Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 6 October 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus, so keep. Thanks/wangi 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55 Public Square

[edit]

Non-notable building, no references, non-encyclopedic Akradecki 00:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my stance to Strong keep per EurekaLott.--Húsönd 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cleveland is currently the 39th most populous city in the US and your argument for notability is because it is the 17th tallest building in Cleveland. Some quick work with a calculator tells me that this argument just claimed notability for 663 random buildings in America (the 17 tallest in the top 39 cities). Most of these buildings, like this one, have no architectural or historical significance, they just happen to be built a bit taller than some other office buildings. -Markeer 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the 17th I would like to call to your attention that Cleveland is a city with high-rise buildings, and a 17th tallest building there is a landmark that would stand out in the vast majority of the cities in this world. When I came up with this 17th tallest building argument it was not my intention to assert the notability on the grounds of that particular number but in the fact that it's a big building in a city with big buildings.--Húsönd 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I was there in July, only the Terminal Tower and Key Tower were the buildings that were most noticeable. 55 Public Square is 300 ft, 91m, so I'm not sure how many cities have buildings that tall, probably a lot. T REXspeak 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Although my stance is keep, I am also concerned that it lacks prominence in Cleveland. It's good that people who've seen the building are providing input.--Húsönd 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask my grandmother, she worked in Cleveland when there weren't as many skyscrapers and she might know if it is notable or not. T REXspeak 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment above?--Húsönd 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a big building in a city with big buildings" sounds like an argument for deletion to me. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you could assign yourself for a fun spree of deletions regarding New York City buildings. :-) --Húsönd 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. No point in adding sarcasm to a serious discussion.--Húsönd 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a deletionist, I admit it :) Although buildings aren't the worst of the things we have unnecessary articles on. Opabinia regalis 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now this is actually a half-decent argument for notability but before I'd change my vote I'd want an argument why the first streetlight makes the building notable as opposed to it making the city of Cleveland notable (since streetlights are located, er, on the street). If McGinney's questions below regarding architectural uniqueness (or at least interest) could arrive at a real answer, I'd consider changing my vote based on that + it having first streetlight in front of it, but I think it NEEDS an argument for architectural or historical interest on it's own, not just because of what's on the sidewalk outside. -Markeer 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Strong Keep and expand (See Eurekalott below) I'll deal with the objections in turn -
1. Non-notable building,
Firstly it can be seen in an architectural context of skyscraper building being built in the same year as the Seagram building. "The Seagram building (and virtually all large buildings of the time) was built of a steel frame" - this building is notable at least because according to emporis "The first 10 floors are framed in steel, the upper 12 floors are reinforced concrete." - I wonder why? (Fire code for the bottom floors? Structural rationale? Environmental control? Impact upon the urban environment - were old street patterns destroyed by the building) - What place does this building play in the developing work of Carson Lundin & Shaw's architecture - this article has interesting questions that could be addressed - It's just the article isn't doing it yet.
2. No references,
The emporis site is cited
3. Non-encyclopedic
There's plenty of buildings in the encyclopedia - so the principle of having this skyscraper in the encyclopedia presumably isn't the issue - The 1 sentence entry is, I suspect the source of the objection - I suggest we keep this AfD open and review in a week by which time hopefully the author will have expanded it. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no reason to keep this. Punkmorten 10:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: so far, the only additional information that I could find about it is that it was "One of the first International Style high-rises in Cleveland" [1] and that it has the number 55 printed on it (this could be the reason why it is referred by its address and not by its name). However, given that there is some information in the article, I'd rather support a merge than a deletion. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**I'd support this - particularly a creation of Carson Lundin & Shaw and then a merge of 55 Public Square into it and then 2 New York Plaza, Trust Company of Georgia Building, 4 New York Plaza, Citibank Building, Swan Street Building, Time Warner Building can all be accomodated under the one article.--Mcginnly | Natter 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (see eurekalott below)[reply]

****Ah! apologies I thought Public Square was Public square - Maybe we should move Public Square to Public Square (Cleveland) to save similar confusions? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- EurekaLott 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (A steel company in 6490 AD? That's sounds like some rather unimaginative fiction to me.) Grandmasterka 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanvel Steel Corporation

[edit]

This fictitious company gets two - count 'em - two hits on Google (and they're both Wikipedia-related). It's from a book published by "EG Books" and the creator of the article is User:Egbooks, in direct violation of WP:USERNAME. Vanity, spam, fails every notability test. wikipediatrix 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfiltrationMod

[edit]

Article doesn't pass WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 00:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I never really followed the UT mod scene, although I have heard of it. There's some links here [3][4][5], but so with so many mods without sources, this isn't near the top of my list to sort out. - Hahnchen 00:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see where all these mods could have collective notability, so create a new article for UT mods, Unreal Tournament mods, and merge with no redirect. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although this page might not be complete, it is not unverifiable nor lacking reliable sources. Link to the mod's page is available in the article. More reference might be added with time. This is a major mod in the UT mod history and for tactical shooters in general. This is well described in an article called "Best of Tactical Gaming: Infiltration" [6]. geogob 07:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I recently heard of it, and was glad to find a Wikipedia article just lying here waiting to inform me. --Joffeloff 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • however I think we can all agree that the article needs a but of rewriting, but not deletion.--Siredmond 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the writer of the first major revision of this page, I would be extremely sad to see it go. Infiltration was/is a great game and had its heyday, and a wikipedia page would be a great testament to its significance in the history of gaming. Keep Dilcoe
  • KEEP. Although it isn't as big as Half-Life Counter-Strike, Infiltration did have a pretty large following, especially in Germany. There is definitely not enough room to mention it on Unreal Tournament's own page. GoldDragon 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article gives its sources. It has enough information to be its own entry. Chip Unicorn 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has verifiable sources (if weak). Due to this game modification's vintage (it predates Wikipedia itself by two years) primary sources are unlikely to be available (I don't know of any printed games magazines which keeps their back