of those categories and feel that the term should be deleted just because they are not personally familiar with it. 128.59.181.59 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been pointed out before that in the entire existence of US News & World Report, there has never been another school to crack the top 14 then these ones. That at least gives credibility to it as at least a creation of snobbery and arrogance. Although I disagree with the principle of placing 14 schools into a certain group on the grounds of prestige, they no doubt have been, and a section titled Controversy should likewise be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.213.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: People seem keen on the argument that those voting delete are simply unfamiliar with this term. I, for one, am quite familiar with it. But my familiarity with it does not equal notability...and I agree with the argument that this is a non-notable neologism. Also, note that the last two keep votes should be heavily discounted, as one was from an unregistered user and the second was unsigned and from an unregistered user. Captaintruth 02:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I think it's far to widely-noted to be considered a neologism. Even purely on its incredibly widespread use on discussion boards, it would probably qualify as an internet meme. But of course it doesn't have to rely on this argument. And I don't think it's consistent with the idea of "not biting the newcomers" to categorically disregard reasoned opinions that come from unregistered users (it's not a vote, anyway). For one thing, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of a merge & redirect to Law School Rankings as an alternative to keeping the current article. Of course, I think keeping it would be better, because I think the sources make it clear that the term is widely-used and understood by nearly everyone involved with law school admissions, even the people who don't think it should be as important as it is. -Cheapestcostavoider 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 13:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet mace

[edit]

Don't delete this! Velvet-mace is an awesome writer and is one of the nicest people I know! She definately deserves an article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.107.137 (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 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carama

[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Carama

Very Strong Delete and protect This article clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and WP:PROFTEST. Assertions of notability are made in the article but are not cited although they don't even establish notability based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability anyway. Anonymous user who contributes to this article refuses to cite his sources and reverts requests for neccesary citations. Article in Origional research about a non-notable prof. Just because he has attended Julliard does not make him notable by the standards for prof notability set in WP:PROFTEST. This is a vanity article being used for the promotion of this individual who teaches privately and his students. Strothra 06:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also note that the link has been taken down from the website where it was once stored. There is now absolutely no authorative source suggesting any possible notability. --Strothra 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. He does teach at Julliard and is referred to in this article as a noted voice teacher in this article [16]. However, none of the people he has taught have articles. Could be persuaded to vote keep if more verifiable sources provided. Capitalistroadster 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. Lindstrom, apparently the most notable of his students, currently describes herself as someone who "might get two [singing] jobs a year". That said, a quick google search suggests that she may be on the way to becoming notable. Even so, I doubt Fred is worth more than a line in her page, if that. Even with the OR, it doesn't add up to much. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete there is 0% citation or research on this article. does not meet WP:PROF, violates WP:NOR, WP:VERIFIY etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates number of Wiki-policies, WP:PROF, WP:NOR etc. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before, due to lack of verifiability. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but purely out of procedural reasons. Article survived an Afd just a few weeks ago. -- Hirudo 15:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't see why that alone is a reason to recommend keeping. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think not leaving a reasonable period between nominations is too easy to abuse. Just keep relisting it until people aren't paying enough attention and you'll eventually find the right set of "votes" to get a deletion. Note that none of the people who suggested Keep on the original Afd have said anything at all on this one yet. -- Hirudo 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument was not made properly the first time and with enough evidence backing it. Simply because you apply a subjective reasoning to what a "reasonable" period of time is does not mean that you should ignore the evidence altogether and go against common sense in your vote simply because you believe that the procedure should have been different. If you are going to do that then you should abstain. --Strothra 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Hirudo 09:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this probably would have been better dealt with through deletion review, but given that we're here, I agree the right thing is to keep going. And always remember, this is not a vote. Regards Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? He is not a faculty member of Julliard, he attended it as a student. Not all students at that school are notable.--Strothra 09:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, I doubt there is any school where all faculty are automatically notable enough to warrent their own articles. Ben Aveling 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no I didn't re-read the article, I read the previous AfD and gathered this from that one somehow. So 'abstain.' No, it seems pretty self explanitory that all tennured Harvard, etc. faculty are notable. PROFTEST even says so. Julliard seem to also have this property for permenent faculty. Yes, I left tenured out of my previous statment. JeffBurdges 10:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Greensleeves Monologue annotated"

[edit]

Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's essentially an essay. Just doesn't belong here. Woohookitty(meow) 06:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Champagnat

[edit]

Previously prodded; article unfortunately make no assertion of notability. --Alan Au 07:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Club Champagnat plays in the most important argentinian rugby category (compare it with the NFL, but with much less money). They haven't won any championship in 50 years. In the last tournament, they ended sixth [17] (news picked from La Nación, notable argentinian newspaper whose site has an Alexa rank of 1730). No vote from me, but you can ask me for more information about this club. -- ReyBrujo 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they play at the top (ideally professional, but I know rugby is big enough in Argentina) level of a national sport, and the article was edited to reflect that, I'd be happy to look at this one again. Deizio talk 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added a small paragraph with the information. Note that in Argentina, rugby is an amateur sport (that is, players don't get paid for playing). Although Los Pumas, the Argentina national rugby union team, is the strongest team in America (having won all but one of the american rugby tournaments since their creation, if I recall correctly), local clubs that play in the argentinian "premiere" are amateur, thus they may not be considered as notable for some. -- ReyBrujo 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rugby Club in Argentine first division, and Argentine rugby is among world elite. The article looks like hell though, so I'll try to do something about it. Mariano(t/c) 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Abc1 tv

[edit]

Unnotable fansite, fails WP:WEB. Prod tag was removed by article starter. —Xezbeth 07:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per author's request. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Massey

[edit]

Prod by User:Wickethewok removed without comment. This is a character in New Reno RPG, also up for deletion. As the game is an IRC online game with a website with no alexa rank and thus nn, this character within the nn game is also most likely nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Reno RPG

[edit]

The original prod by User:Wickethewok was removed without explanation. This online IRC-game has a website which doesn't register on Alexa, so I think it is non-notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Welcome to Wikipedia! Enjoying your first day? Deizio talk 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blurb / ad for nn RPG / forum / software / webstuff. Deizio talk 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad for a non-notable game. And am I mistaken, or is it contained on a freespace web site? -- Kicking222 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as an advertisement for an insignificant online communtiy. Article makes no assertions of notabilityand has no independent and reliable sources. --Hetar 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and as fancruft. --P199 17:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A steadily growing and stable community is a part of this game. Between 100 and 150 players registered through the site, not all of which are necessarily registered on the forum, which is not a necessary step to being part of the community. Expanding currently with 50 additional interests within three days of advertising through another community ( http://www.myspace.com/newrenorpg), which indicates increased further interest from this community, and expected similar results from similar interested online communities through further advertising. Game player base and staff contains a significant number of players from a previous freeform game, InterCity, which lasted seven years and boasted several hundred players. Projections promise similar and expanded results, fixing many oversights and issues from that game.
    Willing to edit content to comply with specific requirements. user:CelticDragonlord
    • Comment user has 6 edits, 5 to the subject of the article.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - with only 100 players, this certainly does not meet any sort of notability criteria. Also, Myspace links have never helped anyone's case. Wickethewok 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - User has contributed to Wikipedia previously without an account and only recently decided to actually create an account. Number of user edits should additionally not have bearing on this specific article.
          The Myspace link was not meant as the sole evidence of notability, but rather an example. New Reno is a member of the RPG Ring (http://rpgbanner.eniasni.com/), which is a group of other RPG's in a banner and player exchange. Several online communities have contacted the game within the past several days stating that we should advertise in their forums as well, as there would certainly be interest. The Myspace link was placed to show that in an online community outside of New Reno, there would be extensive interest within mere days of the initial advertisement. Advertisement and interest is not solely limited to MySpace.user:CelticDragonlord
  • Delete. First notability, then Wikipedia, please. -- ReyBrujo 23:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now, if it is still insisted that the article be deleted for now until we can demonstrate to you that we are a notable game and community and that the game does deserve an article, is it possible to put a hold on the article (keep it hidden/restricted) until the time that we can edit it to meet the notability criteria?
    And, apart from a growing player base of about 150 and interested others of around the same number, consisting of stable players stemming from a game that started 9 years ago, including international interest and representation in at least four outside gaming and Fallout communities, what might the community here suggest as additional measures to demonstrate our notability? -- CelticDragonlord 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of capitalism

[edit]

This article is fundamentally POV Salvor Hardin 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Though this might be an article where there will be NPOV disputes, the topic does not seem fundamentally biased to me, and it covers an important aspect of captalism. Article seems to be off to a reasonable start with three cited sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Possible or real POV disputes don't mean the article has to be deleted. It seems a like a pretty good start. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Capitalism is an economic system, it does not have a culture. You could speak of the cultural impact of capitalism but I wouldn't even support an article on that. Aside from complaints on the title, this article is also poorly written, extremely biased and offers no insight. Cedars 10:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Capitalism isn't an irrational belief system, as the article implies. Title sounds like original research. ProhibitOnions 12:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grafikm_fr. POV is not cause for deletion. Capitalism does require certain cultural traits to be present before it takes root, and severely stresses other features of traditional cultures. Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is a topic worthy of discussion, but if kept, it needs a big ol' {{NPOV}} tag until it is cleaned up. --JerryOrr 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete close to WP:OR, despite references. Maybe worth considering merging to Capitalism. Roodog2k 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Original research / POV fork. Sumahoy 01:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but I definitely don't think it's POV. It presents information from various sources critical of capitalism. It's all sourced. Last time I checked, as long as something is verifiable, it's good for WP. The reason why I'm not sure if it should be deleted is its title. Maybe something like "Critiques of capitalism"? Could everyone just put their personal opinions about capitalism aside for a moment? My suspicion is that the keepers are critics of capitalism and the deleters aren't. Am I wrong? Jesuschex 03:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not original research, because it's all sourced. Jesuschex 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any noteworthy comments could be added to Capitalism, but this article does not, as yet, say anything interesting. --- GWO
  • Delete content covered at consumerism, but as that page points it consumerism != capitalism, so this doesn't even deserve to be a redirect. Ewlyahoocom 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user (WP:CSD G5). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gili Bar-Hillel

[edit]

I am the subject of this article. I don't think I'm particularly notable, there are dozens of Harry Potter translators who do not have their own articles here. I suspect this article was created as a ploy to get me to expose my real identity on Wikipedia, by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked for doing just that (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting immediate action) I don't see how this article can currently be expanded from a stub. And I'd rather not have my own article. In fact the only reason I'm not deleting it myself is that I believe due process requires this article to be treated as any other. --woggly 08:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex P

[edit]

Not notable enough, Delete abakharev 08:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Someone else can do the cleanup work. Lazily yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! characters

[edit]

I'm a very big fan of this show, and while I appreciate the content of this page, I have to admit it's rather excessive and borders on listcruft. The information here can be found in various Zatch Bell websites. I feel it would better serve Wikipedia to only have articles on the characters that play a large part in the storyline (Zatch Bell, Kiyo Takamine, Megumi Oumi, Tia, Parco Folgore, Kanchomé, etc.). Danny Lilithborne 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if rewritten. Would be a shame to go this to waste. A decent solution would be to split minor chars in another article or something like that, and cleanup a bit the main part. :)) -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 18:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 18:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nomination. It's not worth rewriting, and there's nobody here volunteering for the job, anyway. Brian G. Crawford 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I pretty much made this page what it is today and the last thing I want to see is it going down the tubes. EO
  • Keep and rewrite. Admittedly I know nothing about the show, so I have no idea what characters should be split off or even removed, but I'll leave that to someone who knows better. Certainly no reason to delete the entire article, though. BryanG 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would offer to rewrite, but I am currently very early in the anime (episode 13), and have not even read the manga. I would love to collaborate with someone who has more familiarity, though. Danny Lilithborne 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazing that somebody would actually bother to write all this stuff. It's of absolutely no interest to me whatever, and I suspect that it's of minimal significance to anything or anyone other than fans (who I imagine already have entire websites devoted to it); but I fear that the alternative is for the obsessive author(s) to create an article on each of these characters. If WP is going to have all this fancruft, then at least keep it in a single article. Thus: unenthusiastic keep. -- Hoary 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, that was drawn out, Ho. Do we have to read your comment to get your vote? Weird stuff, Ho. Don't make me call A pimp named slickback.
Anyway, It's funny how people love to stuff things are irrelavent and "fancruft". "It's only of interests to trhe fans!~ neee!" Yeah...that's the thing. Last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't about that sort of distrimination. It actually tries to avoid such things. If we only list iconic and "attractive" fiction, stuff the average joe or jane wants to know about, I think we'd be left with..."Batman, Spiderman and Superman". Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that'd look liked a damned biased and uninformation encyclopedia to me.
However, getting beyond policies and politics for a minute, this is...clearly...not up to Wikipedia's standards. Was a "Deletion request" in order? No, sir! Perhaps a bit of tagging, or more aggressive arguing for a split in the talk page. Feh. No matter. I suppose I support a Rewrite or Split as well since that's what'll happen. Ace Class Shadow 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have read your comment to get your vote? I haven't a clue. Don't make me call a "pimp named slickback". Right, the stuff [warning: loathsome cookies etc.] sounds vile; I'll have a bottle of Orval instead. If we only list iconic and "attractive" fiction, stuff the average joe or jane wants to know about, I think we'd be left with..."Batman, Spiderman and Superman". Uh, hello? I thought this was 2006, not 1956. And the question might be not of what Joejane already knows a lot about, but of what heorshe might be likely to have some interest in. I think that would include such things as Get Your War On, Maus, and Palestine. -- Hoary 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: ACS has already voted. Comment: I was basically saying that Ho(ary) should list his vote up top, and that what people want to know about is SUBJECTIVE. Wikipedia's supposed to have information about everything, right? Well, if we delete this, I doubt we'll be helping WP toward that noble goal. I've never heard of "Get your war on", but—Someone sure knows how to miscapitalize—I doubt more than...feh...100,000 people have. Subjectivity, you see. Anyway, to that end, I was simply downing on this debate as a whole. It's pointless. Slap on some Tags/Templates, Discuss the need for change/overhaul on the talk page, and/or do whatever one can justify on their own. This...is a last resort being used far too lightly. BTW, my mention of "A pimp named slickpack" was a Boondocks reference. A final joke coupled with my startening of your name to "Ho". All in good fun, my friend. ACS (Wikipedian) 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit, but Keep One thing that I've noticed about Wiki is that there are certain groups that seem to create articles about every little thing in their universe from the most important characters with the longest history to the most minor of minor characters. Even though there are websites that go even further, some people want to make the Wiki the be-all and end-all of the information. And while there are many who would say otherwise, I do believe that it is important to have a list of the Mamono in ZB. Each of these characters, some of whom have merely a couple chapters devoted to them, is important to the series one way or another. While I'm not the one that can figure out how to edit this list down (since a lot can be edited instantly based on the author), maybe the key would be to at least have a list of Mamono, a little on each (whether or not it includes the spells), and then direct them to a better source such as the link at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangerAtaru (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 15:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adteractive

[edit]

Sounds like advertising of a nn company. Text copied from companies 'about us' page [18]. Article is only edit of User:Saargur who seems to work for them [19]. Optimale Gu 09:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of live performances by The Chemical Brothers

[edit]

Listcruft. Unencyclopaedic and of no use whatsoever I feel. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zam

[edit]

Small character in a video games, little to no information. Delete CHANLORD [T]/[C] 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Prophet

[edit]

I feel he fails to meet notability as just a Forumula One driver who never scored any points and was only in two races. tv316 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Fails to meet notability? ALL Formula One drivers are notable as they belong to the elite class of racing drivers. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some specific reasons from WP:BIO:
    • Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? (criteria for deceased people) NO
    • Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? NO (what more could you say about him?)
    • In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? NO
Regarding the "all F1 drivers are notable" comments above... where was that decided? I see no purpose for this article's existence. --JerryOrr 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles." Keep. TimBentley (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the paragraph you just quoted is in the section for People still alive. Though I admittedly quoted some of those myself, it was mainly for the purpose of emphasizing that he might not be notable even if alive. It appears he would be, but as he is deceased, I'm not sure that those standards apply. I'll leave my delete vote until educated otherwise. --JerryOrr 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the need to not start removing once notable people when they die overrides the need to consider people in entirely different ways depending on the regularity of their breathing, so I'm calling this a flaw in the guidelines and sticking with the view that all top-level sportspeople are notable. I bet a lot could be uncovered about his career in lower levels of racing, F1 drivers don't (didn't) just get parachuted into their cars from nowhere. Deizio talk 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm of course not implying that the second he dies, he is transferred from notable to non-notable. However, he has been dead for 25 years (well before the creation of Wikipedia, and not too long after the creation of me), and the most recent of his two minor contributions to F1 racing was in 1965. I think the idea behind having stricter rules for deceased persons may have been that if they hadn't made a significant contribution in their field during their lifetime, the opportunity has passed (whereas someone still alive could still make a greater contribution). Of course, that's all speculation, as I have absolutely no idea what the intent was behind the guidelines. Whatever, it looks like the consensus will be a keep anyway. Something to think about, though... --JerryOrr 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bagni

[edit]

An article on this gentleman was deleted last year; the previous AFD discussion is here. The current article is not a re-creation of that one, but a new article on the same subject. Notability is just barely established (he won an award last month), so it's time for a new discussion to decide if he's notable enough for Wikipedia yet. My opinion is he isn't, so delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Childs

[edit]

Self-written vanity page. Doesn't appear to be notable, google shows less than 300 hits. GeeCee 11:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save I authored the text, it is original and I own the copyright. It's interesting that a bunch of white guys get to login and determine that the chronicling of an African American's accomplishments is "vanity," while a person of European descent is merely scholarly, lettered or credentialed when similarly detailed. So, I have fewer than 300 listings on Google. How many mentions are required to be considered "notable" by your standards? John H. Johnson published the leading black magazines in the United States for more than 50 years and he merits no mention in The World Book encyclopedia. You all need to stop taking your perpetual creative license with our heritage. That I don't have a search engine hit for each and every article I've written over the past 25 years is not news. In fact, how many do each of you have? Google? Yahoo!? Ask.com? Tell us.

Ronald E. Childs


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, A7 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 17:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blackley

[edit]

Contested A7 speedy. Article about student film maker. Only claim to fame is an IMDB entry showing that he is an "associate producer" on an upcoming film. A Google search found that this distinction is available to anyone willing to donate $1 to the film.[20] --Allen3 talk 11:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A7 (admin didn't close). Eivindt@c 21:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Newton-Carter

[edit]

<<NOMINATION CLOSED - AS SPEEDIED>> Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested A7 speedy. Memorial page about a 9/11 victim with no other indication of notability. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 article, possibly merge content; I will delete Links between politics and football as it basically lacks content, and redirect both Players and politic and Clubs and politic to Football (soccer) culture so that everyone can merge what's can ba saved from these articles. - Liberatore(T) 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Inherently POV. Possibly NPOV content may be merged with Football (soccer) culture. I am also nominating the following related subpages because of the same reason:

– Elisson • Talk 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Parsons

[edit]

Tagged a couple of times for speedy but notability is asserted and speedy deletion has been contested previously. Rodger Parsons is a voice actor with two credits on IMDB, it says he does some voices in a Pokemon special but that's not supported by the linked source and even if it was the number of entries on the IMDB article indicates that this is not in any way a notable voice actor. There are notable voice actors, but this really does not sound like one of them. Since the sole performance named is one Pokemon anime, I'd say it's probably Pokemoncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. nn-bio and/or website. Madchester 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Donahue

[edit]

Aaron Donahue is apparently a "remote viewer" who posts his predictions to his website (alexa rank ~300,000). Guess which is the top website linking in to his site? You got it: Wikipedia. There are 982 Google hits for Aaron Donahue, and even combining all plausible mis-spellings still gets very few hits (around a third the number of hits I get). Occasional radio appearance is also no big deal since I've been interviewed on national radio as well. It is uncritical in the extreme, though has been worse in the past (see Talk:Aaron Donahue).

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue, kept on the basis of three "votes", but that did include MgM and Andrew Lenahan. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding my usual practice of agreeing with MgM in particular, I still say this is a hagiography of a person of no apparent notability - a reasonably skilled self-promoter at best. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the article about Aaron Donahue is a problem and a insult to your policies.

  • He has been on TV several times, including on TV Asahi´s S.O.S, and the in search of... Paranormal investigation programme.
  • He has been in the movie Suspect Zero
  • He has been on Coast to Coast several times, where he talked about his idea´s and those of others.
  • He has been on many other radio shows including The Bull in Canada and a esoteric radios how in South-Africa
  • He has hit the news with his auction of the pope´s soul, which got him banned from E-bay.
  • He is the ´´leader `` of a small ideology, which has several web sites, a message board and the ability to host a independant, good quality radio show.

I find it rather insulting that some local TV minister, or university professor would be able to to get on this web site without any serious problem. But someone who is out of the mainstream is being haunted by Christian or otherwise anti-esoteric individuals. This has nothing to do with the article being used by the luciferian order to spread there word, if you are unsatisfied about the article you could post a message too improve it.

This article was for the most part written by me, and a individual of Christian denomination. This is NOT fandom written by just luciferians, but it is a way to spread our world view as much as the article on Christianity or Islam is.

RGTraynor: using wikipedia as advertisement has nothing to do with the validation of the article Deizio: same for this gentlemen here, not to mention you don't have to have been on opera to qualify as a remote viewer or a person of special important. JerryOrr: writes and i quote him ´´Don't let this get through`` sadly this sounds more like someone who lets his emotional side rule rather then his logic. The above mentioned facts are more then enough to grant Aaron a article. RPIRED: Sock puppets? How childish and that for someone who calls himself a Bachelor of Science.

Nor does it mean the other luciferians who want to keep the article make very good points, either. It does mean that most of those people are unlike me. Not intellectuals. We are people who sense the world via experiences and emotion.

Cro..Scream

  • Keep but this article needs serious attention. There's a lot of info in there, none of it sourced, and it seems likely a lot of it comes from inappropriate sources. Nonetheless, he's at least notable in his (weird) field. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Is notable, or claims to be notable? An Alexa of 300K with Wikipedia as the main feeder sucks -- you would think, if he were actually notable in his field, he wouldn't have to rely on Wikipedia for advertising. I want some third-party, neutral sources for this one. RGTraynor 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I might be able to scale it down. not to mention that this article is written by a luciferian and a christian, any other luciferian involvement after that was small. Cro..Scream
    • He was on coast to coast several time. he made tv several time and gave one mayor tv station in japan one of its biggest rating in years. he is a leader of a ideology or however you want to call it. he has been in the news. all these things give hime the right too a small article.
|
Horrible Demon Beast.
  • Delete, skilled self-promoter covers it. Come back when you're the resident psychic on Oprah. Deizio talk 15:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, probably vanity, entirely unsourced (unless you consider the External links section, which provides such credible links as Yahoo groups, LiveJournal, and a Tripod user site). Don't let this get through AfD again. --JerryOrr 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A dead person
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transfer to WP:MFD. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikimedia Projects and Wikias

[edit]

It's some crazy way of uniting Wikimedia and Wikia projects, but you have to dance through a hoop first. It's completely ridiculous. Why don't we throw Yahoo Groups and Myspace accounts into the mix, a unite the whole darn web. We have meta to communicate within Wikimedia, Wikia is seperate, and it's fine that way. -- Zanimum 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the validity of the page (I'd probably vote delete), but I call inappropriate nomination and suggest it be moved to WP:MFD. Confusing Manifestation 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per G4, and protected from re-creation. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Party DS

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article has already been deleted 3 times (1 afd, 2 speedy) previously because of the same reason. The game simply does not exist. All the information in the article is purely fan speculation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Party DS for the first afd discussion. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PennYo

[edit]

While the gropu seems to have a small, diligent following, it's unreviewed and only self-released. It fails WP:MUSIC ES2 15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Montpetit

[edit]

Promotional page about a journalist. Google turns up bylines and a mention of his 2005 graduation from Concordia University's journalism school, but nothing much that people have said about him. FreplySpang (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Characters in the Buffy The Vampire Slayer Universe

[edit]
Keep. We have Wikipedia articles on the various social themes in the Buffy The Vampire Slayer, along with specific LGBT Wikipedia articles for the Simpsons, etc.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. It seems to be a comprehensive list of every single time anything even remotely related to homosexuality appears on the series. There's significant original research dispersed throughout the article, for example:

  • "In the first part of the two-part episode, Welcome to the Hellmouth, there is a scene when Buffy first visits the Bronze, and is excited to see a handsome young man waving to her in the crowd, only to find out that he is in fact meeting another young man." doesnt explain how this means that either of the men are gay.
  • "Xander remarks that one of his worst fears involves Nazis, and Nazi symbols are seen in the background of his nightmare with a clown. Some fans speculated that this was a sign of Xander's possible homosexuality as being gay would explain his fear of Nazis." doesn't really make any sense at all.

I'd vote to listify but for two reasons. Firstly, there doesnt actually appear to be enough characters in the series to justify such a list, and secondly it'd set a rather disturbing precedent. The same logic behind the creation of this article would naturally lead to List of ethnic minorities in the BTVS Universe, List of teachers in the BTVS Universe, List of times a coffee cup appears in the BTVS Universe, etc. Overall I'd vote to delete on grounds of original research and non-notability of the topic. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short man syndrome

[edit]

Neologism, made-up "disease" (was prodded by me and de-prodded by 82.9.29.183), delete (nom withdrawn, see below) AJR | Talk 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Coat of Arms

[edit]

The article is soapbox nonsense. Two duplicates of the article (1) (2) have been put up for speedy deletion have been speedy deleted. User:Custodiansoftime has been reverting tags on put the articles (and is now editing from an IP address after being warned on his talk page). FiggyBee 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User/writer of the article is attempting to EDIT the article as per the warning received but everytime an EDIT is made to subtract the "soapbox" presentation of the facts of this item by the author, the original is reposted by someone else! The discussion box was deleted by accident while re-editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

The two other articles are not necessarily duplicates "mascarading" under false pretense but are rather just different in CAPS so that the article can be found however the users type. Author didn't realize this small thing might be a violation and a simple violation for that matter! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your edits by following them with ~~~~. Thanks. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • I placed a prod tag on it originally on the grounds that it is unencyclopædic, irredeemably POV and WP:NOT a soapbox. All those things still apply. Delete. By the way, the image appears to be copyright, per this, and has been speedy tagged on the Commons. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The contents of the article are not POV. The article sites Biblical scripture which is noted all over Wikipedia. The article also describes the history of this particular piece of art associated with the topic. Your petition to delete seems more POV than the article now revised (which was originally taken from a website so PARDON the Preacher). I read that you are accustomed to editting and petitioning for deletion in Wikipedia for a personal response; in order to have things "answered" to you. This is not neutral as Wikipedia Policy sets forth. Now articles need be neutral TO THEIR TOPIC but not neutral to the societal debates that some folks create over the topics. At this point there is no violation of Wikipedia Policy in the article as written by the original author, however if you care to cite specifically what elements you feel are POV they will be considered as Wikipedia gices the author th option of editing to get article under Policy before deletion occurs. If you cannot cite specifics than you are pursuing deletion without cause.

Yes and the copyrighted image IS property of the poster so ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 68.33.215.131 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Author[reply]

Hi 68.33.215.131, I have posted an explanation at User talk:Custodiansoftime which I hope will help explain to you why this page is not suitable for Wikipedia. FiggyBee 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if you wish to retain copyright, do not post it here - go delete it yourself as soon as possible. Right below every edit box is the statement "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." While I'm no lawyer, this essentially gives anyone who finds it the right to make and distribute copies under certain restrictions. GRBerry 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: You state your arguements but they are based on your interpretation of the facts posted in this article. So again your submissions are POV, not the article. You debate seeking to learn more as your PROFILE states so you inquire about things that aren't elements of the article so as to get a response for them.

You state that "Firstly, content included in wikipedia must be factual, verifiable and notable. A poem you have written is not factual. If the organisation "Custodians of Time" is notable, you have to show how and why (or preferably, if you are involved in that organisation, let someone else do it).

Secondly, there is already a factual article on the historical "coat of arms of God" at Shield of the Trinity.

Thirdly, everything posted on Wikipedia must be released under an open licence; this means anyone can use it, for any non-commercial purpose. If you are claiming copyright to your poem and drawing, then you can't submit them to Wikipedia.

Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR). Even if you think you can make an argument from scripture, don't. On the other hand, if someone else has made an argument from scripture, and that argument has been published in a notable publication, then you can report that they have made that argument."

I respond: Firstly, the article's contents do provide this, yet you seek more but there isn't more... it is all right there factual, verifiable and notable. Secondly, the Shield of the Trinity has a different purpose for Christians. The Coat of Arms in the article you disrupt and vandalize this page for is cited from the Bible. Thirdly, there is no violation copyright. There are no commercial rights released and that is allowed. Fourthly, If you suggest I make an arguement than you are trying to engage in a debate and that is not the proper use of this page. In addition, the scripture containing the Full Armor of God has been published in a notable publication; the Bible. The writer of it has established that "arguement" as you call it. Since I did not WRITE the Bible then this is not personal research as you propose it is. I am reporting no other argument except from you. The article is not an arguement nor is it a debate forum it is a factual, verifiable, and notable element from History. It's too bad it bothers you but there is nothing I can do to make these facts untrue. They have all already happened and are just reported to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, just for you, and because it's 4am and I'm putting off doing my uni assignment, I will critique the entire article on your talk page. ;) FiggyBee 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU GRBERRY!! I understand the copyright conflict... will solve this immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs) .

Could you check my most recent change and see that it fits within the Policy as I never meant otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.215.131 (talk • contribs)

It's better, but you're still making claims (This depiction of the "Full Armor of God", has become accepted by a large group as the Official Christian Coat of Arms or Coat of Arms of God's Family.) that you're not supporting. IF you can provide evidence that there are a large number of people who recognise this coat of arms as a Christian symbol, then you might have the beginnings of a vaild article. BTW, even if this gets deleted now, there's nothing preventing you putting up a (better) article with the same title at a later date. Oh, and please remember to sign your comments - preferably with your account rather than as an anonymous IP. FiggyBee 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, spam, naked evangelism. Everything is wrong. A redirect to Shield of the Trinity might discourage re-creation. -- RHaworth 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: If there is one thing that this article is not, it is original: the concept it addresses is something which to my certain knowledge, based on verbal conversations and a pamphlet which has probably now perished has been in Public Domain for at least 30 years. Nor is it utter nonsense, though it may not suit some people (who may or may not be members of the Cabal) on Wiki. Whether it is notable enough, and whether it could not be merged elsewhere, are things I will leave to others. -- Simon Cursitor 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community. Granted this article may have started with some "preachiness", HOWEVER, it has since been edited down and cleaned up and is in line with Wikipedia Policies. AS IT IS NOW, it is a good addition to this legitimate encyclopedia, but somehow I think arguing that point to most of the opposition here will be falling on deaf ears. Might I remind you that this page is a discussion for the article AS IT IS CURRENTLY and as to whether it ought to be deleted for violation of Wikipedia Policy or Standards, this is not a forum to debate Christian/Anti-Christian POVs. Please take note of this and Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.. Be patient as I learn to use/edit Wikipedia68.33.215.131 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start on the "poor little persecuted Christians" line. Yes, I'll agree that the article is now less preachy. However, all it is now is a description of a passage from Ephesians; it doesn't describe a coat of arms, much less demonstrate why that coat of arms is notable. It still fails the notability and verifiability tests, and is still obviously just an advertisement for your website. It's just not going to fly. FiggyBee 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the above as an unfounded accusation of bad faith. Kindly withdraw it immediately. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether that's addressed to my comment or 68.33.215.131's - however, on reflection, I realise that some of what I said was unfair, and I apologise. FiggyBee 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the comment by 68.33.215.131 that As I click on each user who wants this article deleted I see some reference to anti-Christian perspective. Now, I don't care what your POV is. But it seems there is some "ganging up here" in relation to that tangent which is not appropriate for the Wikipedia Community., not to your comments. Curse those pesky indents. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the "poor little..." statement, you seem to assume that the author is Christian?!... and THAT would be a personal comment toward them... not allowed. The fact is that the article references Christian belief or culture and it seems that those who oppose anything Christian might also oppose this article for personal reasons, so that isn't the Wikipedia Community's purpose or problem for that matter. Thank you "ALBA" I like it!! 68.33.215.131 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense, can't find it on Google, and (fwiw, which really isn't much - Christianity should not be a "get out of logic free" card) I'm Christian. Jamoche 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. Can't find this use on Google - Web, Book, Scholar, or News. Notability not adequately asserted in article. GRBerry 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 outside AfD process by User:Luigi30, probably what would have happened anyway but feel free to take it to WP:DRV if you think it's worth it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Scudamore

[edit]

A biography of User:Whaleto, whose name is not a secret. John Scudamore and vaccination gets ~275 ghits (about 10% of what I get), posting prolifically to Usenet does not constitute notability and that is pretty much the sole claim to notability. John apparently doesn't want this article on Wikipedia, but that is not a reason for keeping it. The site (which is a compendium of crankery, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto) does get an Alexa ranking of around 80k, but Wikipedia is the top site linking in, a fact which may not be unrelated to John's contentious addition of his own site to multiple articles. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct. Luigi speedied it between my removing the speedy tag (as notability was asserted) and my nominating for AfD. I think the outcome is not in doubt, I was erring on the side of caution - and just in case anyone could supply details of a substantive claim to notability. Just zis Guy you know? 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fairly adequate description of internet troll active on many pages on Wikipedia. Has succesfully Google bombed his site by inserting URLs on multiple articles, leading to discussions (for the last 6 months now) as to whether this material is suitable throughout Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was in theory, merge to Cyber Girl of the Year; however, we also have Cyber Girl of the Month and Cyber Girl of the Week, and these three articles contain the current content of this article already, so I am deleting this article. - Liberatore(T) 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sue Cooper

[edit]

Ran across this article with only one edit. Removed a redlinked image, cleaned the format, and put in a stub. As the article has only one sentence for a minor notable person I question if it should stay. Let the community decide. No vote from me either way on it. StuffOfInterest 16:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If cybergirls don't qualify for articles, we're going to need a lot of AfD's. Fan1967 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was only talking about Amy Sue Cooper. There's too little information of her in this article. JIP | Talk 04:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ezeu 10:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot aesthetic

[edit]

Vanity page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied and protected. Tawker 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Clary

[edit]
Here is the previous discussion [22] IrishGuy 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was actually deleted twice today under Johnny Lee Clary, requiring protection. -- FRCP11 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star (strategies + architecture)

[edit]

Contested PROD. No evidence of meeting the criteria at WP:CORP; smells like advertising to me. Delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Tokuhiro

[edit]

Delete minor actor below the radar of notability. Deprodder said "object to deletion, meets minimal notability standards per imdb". only 3 minor roles. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police Heroes

[edit]

This article doesn't even make clear what the subject is, let alone why it's notable. Google search for "Police Heroes" "And So It Begins" (the 1st episode, I guess) reveals 2 hits! Only 1 goes anywhere--to a 2-post no-name blog. This in non-notable and should be deleted. I'll also tag charcter sites Chris Russell and Francis Willis (disco bar owner) for deletion. (these were speedy tagged by User talk:Malber) -- Scientizzle 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old World Trader

[edit]

SPAM Rklawton 17:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heggra

[edit]

Why does it matter how many of whatever from any given author? Worst case may require prefixing of a given reference's contribution... Is there any issue of space? Commentary below is understood only if there is a constraint on space and/or a system complexity issue...


Kirby is a big name, but we don't need an article on every single character he created. Nn. Eusebeus 17:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bonney

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a repository for genealogy studies. Eusebeus 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bargaining power

[edit]

not encyclopedic, its a definition Salvor Hardin 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki first, IMO. TheProject 20:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Political Rich List

[edit]

This list is inherently flawed. The criteria for inclusion is arbitrary. The list is supposed to include politicians of past and present, yet no criteria is established to compare a rich person of, say, the 1920s with a rich person of the 1930s. The entry itself admits there are problems with verifying the information. There are also problems with the neutrality of the article and original reserach. Fluit 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 32

[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Non notable. IrishGuy 18:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. I.V. Hilliard

[edit]

Reverend Hilliard, although apparently truly annointed, also appears to be nn. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 07:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime characters

[edit]

Listcruft, indiscriminate information, huge; where should I start? At best, this should be trimmed down into List of notable anime characters, but even then you'll have WP:V issues. I say just burninate the whole thing. Danny Lilithborne 18:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice the mop

[edit]

Nonsense. Burbster 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Nations

[edit]

Notability not established, no Mobygames link. Appears to be a promotional piece for an unpublished game. --Alan Au 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Um, yeah, it's a text-based online RPG with no notability and a poorly-written article. That's really all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I never thought I would see a text-based game that couldn't even get its own Mud Connector listing. This article makes no assertion of notability - and I see nothing that differentiates this text game from the thousands of others. --Hetar 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable text-based game, and I am a real player of them. -- ReyBrujo 21:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie in the Sky Bakery & Internet Cafe

[edit]

My prod was removed by the author and only other editor of this page, User:Pie in the Sky Bakery & Internet Cafe. There are now claims to notability there, so I'll let the community decide whether this should remain. Grandmasterka 19:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. SPAM. Rklawton 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author has contacted me and claims notability. He's a novice and would like time and help getting it together. Given that he's a novice, the article is only two days old, and he didn't understand about the "prod" tag, I think we should give him a chance. Remember, you can't swing a dead cat in that part of the country without hitting something historic or a Kennedy. I suggest we re-"prod" the article and give the guy another chance. Rklawton 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I believe he deprodded it stating (This establishment is a Woods Hole landmark & seen by millions of travelers each year) [25], but as he is new, he may have not know how to correctly do it. Just 232 hits at Google. Since there is no doubt the user is related with the establishment, I suggest userfying the article. -- ReyBrujo 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per ReyBrujo. Stifle (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Naresh Babu

[edit]

Unnotable person, I don't think murdering a spouse qualifies someone for an article. —Xezbeth 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Yager

[edit]

Amwaycruft Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost CSD A7, but clearly a non-notable biographical article. Gwernol 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete was featured in Merchants of Deception, whether that actually qualifies as notable is debatable. The article fails to emntion this, and also the allegation of sexual abuse against him, and also his financial support for Jerry Falwell and other extreme conservatives, so as written it looks a lot like a hagiography, but there are a fair few ghits so no doubt we could, should we keep it, be able to find enough to make a neutral treatment. On the other hand, his measurable notability outside the closed circle of the Amway cult seems to be absent. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay -- I've read this article. I have one question:: if this guy's so outstandingly famous, why haven't I heard of him before ? And why isn't he World President, Grand PooBah and King of Salsa ? Propose he be asked to fund cyber-space for the setting up of an Amway-Wiki to house this article and the others like it that have been coming through AfD this week. -- Simon Cursitor 08:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how he fits WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients

[edit]

Article cannot be comprehensive and is of no worthwhile use Ed 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was interesting to read, from the perspective of a moviegoer. Does it need to be anything else? I don't think comprehensiveness is a reasonable test, even for lists. A scant few articles here feature all the information in existence about their topic. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's got Raymond Shaw, so I'm happy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unencyclopedic listcruft (which, as an aside, could never be considered comprehensive). I can't believe the reasons two people above have for keeping this article. An article being interesting or including a certain person (I could create an article called "list of people" and put Raymond Shaw on it, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic) does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit) In fact, how about this: I'm going to make a new article, and call it "A List of Fictional People which will be Interesting to Read and Include Characters from The Manchurian Candidate" and see if it goes up for deletion. I'm sorry- I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I do believe that everyone has their right to an opinion; still, the above reasons do not even qualify as "reasons" for voting keep. -- Kicking222 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see this really adding anything to WP. No good "keep" reasons yet - being "interesting to read" is not a valid reason, nor is the "Raymond Shaw" reason. Wickethewok 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just not an encyclopedia article. It's just not, and it doesn't matter how interesting people think it is. Brian G. Crawford 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep On one hand, I feel that lists are getting out of control. On the other, I've seen lists that are worse and kept. Roodog2k 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on the other hand, making the world a better place begins somewhere. Roodog2k 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (actually would prefer it as a category, easier to make it comprehensive). "of no worthwhile use" is not a valid reason for deletion, and it seems to be an interesting thing to keep track of. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I like the idea of making it into a category, but most of the people on the list do not have their own pages. So keep it. It borders on listcruft in that the number of people interested in this is probably limited, but that's hard to quantify. --Joelmills 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per the many good reasons above and the abject lack of any good reason (and yes, I did look at the article itself). Fluit 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, random, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing unencyclopedic about a list, per se, nor about fictional characters, nor in fact about a list of fictional characters that meet some criterion. Of course, it can never be complete, but no article can ever be perfect; so what? The list contains valid information that's neutral, verifiable, and not original research (keeping in mind that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is . . . strongly encouraged"). That it may be of limited interest is irrelevant; piezoelectric microbalances are also likely of limited interest. And as for notability, that doesn't worry me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, and demeaning to actual MoH recipients. --- GWO
    • Categorise, as below. -- GWO
  • Keep, although I would have no objections to the list being scrapped in favor of a category. Sorting fictional characters in this way is useful, although I think a category would be more useful than a list. NoIdeaNick 10:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists with well-specified criteria for inclusion are OK in my book. I'd only use 'incomplete'/'not possible to complete' as a reason to delete if the number of items was so vast that the list couldn't possibly be more than a random selection. I don't believe that's the case here. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if we need to compromise, I would vote in favor of a category instead of a list. Wickethewok 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Started as part of the Medal of Honor article which is now a featured article. Its still linked and provides good material. -Husnock 20:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: so much of Wikipedia is pure pop culture, why target this topic? What's wrong with a list showing how a symbol such as the MOH has been appropriated and mediated in the culture? A list of (largely familiar) fictional recipients is as interesting to many readers as a list of (largely unknown) actual recipients.
  • Delete as original research and listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete although I don't find it really harmful, I see no point for it. --Arny 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hapirott

[edit]

Is this real? It doesn't show up on google much for something that's supposedly an internet term... I recommend either transwiki whatever's verifiable to wiktionary or delete. Grandmasterka 19:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I removed the transwiki tag from the article, and I'm voting speedy deletion, because this entire article is a complete hoax. The user who created the article "Hapirott" is named Hapirott (and has no other WP edits- see Special:Contributions/HapiROTT), and the first Google links are to gaming and computer sites where somebody (hmm, the same person?) has the user name Hapirott. This is complete nonsense- it's just somebody's vanity article. Kill this, and kill it now. And, while we're at it, protect it from recreation. -- Kicking222 20:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G1 (Patent nonsense). Tagged. -- ReyBrujo 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense (e.g.: "Dark Crowman (Andrew David Stewart), is a Marvel Comics Dark Crowman expand the dramatic potential of the Superhero comic books Hope to expand the personal of new.") and likely hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Crowman (comics)

[edit]

Google comes up empty except for Wikipedia pages. Possible hoax. -- Curps 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop art type2

[edit]

Nonexistent movement. If this actually existed as the name for a modern artistic movement, it would yield more than 91 or 162 Google hits (depending on whether you put a space in type 2 or not), nearly all of which seem to be by virtue of its appearance on Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Daddy Long Legs. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOLFPAC

[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. DarthVader 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Examples of when articles may be bundled into a single nomination: "An article about a band and three articles about its members, none of whom has done anything else outside of the band." Buddha, DJ Grim X, Stitch, Genocide, MC Entropy, and M.S.G. also have articles. Sandy 02:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsattendentführer

[edit]

Probable hoax. 19 google hits. —Home Row Keysplurge 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, only results on Google are links to Wikipedia page. SCHZMO ✍ 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP verifying checking of sources. This rank and story was mentioned to me in World War II history classes by legitimate and knowledgeable professors. I also recall seeing it mentioned in a text somewhere A little bit too quick to call it a hoax and delete it as it will most likmely be recreated when and if sources can be provided. -Husnock 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, this has sat {{unsourced}} for more than a month. [28] Time to either fix it NOW or put it out of its misery. Dr Zak 13:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also to point out, there is no rule or regulation in Wikipedia that a time limit exists to provide sources or risk deletion or ana rticle. I've seen unsourced articles lay for over a year. And, there is this thing called the real world that sometimes gets in the way of Wikipedia. Facing marriage and a deployment to the Middle East, finding sources for this article was not high on my list of things to do! :-o -Husnock 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is. WP:V serves to prevent Wikipedia from decaying into a graffiti board for anecdotes made up in school one day. Dr Zak 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps "anecdote" would be a better word. —Home Row Keysplurge 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified and implausible. I am a native speaker of German, and there is no such word as "attendent" (or similar) in German. "Reichsattendentführer" simply makes no sense at all in German. Sandstein 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax or not, it's been unsourced and unverified long enough. Sounds like an urban legend, has all the typical ingredients: neither the pilot nor the town is identified, some references that vary are mentioned but are not identified either. Out with it, we're not in the business of propagating unsubstantiated myths. Furthermore, as Sandstein said, "attendent" is a non-word in German. Someone mentioned 19 Google hits above: I get only one (our article plus a few mirrors). Also remove the mention in Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. When and if credible sources are found to back this up, it may be recreated. Lupo 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Left my Wallet in Cafe Nero

[edit]

No Vote - This article was listed for speedy deletion and I can't find any proof that the movies exists. It links to a disambiguation page for the author and a subway stop that looks questionable. Did the subway stop exist? Is it named after this move maker? The only person on the disambig page looks American, not British. -Tεxτurε 19:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete and, if it qualifies somehow, speedy deletion. A non-notable movie by a non-notable film maker does not meet the criteria to be a page on WP. The article does not even attempt to assert notability in any way. And did I mention that Googling the title produces zero hits? -- Kicking222 20:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student film by schoolkid, and judging by the grade it says he got for it a fairly average one at that (A-level grades go from A to E) - from the article: "he recieved a C at A level for the masterpiece" -- AJR | Talk 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete this is a article on the film entitled I left my wallet in cafe nero, doesn't wikipedia allow aspiring directors there rightful place in an internet-based encylopedia? Mark Lane is a critically acclaimed director in england, for his unique and deliberate dives into the human psyche. I don't see a problem with an independant film makers films being placed on here, As for the google reference above, it is an independant film, fans of the director and his films talk alot about it on forums mainly, however im sure a few fan sites will be popping up soon, so keep on the look out. -- TheDim 22:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No. No one has a "rightful place" here. Wikipedia is not myspace. If, at some point in the future, the film is commercially released and receives public attention, it may be eligible. Fan1967 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate abuse

[edit]

Was recommended for deletion before -- expansion never happened Salvor Hardin 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Montoya

[edit]

Vanity/non-n. See Google results.[29] Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a talent manager for the actor, Levi Montoya. I am the primary author of this page and I'd like some assistance - if possible - in keeping this article in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMon Films (talk • contribs)
Both Levi Montoya (actor) and the film, O Best Beloved, Six Honest Men have recently been submitted to IMDb, and are being considered for publication on the database. I represent Levi Montoya, as does Dani's Agency of Phoenix, AZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.150.31 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment The problem is that he will then be an actor whose only credit is a short subject. Since there is no distribution for short subjects, this means that it will be seen by a handful of people who attend a few indy film festivals. Not only will 99% of people never see it, they will never even hear of it. Fan1967 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only has this actor starred in the short subject film, but he co-stars in a feature length film - currently in production in Los Angeles. Furthermore, IMDb regards short subject films sufficient for listing on its database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.150.31 (talk • contribs)
  • What feature-length film would that be? All of the links to supposed movies in the article go to non-movie articles. As for short subject films qualifying for IMDb, there's just one problem with that -- Wikipedia is not IMDb. If we were, we would've reached that millionth article a hell of a lot sooner. Combined with an absolute failure of the Google test and no other notion of notability in the article, delete and note that this just about borders on speedy delete. TheProject 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Movies "in production" are given no weight unless they are extremely high-profile and verifiable (a new James Bond feature, for example). Many movies are reported in production and never get made. Others get made and go straight to video, or are never commercially released at all. Fan1967 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Allen

[edit]

Delete - This user's company was deleted per AfD. No reason to retain the advertising for the user himself. Not notable. -Tεxτurε 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I agree. Besides, any article that uses the word "Strategic" 3 times to describe business consulting services is advertising. ;)NawlinWiki 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of school pranks

[edit]

This article is uncyclopedic, contains many unverified things and also shouldn't exist, because it encourages these stupid pranks, which are definitely wrong to do. Free for all 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep As unencyclopedic as it might be, this article is harming no one. Besides, wikipedia is already known for it's volumes of useless knowledge (along with the useful stuff). It's entertaining, and if nothing else, it keeps people amused and interested in the project. Also, much of the given information is verrifiable. Namely, the origins of some of the pranks.
  • Strong delete — it baffles me that this list was saved from deletion the last time. It's completely unencyclopedic, wholly unverified, and frankly half of it is probably made up. I fail to see any reason why it should remain, this is an encyclopdia. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks like there are a number of pages that link to this one - is that a criterion for considering whether to delete something? Leaving all those red links everywhere is going to be bait for someone to re-create. I have also witnessed articles being merged into this one on more than one occasion.Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regrettably, since the alternative is hundreds of uncited articles on individual pranks which will be impossible to delete. There is precedent for precisely that problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite follow your argument. I agree that people may create articles on individual pranks, but if they're cited/notable that's good and they can stay, and if not of course they can be deleted! If the article does remain I suggest we adopt some strict inclusion criteria, because it's completely unmanageable as it is now. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like one for the Village Pump to me . . .mgekelly 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Unverified, mostly unverifiable, and mostly unencyclopedic. And frankly, I'd much rather have 3 or 4 short articles on pranks that have actually been regularly mentioned in pop culture sources than this long, mostly made up list.-Polotet 01:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that what you'll get is three or four hundred short articles of questionable quality each lacking any reliable sources but undeletable because the number of google hits is assumed to mean that somewhere there must be a reliable source. Pen 15 is one I remember. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a place for stuff made up in school one day. Although these are rather well-established, you could always just ask a friend or go to urban dictionary instead. Not encyclopedic AT ALL. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Culturally relevant pranks such as "Wet willie" and "kancho" deserve mention, but most of these pranks are just stuff made up by kids that get forgotten after college. And as a sidenote, I'm starting to agree with the anon who says articles that start with "List of" generally have no place here. Danny Lilithborne 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NFT does not apply here by any stretch of imagination. That is for things that no one has ever heard of other than the people who made it up. This is a list of cultural phenomena that should be cataloged as a part of the knowledge of our society. Being sophomoric or "wrong to do" (???) is never, ever a reason to delete. I've yet to read a convincing argument to delete that doesn't come from a soapbox. If you don't "like" the topic, just don't read it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Many of them sound made up, and without sources we have no way of knowing whether they are or not. WP:V is a convincing argument to delete.-Polotet 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No, it's not. It's a convincing argument to add sources to the page. Due to users like Free for all not using edit summaries, I can't easily tell when the {{unreferenced}} tag was added, but as far as I'm aware, the article should be cleaned up and cited. There is no call to destroy potentially useful information. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pranks without decent references should be removed, but there is no reason that a list of schoolyard pranks is inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. mgekelly 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As per Mgekelly. Beno1000 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, keep only the well known ones. This list is likely to get WP:NFT stuff as soon as you turn your back. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is notable erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's reasonably notable, needs cleanup and trimming of unreferenced material, but deleting it isn't the way to go. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — This accurately describes the several humorous pranks that although seemingly unkown, it can be noticed they use British language, indicating they are popular in the UK, not in the US, so it could be strange for an American reader.
  • Delete 1) unreferenced 2) original research 3) unmaintainable... I dont think I need to go on here.  ALKIVAR™ 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise - A problem with this article is that it has grown way too long, as users continually add new items that they think should be added onto the list, creating an extremely long page and it is quite tedious to read. I recommend deleting all but a few common ones, or organize the article in a better format. Of course these pranks are wrong, but the article does serve a purpose in describing some of these very common occurences. I don't agree with the opinion that it is not an encyclopaedic article in terms of the content, but I do agree with the opinion that it is not encyclopaedic with regards to the formatting. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. on this principle: shouldn't encourage kids to (do something) is a weak argument, except perhaps to rename/reformat the content here, not necess delete. also, "cruft" has as much meaning on an AfD page as "communist" does at a McCarthy hearing. KɔffeeDrinkerMcIzzl 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell they need no encouraging. But while I can sympathise with thoise who simply discount this article as a festering pool of cruft, if a few people were to watch it and kill the unreferenced ones which do not Google (which is about half of them by a quick count) the list will be just about manageable and will stave off attmpts to create articles for each one - which we really don't need. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if this is not deleted, it should be moved to school prank. Fomz 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to "school prank": perhaps regrettably! But the school prank is a verifiable cultural phenomenon, and there are a number of particularly well-established types. I don't see why an encyclopedic article on school pranks is impossible (although I can see that on an "open" encyclopedia, it may well be difficult to maintain, with the risk of rapid degeneration). And this isn't just a "popular culture" thing either - there are possibilities of referencing from both biographical and other factual literature, and also fictional literature. What can't be referenced can and should be stripped out. The fact that some are referencable is a sign that the list itself should be kept - many votes seem to be misunderstanding WP:V. If we had an individual article on an individual or phenomenon that was impossible to verify, it needs to be got rid of. Now, many individual claims in this list are impossible to verify. But the fact that "school pranks" exist is not, and many of the core claims in this article are verified and should be kept, along with the list itself. TheGrappler 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't actually see the point in this article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and present a NPOV, so who am I do judge? 13:08, 7 May 2006
  • Strong Delete - For a number of reasons. First, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Also, there is no claim to notability which arguably would qualify it for Speedy deletion. Finally, it is simply listcruft - this article serves no real purpose. - pm_shef 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is plain stupid. r3m0t talk 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEPER —the preceding unsigned comment was the only Wikipedia contribution by 216.233.88.218

  • Keep because the list is funny and useful to bullies seeking advice from Wikipedia. Seriously though, my keep vote counts no matter what my comments may be on the situation anyway. I find the list enjoyable and entertaining; therefore, it's useful to me. However, the most insignificant and arguable made-up pranks on the list should be removed. (Notorious4life 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment As this is not a vote, the closing admin is free to ignore "keep"s or "delete"s without a valid reason attached as they see fit.-Polotet 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. My vote counts whether or not I leave a comment. If you want a more detailed comment from me, try this out then: Keep per TheGrappler (Notorious4life 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment This is not a vote. It's a discussion.-Polotet 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsjournalists.com

[edit]

Notable? -- Zanimum 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrooklynSK delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrooklynSK (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 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siena Capital Management, LLC

[edit]

Seems like advertising of a nonnotable business (to me and at least 1 other editor who also gave it a prod}. Page creator disagrees - let's discuss. NawlinWiki 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that this is advertising. Did you read new addition of content on efficient frontier? Further, no contact information of any kind. No website info, no email, no phone, no fax, no address. Nothing. Did you read where the founders of the firm hold doctorates, master, cpa? This is a serious noteworthy business in its region of the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jurisdoctor (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article should be deleted and then softly redirected to Wiktionary. Free for all 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Jni as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhey

[edit]

vanity, not notable, unencyclopedic JBEvans 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user removed my tags twice. The page is a vanity page, contains no notable material, has been listed before by another user, changed the name to a redirect (Soyesh Lakhey was the first) and contains no links in. JBEvans 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Medtia

[edit]

This article is for a novelist whose work has yet to be published. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Google search for "Vijay Medtia" comes up with only 140 hits. Article creator User:Tomallwood2006 also created the article for Mr. Medtia's agent, Eve White. These are a few reasons why this article should be deleted. -- Scientizzle 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the incorrectly capitalized Vijay medtia in this nomination. It conatins the exact same text. -- Scientizzle 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod

[edit]

Seemingly unverifiable, as I can find no sources for it, and think that it's unlikely that there are any. Bringing it to AfD to see if anyone else can find some. Ziggurat 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Plantation

[edit]

A record label not listed on Allmusic, listed bands do not have articles. It's had nearly four years to make its mark and appears not to have done so thus far. Around 650 ghits. Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheProject 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mcilwraith

[edit]

This article was originally a hoax article by a guy allegedly passing himself off as something he wasn't. Now it's an article about the hoax. Nominated for speedy deletion; speedy removed with reasonable request to bring it here; speedy added again by the same person without comment. So I'm bringing it here so we can decide its future. This is a technical nomination, so no opinion from me, although in this case I reserve the right to add one later below if I wish. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed Nash references b/c Nash has been deemed by Wikipedia as not being a reliable references *Keep. It is now noteworthy. --Alabamaboy 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per A7. Elf-friend 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Riggle

[edit]

Article was speedied for non-notability. {hangon} added with talk page note that notability would be asserted later. An admin also requested that references should be supplied and asked if result would meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Author's response was to remove speedy without adding references or asserting notability. Easiest to course therefore is to bring it here for wider opinion. Technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has just been started with preliminary information on his research interests. More publication information may be easily added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mitchoyoshitaka (talk • contribs) . before nomination was completed.

Ξ's comment is untrue. I added a reference to Dr. Riggle's dissertation. mitcho/芳貴 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Escandon

[edit]

While not vanity, this "director" is fairly non-notable. A google search has a lot of returns on other Escandons, mainly a politician with the same name. I don't think that every minor television editor should have their own article on Wikipedia. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruaidhri Conroy

[edit]
Question - is RoryRules2 your sockpuppet? -- Robocoder 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What does that mean, and how does it affect this page? -- Dr.Boogins 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - just a point of clarification; the page history says RoryRules2 made the edits, yet you laid claim to being the main contributor. -- Robocoder 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Rory Rules copied this page (Ruaidhri Conroy) from my page Ruadhri Conroy. It seems I mispelt the name, but RoryRules2 cleared this up by creating a new page using the data from the orignal page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Ruadhri_Conroy

-- Dr.Boogins 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Djegan 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite from scratch (or delete without prejudice on recreation)Current article has too many problems with potential copycios, and lack of references, so better to start from scrath and build up. Does seem to be notable enough, the BBC mentioned his oscar flight problems [31], for example. Question, shouldn't this article (if kept) be at Rúaidhrí Conroy with redirects from Ruaidhri/Rory? Regards, MartinRe 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've done a lot of web searching, and can find references for Rory Conroy (Fair city) and for Ruaidhri Conroy (Into the West/Six Shooter/Oscar flight problem) but cannot find any reference that shows that the two people are the same person, the only connection is the similar name and same year of birth on IMDB (IMBD for Ruaudhri / IMBD for Rory) If kept, WP:V will need to be rigorously enforced to not only ensure that the facts are correct, but that they are verifably about the correct person. MartinRe 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In the idea of {{sofixit}} I have created (without predjudice) a temporary sub page (linked from the copyvio template on the main page). which I hope is a stub enough for the time being. Obviously if the afd gets closed as 'delete', please remove that page also. Regards, MartinRe 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Strong but rewrite from scratch Frelke 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite from scratch as per Martin. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (notable) but stub (due to copyright violation). --Craig Stuntz 12:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite from scratch. I'm pretty sure Rory Conroy of Fair City and Ruaidhri Conroy of Six Shooter are not the same person, but I can't be certain. The latter is certainly notable, there was a full-page interview with him in a national newspaper just this weekend (The Sunday Tribune I think) however this article doesn't seem to cover any of the notable aspects of his career. --Ryano 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd have to agree that these are different people. Markham Froggatt does not list "Fair City" among Ruaidhri's credits (though a single episode of Kavanagh QC does merit a mention). Similarly, no connection is made on RTÉ in these articles: [32][33]-- Robocoder 21:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I see the temporary page for the film star Ruaidhri Conroy, but what about his namesake, Rory Conroy from Fair City etc. Can we create another temp file to build on for Rory Conroy (Fair City)? -- Dr.Boogins 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer If you can write a neutral, well sourced article on Rory Conroy with verified claims to notibilty, then it's possible the currently protected article would be unprotected to allow it to go there. However, it may be better to simply add him as a section under Fair City for the moment. The requirements of being neutral, well sourced and verifable, still apply, but slightly less claim of notibility is required than for a stand alone article. Regards, MartinRe 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable bio. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Clary

[edit]

This page has already been deleted three times under different name. It is vanity. It has been voted on, yet the creator (who is also the subject of the article) insists on creating it repeatedly. IrishGuy 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O Best Beloved, Six Honest Men

[edit]

NN 23-minute film,"will be entered in several film festivals". Starring Levi Montoya, (AfD). Fan1967 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied as patent nonsense/prank/test. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenamo Kiev

[edit]

The page seems to be a narrative and non-encyclopedic article.--Janarius 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliteweb

[edit]

This looks very much like spam. An article which sprang fully-formed to life from the keyboard of a single user, for a private company which launched its web portal in October 2005. Replete with many external links, but no evidence of meeting WP:CORP that I can see. Written in POV terms (which can be fixed but absent a credible reason to care may well not be) Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Building

[edit]

Neologism, no relevant google hits. Reeks of nonsense/prank. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could be verifiable outside of Google; see Scout Hall as an example. Article needs more context, though. TheProject 05:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine

[edit]

A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what? Wikipedia is the otp site linking in. Currently in alpha. Lots of "aims to", not much "has". Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to neutral because a number of news articles have been laid out in support of notability. However, I would like to respond to a few things, namely that 1) I knew OneLook before I knew Wikipedia, 2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA, 3) as JzG has mentioned, the fact that there are other possible non-notable articles on Wikipedia does not mean that another non-notable article on Wikipedia may not be deleted, and 4) please do not make personal attacks, which comments like "you besmirch Wikipedia's name" can be easily construed as. The author has laid out a decent case against the AfD, I wish him best of luck in his project and look forward to a time when Wikipedia has a featured article on his project that won't be listed on AfD because it will have become very notable by then. TheProject 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do NOT delete
I am the founder of Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine project. It appears to be that desire to delete this legit article is totally wrong: if you bothered to check out website you'd see that we have achieved a LOT in a very short time, for example our index available for searching is 1 bln pages. How many search engines in the world have achieved that and how many of them based on principles of distributed computing that allow normal people to join the project?
The fact that Alexa's (rather questionable) rank is over 40,000 or any other value should have no effect on decision to delete this article that is factural and can be verified easily. If this is a requirement of Wikipedia to only have articles about pages that are ranked more than 40,000 by Alexa, then please show me that rule. :-/
We actually got into mainstream press recently, see article (it was actually published on paper as well as online) from The Guardian: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html and there are reprints around the world, what more do you want, big flashy TV ads? :-/
regards,
Alex Chudnovsky
On second thought, that article also has a lot of "want to", not so much "has", to incorrectly quote JzG. TheProject 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why remove the entry of an fully operation growing project? Maybe the text can use some improvements but with the reason mentioned above we could prolly put up for deletion all articles about new ideas. [hoping no-one wants to delete history articles because they are old...] -RetroX
The article is not listed on AfD because it is new. The article is listed on AfD because its notability is in serious question. If we find a historical article whose notability is also similarly dubious, it will go to AfD also. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are similar articles on Wikipedia for projects that have had less visibility than ours, does it mean they should be deleted? Please refer me to Wikipedia rule which explicitly states what Alexa rank should a webpage have in order to qualify for Wikipedia entry.
  • Comment: The fact that this article is marked for deletion is madness. Maybe I could go and mark some articles for deletion just because I feel like it.. because thats basically what has happened. Wikipedia is for learning, this article is informative anbd should not be deleted. [Evil-Dragon]
As for your assertion on '"aims to", not much "has"' then please be specific on what _exactly_ is untrue on the Wikipedia article. Of course we have far reaching aims, which have not being fully achieved yet, however, if you going to delete all articles that declare some aims then I suggest start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista and if you don't like name "alpha version", then please lets delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News - after all its beta, though it may have high Alexa rank.
While I am naturally biased, it seems to be that desire to delete this article is totally unjustifiable and in my view not supported by Wikipedia policies: specifically your reference to Alexa's rank is totally irrelevant as it comes from Windows only toolbar from a very niche segment of people who chose to install it, and if you use it as indicator of worthiness for Wikipedia then consider deleting Linux related entries.
So to sum up, please refer me to either wrong facts in the article or relevant policy of the Wikipedia that requires deletion of article on the basis of Alexa's rank. If you can't do neither, then IMO you should withdraw proposal for deletion, apology is optional though would be welcomed.
Alex Chudnovsky
Nobody claims that the article is untrue. The article has been placed on AfD on the basis of its non-notability. All untrue articles are (or should be) deleted from Wikipedia, but not all articles deleted from Wikipedia are deleted because they are untrue. In fact, most deleted articles are 100% accurate, but also 100% non-notable. I'm not the one who brought up Alexa rank, but it is but one way -- in my opinion, not a very good one, and as I said, I'm not the one who brought it up -- to point out an subject's notability, or lack thereof. Also, the fact that Wikipedia is the top site linking in casts considerable doubt on the notability of the article subject. TheProject 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is subjective matter: we are the leading distributed computing project of this type (building search engine) and if you care to read relevant sites you will that, for example here: http://distributedcomputing.info/news.html and http://distributedcomputing.info/ap-internet.html#majestic12 we are also in DMOZ.org directory.
The fact that Alexa says something about Wikipedia is irrelevant - Alexa has very flawed stats that are biased and using them to justify your actions is just laughable to me as I've spend some good time in web analytics. Don't believe me? Check Alexa's traffic report for distributedcomputing.info - the best site on distributed computing efforts: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=distributedcomputing.info&url=distributedcomputing.info Its very notable to those in the area of distributed computing, but Alexa says it has rank of more than 231,000!!! Though I am certain that they are more known than us!
I mean for Christ's sake, you saying that building alternative search engine is not notable? You mean that achiving 10 bln crawled pages and building index of 1 bln pages is not worth noting? What's worth noting then, anything that Alexa says is Top 40,000 site visited by fraction of users who happan to use Alexas toolbar?
We are certainly noteable enough to have more than 100 people join the effort, and have UK national press write about us as well as get invited for New Media awards in the UK, how could that be not noteable? If you are not interested in distributed computing then you are highly unlikely to be able to judge what's worth noting and what's not, in which case it would be better if you directed your efforts in deleting articles in other areas.
Here are links around the world about us:
  1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
  2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
  3. One UK IT magazine that I can't name right now as it will be in the next issue
  4. Norwegian big (was told biggest) IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
  5. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
And many blog entries, but more importantly we are the leading project of that kind in the whole world, and if that's not noteable then I don't know what is, its not like we were founded yesterday either: almost 18 months actually.
The injustice that is taking place here is really making me aggravated - if I did not check the article today (first in many weeks) I would not even have noticed that it was sneakily marked for deletion and it would have been gone in 5 days had I not posted here, this is just not right: check the links in the article and try to find someone more noteable than us in this area.
And by the way, the article in the Guardian certainly refers to future plans, what's your problem with that? Of course there are things that are planned, it would be stupid not to have plans, and its perfectly legitimate to voice those plans especially since you can check what we have achieved by now, and if you looked at historical promises you'd see that what we have achieved now was planned before, so if you see problem with that then its really your personal point of view to believe them or not. As far as I am concerned article about us on here is factually correct and without doubt we are the most noteable project of that kind in the whole world.
AlexC
  • Comment:
Alexa guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_test specifically note: "However, Alexa rankings are not a part of the notability guidelines for web sites for several reasons". Therefore it seems to me that Alexa's rank should be irrelevant.
We are in a list of search engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines
Take a note how many search engines there, notice how many search engines in Distributed category, perhaps there is someone more noteable in this category, or perhaps whole category should be removed because Alexas says so?
Finally, consider using Google test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test
Who is listed on the first page for "distributed search engine" or even "distributed search"? They use geo-targeting so exact position is different, but its #1 for me for search in the UK, note that there are 54 mln matches.
AlexC
  • Comment: Also the fact that the bot is shown in awstats server logs makes a wiki entry usefull. This way servermaintainers can find info on bots and what they do. -RetroX
  • Comment: Thus far you've done a great job of telling us what Wikipedia can do for your project, and the ways in which your project can use Wikipedia (do you really think that the fact of your having added the project to the list of search engines is in some way credibel evidence of notability?), but you have failed to establish the importance of your project. What is needed is verifiable information from reliable secondary sources so we can prove that the article is neutral. Since these are absent, and the article makes it clear this is not even necessarily the final name for the project, I'd say you have some work to do yet. Just zis Guy you know? 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Majestic-12 & Wikipedia pojects have the same ultimate goal.
From The Wikipedia:About about page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
Begun in 2001, Wikipedia has rapidly grown into the largest reference website on the Internet. The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link.
Majestic-12
Begun in late 2004 Majestic-12 has rapidly grown into a large Distributed Search Engine on the internet. The content of the Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine is crawled collaboratively by people from all around the world. This search Engine is a Distributed Computing Project, which means that anyone with access to an Internet connected computer can participate and improve the collaboration of information simply be crawling the web using a Search Node.
The project has been noted by the Media already and will grow with the help of active participants just the same as Wikipedia. To delete this entry from Wikiepedia is to crush another potential knowledge base that is BEING BUILT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
Grubee
  • Comment:
I have provided list of articles from independent sources, I also demonstrated that Wikipedia's own words say against usage of Alexa to determine notability, thus your arguement of this article being not-notable does not hold because you rely on flawed Alexa's stats and totally disregard information published by well respected independent sources like The Guardian. If you do not like something in their article then its your problem, however you can't credibly claim that the project is not notable because this is completely false.
Furthermore, its clear that you did not bother to read our site at all - http://www.majestic12.co.uk/about.php in short we can be for search engines what Wikipedia is for Encyclopedias, even though vandals really should be kept in check.
If you don't believe that our project is important then don't join it, but don't vandalise valid articles by deleting them: try CREATING something rather than deleting. And with all due respect - the choice of name is not really up to you and the fact that it may or may not change in the future should not concern you in the least: if you don't like that then delete Microsoft Vista's page because its name was changed from Longhorn. -alexc
  • Question:There is a huge explanation of how to proof its usefull. In my opinion wiki is built to gather knowledge (even about the smaller things). What proof is there of NOT being usefull or proof of violating rules? -RetroX
  • Comment:
Your original deletion words are these: "A distributed web crawler project with an Alexa rank of >40,000 - and guess what?", I posted link on Wikipedia which clearly states that Alexas data should NOT be used for purposes of notability because of known flaws, yet you based your deletion arguement on this flawed approach and refuse to withdraw it, instead making up further accusations as you go. For starters I'd like you to withdraw Alexa's arguement (low rank) completely before we move to other alleged issues with the article: if the article violates specific points of policy then please post those points, dont send away to pages and pages of text, it is YOU who should provide exact points that the article allegedly violates. So, do you withdraw your Alexa's arguement, yes or no?
And look what we have here in your own reference: WP:SOFTWARE I qoute: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online).
You are 100% wrong on this one, be honest enough to admit to mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexchudnovsky (talk • contribs) .
Calm down already. Assume good faith and be civil. Demanding an apology is not going to help you at all. Alexa ranking isn't everything, obviously, but it isn't nothing, either, and JzG didn't use Alexa ranking as everything, as you seem to make him out to be doing. He also pointed out that the top site linking in is WP, a legitimate concern which hasn't been addressed at all. As for telling JzG to post policies that the article violates, he just posted them. I might add that the article violates WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN, too. About the only thing I would give it notability for is the press coverage, but, as has already been mentioned, that happens to have a lot of future goals and not a lot of accomplishments to date. (And lest you point out Vista again, Vista is a continuation of an already notable OS series, and also a subject which is notable simply for the fact that it is being anticipated by so many.)
Let me put it this way: if an average user, not connected with the project, finds Majestic-12 notable enough that they feel there should be an article about it, then the project probably meets notability requirements. An article about someone should not be created by someone who has something to do with the article subject. If it has already been created (as it is in this case), the question then becomes: if we deleted it, could we reasonably expect the article to be re-created by an average user not associated with the subject? If not, then the project is clearly non-notable outside of the project itself. TheProject 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that rules of Wikipedia are not being followed here: I have provided link to Wikipedia entry clearly stating that Alexa should not be used for purposes of notability, since the original reason for deletion was such rank it means that automatically such deletion request should be invalid.
Additionally I have actually provided independent articles about us, let me just refer you to the Wikipedia's rules:
WP:SOFTWARE I quote: Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if it meets _ANY_ of the following criteria:" <-- see word ANY? Now continue reading at the link that we qualify for criteria: 1, 2 - we have independent sources verifying it, see The Guardian link (and it was actually printed inreal paper, not just online). Thus we qualify for inclusion and your suggestions about average user are just your view: according to the rules of Wikipedia this article has 100% right to exist on Wikipedia.
You mention a lot of goals and no accomplishments and this is blatantly untrue, I suggest that you make specific accusation of what you think was and was not achieved as with all due respect you did not put into it a 1/100th of time to actually have a sound judgment over the issue.
And also, lets not dig new accusations just as previous one fail: the original claim was based on Alexa, and it should not have been, thus should be withdrawn, if you later find that article violates other rules of Wikipedia then do new delete and we can discuss it.
So can I please ask you not to use your personal views but stick to the rules of Wikipedia. alexc 20:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using my personal views. If you're talking about my "average user" comment, that's a paraphrase of WP:VAIN, an official guideline, which states: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." (emphasis mine) Secondly, as I've stated already, Alexa ranks may not be almighty, but they are not completely irrelevant, either.
To address your other points: WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy, and as it says on its own page, is a "rough guideline" (emphasis mine). Furthermore, new reasons for deletion can be added to an existing AfD. Nothing says that we have to judge this AfD based on merits of Alexa ranking, wait for this AfD to terminate, then start another AfD based on the fact that it violates all of the other policies that JzG has pointed out.
You seem to be hung up on this Alexa point, when there are so many other reasons JzG and others have pointed out why the article fails to assert notability. TheProject 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not written by me - it was written by a person who came across with our project last year and thought to create a Wiki article on it. This is your "average user" if you like, he did not know about us before but once learnt wrote that article and from my side I just keep it up to date so that quoted numbers (ie indexed page) are correct.
I see now that you refer to WP:SOFTWARE as not policy, however it was mentioned above as something we violate. You now mention its spam - which it clearly is not, and also vanity - which it is not either because it was not created by me and there is independent confirmation of importance of the project by the Guardian and others. What more do you require - billboards and TV ads? alexc
  • Keep This whole matter is kind of humourous. If this were a US court, the whole case for deletion would have been thrown out by now. JzG provides false evidence in his reason for deleting the page. Courts would dismiss that rather quickly, and fine him for wasting the courts' time. BarkerJr
Here is similar Wiki entry for similar project (that is now shutdown): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_distributed_web-crawling_project Why is it okay to have that entry (and many others), but this one is not okay? alexc
Here is more food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_search_engines <---- see how many search engines listed there? Over 100, so, should in your view then most of them be deleted also? Is this how you view Wikipedia - only tells about dominant things like in this case would be Google/Yahoo/MSN? alexc
  • Comment: No - I would not nominate them because those entries there are legitimate articles. It is _you_ who wishes to delete this article and I am pointing out that not only you providing no valid Wiki rules, but even if what you proposed was correct, then it would require deletion of most of Search Engines listed there, so, I am challenging you to apply _same_ standard of scrutiny to all articles in Search Engine category rather than pick on someone. In fact I just noticed you did nominate some other search engine too: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eliteweb&action=history so why did you nominate tham and us, but not (for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook ? Why is it you not deleting almost all of the search engines listed there since many of them are less notable (and certainly less unique) than us?
  • And I still dont understand what's your problem with independent links I quoted - with all due respect the Guardian is more independent than you and they certainly have very high standards that they apply virogously, if you believe that they lied in the article then why won't you sue them? If you can prove that then you will certainly contribute something rather than deleting genuine article without good reason. alexc
I think you'll find that I know a little about policy. Last time I checked I was an admin. Yup, seems I still am. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know policy so well and since you are an admin, then can you please explain me why this article was nominated for deletion but many other about other search engines were not, example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneLook Can you please spell out clearly what exactly makes that URL not break Wikipedia rules. alexc
At this rate, he won't be admin much longer. Ignoring WP rules and such. BarkerJr
  • I found majestics search engine through the norwegian news article about it. I just would like to say that normally I would not be very interested in joining such programs, and probably wouldn't have stayed long with it if it wasn't for the developer of it. If you can find anyone that is more active than Alex here when it comes to listening to problems or communicating with the people that is helping this project I would be impressed. Usually get an answer within 5 minutes(just check out my posts on his forum, username: Dagger). This project I am pretty sure will grow rapidly, and as it's index grows, more and more newssources will grab a hold on it. Would't be surprised if it will air on televised news somewhere in not too long a time. You may delete this article, but my guess it would appear again at some point, and with much stronger foundations against deletion(although I feel it deserves a place here). I have full faith in Alex and the progression of this project.
Well, this is my last post on this topic: I am grateful to supporters of the project who not only take part in very Wiki-like project, but also created Wiki page in the first place, sad to see that actions of few people on here throw shadow on good Wikipedia image, shame, but time will judge who was right - I certainly hope you will still be admin(s) by then, the only worry I have is that other legit pages will fall prey to your unjust actions. One thing I will tell you though - at Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine power will not be held in hands of few individuals and no deletions of sites from index will be possible just because few men have got big egos and apply double standards. Shame on you - you besmirch Wikipedia's name. That's my last post on the topic - hope other articles about search engines will be spared deletion. alexc 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a rationale for my new position at the top of the page. TheProject 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for change of mind, but I really think that "2) please refrain from bringing in users for the sake of voting in an RfA" is yet another unjust thing: you can't seriously be expecting people to check article every day, I noticed it was marked for deletion today by pure chance: last time I checked it was many weeks ago, so if I were to follow your logic then it would work like this: Admin A marks article for deletion, if its not the most well known piece of info that is edited by many editors then its all probability nobody will actually object to it and article gets deleted, and you automatically disqualify relevant parties in effect allowing only those who are totally unrelated to the thing to voice their opinion that in their view the project is not notable (of course for YOU it is not because you may have never heard of it and don't take independent views as well as those who participate in it in consideration!), if that's not flawed process then I don't know what is. And you mention that you knew OneLook - so what, does it make it better article and more deserving one? Does it mean just because something new appears it should not be listed on Wiki simply because you have not heard of that before? The whole situation is really a farce - if this is how decision making is working here then its clearly very flawed: rules should be rules for everyone, if article about Majestic-12 is not deserving despite having recent major newspapers talking about us, then you should delete many many Wikipedia articles like yesterday. Anyway I am abtaining from posting any further and reserve the right to follow appeal processes that are available on Wikipedia: its about time to check first hand if Wikipedia critisisms are justified. alexc 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, policy on bringing in users for AfD is something I can't change, and it is almost indistinguishable from sockpuppetry. AfDs have always traditionally counted votes by more established users (which I, by the way, do NOT claim to be, in any way, shape, or form) as more weighty as those of less established users. As for Wikipedia having all these other articles, as has been mentioned here already, the fact that these articles exist is not a good reason for this AfD not to exist. TheProject 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And its not bothering you in the least that if there are scores more articles in the same category of Internet Search Engines that should also be deleted _IF_ AfD against this one stands? Are you actually going to proceed deleting them or just ignore them as the "job" here is done? Did it not occur to you that if there is a rule effectively outlawing most entries in that category, then such rule ought to be wrong? This whole conversation makes me feel like I am back in USSR: no matter what you say, no matter how genuine the situation is (what more notability you want apart from dedicated article in UK national newspaper, a Super Ball TV ad maybe is needed to change your mind?), the people with power have their own way despite common sense. This is really not about this article - I can assure you that I won't lose sleep over removal of the article, however this injustice seems to expose a serious flaw in Wikipedia that really can't be left unopposed. What would you say if I checked automatically all articles with external urls and marked all of them for deletion that have Alexa's rank below 40,000 would that be acceptable? alexc 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made my opinion known in my blurb at the top, and this is the last I'll say of the matter: if there are other non-notable articles that need to be deleted, then Wikipedia will take care of them in due process. (I urge you to have a look at WP:POINT before doing anything, though.) And I still believe you are completely hung up over this Alexa thing. It's not the only item in the AfD. As for now, though, I'm just going to let this AfD run its course. No point in wrangling anymore -- you've made your point repeatedly, and it's a good one, and I've repeatedly tried to convey to you that the Alexa argument is not the only argument, nor is it a strong argument. I hold neutral on this AfD. Okay? TheProject 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the ones which are notable, obviously. Reductio ad absurdam: because the article on my garden shed is deleted as a non-notable building, the article on the Tower of London must also be deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not suggesting to delete any articles in Internet search engines category, what I am saying however if _this_ article is deemed not deserving (despite national press coverage) then many articles in the category should be also deleted leaving a handful of prominent SEs like Google/MSN/Yahoo. This would clearly be less than sum of human knowledge that Wikipedia wants to achieve: it seems to me that you've made your mind and no rational arguement will change it, I hope people in arbitration are more reasonable. alexc 12:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A searchengine wich visits millions of websites with hundreds of volunteers, leaving bot signatures in millions of awstats pages of websites an the searchengine getting used by lots of visitors and for wich 3th parties are developing tools for and is written about in national newspapers seems a bit more notable then your gardenshed. I agree this M12 DSE is not as big as Google but still i think its worth to keep the article about the project and this new way of distributed searching. -RetroX
  • The sheer fact that Majestic12 impacts so many people (volunteers, web masters, users) and that it is an incredible achievement surely makes the article notable. There is national coverage (Guardian Newspaper) of the project and the Wikipedia article provides a way for ordinary people to understand more on how it works and what the long term goals are. I find it amazing that an article such as this be considered for deletion. 82.11.44.91 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Mike Challis[reply]
  • Hmm.... i see no reason why to remove the article. The project website seems active and the article info seems correct. I can discus if the project itself apeals to me or not but that is not the point. Wikipedia is a source of information and this article contains usefull information. The removal of articles should be kept to a minimum in my opinion. Only to remove false information or submission made while intentionaly breaking rules (spam etc). So to state it simple: i recommend to keep this article. 213.219.190.222 20:18, 6 May 2006 (CET)
  • Just found this search engine in my server log after I'd seen it a couple of weeks back in a major German news outlet (www.sueddeutsche.de) and came to wikipedia to check for information on it. If people think it's rogue and evil and should not even be talked about, then you might want to delete it. Don't know. Some say Microsoft is rogue and evil. I, in any case, found useful information in the article, and with regard to the fact that there's of course some intentions stated, and perhaps even bragging, I would believe that that's hard to be entirely avoided if you're talking about some innovative project. Don't know, but my vote for "Potentially useful information which shouldn't be deleted, but made compliant with standards if it's found wanting on that count." Sorry for not registering, not that invested in the matter.--69.204.226.97 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. In the above discussion I can't find any violation marked out. Let me quote from the discussion: "I suggest you go and read WP:NOT, WP:ENC, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:SOFTWARE, an incomplete summary of some of the policies and guidelines this article currently violates. Just zis Guy you know? 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)". Please make a reference to violations in this article mentioned in these guidelines. Just listing them, don't make the article breaking the policy guidelines?! nsaa @ 2006-05-06 22:27Z[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB, and WP:NOT a web directory. That said, I might be willing to keep if appopriate/verifiable external references were added, preferably by someone not associated with the project's development team. I should also note that I find the argumentative tone of article supporters extremely upsetting. --Alan Au 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add these neutral external references to the article?
              1. The Guardian (big national UK paper) http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1736761,00.html
              2. http://www.contractoruk.com/002593.html
              3. Big Norwegian online IT mag: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=297379
              4. Russian huge news site: http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2006/04/07/distributed/
nsaa @ 2006–05–07 07:28Z
* Added these links to the article. Did I violate any rules according to pages marked for deletion? nsaa @ 2006-05-07 15:12Z
  • Comment. Good job adding the links; improving an article up for AfD is accepted and even encouraged. My main concern is that a small group of people seem to have vested personal interests in having their article listed on Wikipedia, and that's really not what Wikipedia is all about. The perception of meatpuppetry doesn't help either. Until I'm comfortable that the subject is well-known enough that people unaffiliated with the project can contribute to improving the article, I'm inclined to stay with weak delete. Sorry. --Alan Au 18:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was first made aware about the Majestic-12 project after reading the article in the Norwegian Digi [34]. I personally think this is an good idea, already doing quite well(?). Hopefully the article herein will get a lot better. nsaa @ 2006-05-07 21:40Z
  • Comment Just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood... I'm not affiliated with the MJ12 project. I just run the software and report bugs and such. So, I'm just a user. Take that for what you wish. BarkerJr 22:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. Wikipedia is all about sharing information that might be of general interest. Like distributed search engines, that because of it nature is one the few alternative that threaten Google's strong position. That is of course of public interest, and wikipedia is one the few sources that might be a neutral view on that matter and how majestic 12 seek to make a difference. This page should never have been voted for deletion in the first place.--Zyron 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I followed the link to this article from the list of search engines. I had not known about Mj12 before today. I may never have discovered this page without wikipedia and cannot understand why this article deserves deletion because of it's "un-notable-ness". Fair enough if this article was false it would deserve deletion, but notability is a hugely subjective concept, the GDP of Botswana is not notable for me in any way but someone out there needs to know it. Concentrate on clearing out the factual errors, mis-spellings, puctuation and grammar mistakes plaguing wikipedia before worrying about how important a topic is. My friends and I use wikipedia for information on things ranging from chocolate bars to the Carolingian empire. All things great and small, it's what wikipedia is USED for.

  • Comment Who decides how notable an article/subject matter is on Wikipedia? I thought Wikipedia users decide what’s notable and not moderators? If this is so then the above comments speak for themselves. I find it very sad that people are picking over an article because of notability, especially after being challenged they decide then to nitpick over any other rules that might be breaking. Police do a similar thing when they want to put someone away... even if it means breaking their own rules. I do have a suggestion though, why don't you just make all articles on Wikipedia created and editable by mods... would soon put an end to all these lengthy discussions and get back to having control over everything. Oh wait, that’s already happening, silly me.

So remember folks, if you happen to find a rare new bird or insect and want to tell the world about it then don't post it on Wikipedia... they'll only go delete it for being non-notable. Sorry for the rant, but hey someone's got to tell it as it is. --User:Evil-Dragon

    • Administrators don't have control over everything. For the record, I am not an administrator, although I hope to be one in the future. If you feel Wikipedia is run by an elite group of users with no input from the general public (the cabal, as it is referred to sometimes), nobody's forcing you to stay. Oh, and "if you happen to find a rare new bird or insect and want to tell the world about it", publish it a notable, refereed, journal. That'll make it verifiable and notable, and it'll be on Wikipedia in no time. (Well, soon enough, at least.) TheProject 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do NOT delete First of all, Alexa is by no means a way to measure notability. It's collection of information relies on proprietary software. In certain sites, the percentage of userbase having the toolbar is much less than others. You can expect that the userbase and visitors of MJ12 has very few instances of this software installed. Mainly because the computer-oriented people in this project know how to keep their browsers clean of extra toolbars. Secondly, every serious project "aims to" something. When that goal is reached (1bln urls) and before it's reached, the project picks a new milestone and "aims to" it. MJ12 "has" over 1 billion pages indexed, which is much more than just the 1bln urls aforementioned, closer to hundred active nodes crawling 24/7, it complies to pretty much every robots.txt standard and "has" done what the GRUB project failed in (which by the way is still listed in Wikipedia). This is a very active project which "has" reached a lot of milestones before the schedule and "aims to" do it in the future too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deletion as per A7. Elf-friend 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph_Steinberg

[edit]

Person is not noteable. If we had every author of every obscure book then Wikipedia would have no room. The page is clearly autobiographical


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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect to Second Taiwan Strait Crisis Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quemoy Cleavers

[edit]

Doesn't really make much sense and WP:NN (only 150 g-hits, mostly unrelated) — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Redirect - an article can be redirected/merged without nominating here.. --Hetar 06:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Zematis

[edit]

Last name is mispelled. Information from this entry has been merged with the correctly-spelled entry, Alan Zemaitis. —Xanderer 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. AndyZ 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saor Alba

[edit]

Saor Alba is two men and a dog - actually no dog. Two people hold all the official positions. NOT NOTABLE!!! MacRusgail 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on their website, but I have read their printed literature, and can confirm it from there. --MacRusgail 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Kerala PINCode Index1of3

[edit]

Seemingly a list of geographical codes, no context Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by request of creator. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cropscraper

[edit]

Delete - so very original research. No google hits. There should really be a speedy for stuff like this... Prod removed without explanation of course, as always. Wickethewok 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4&oldid=1234127812"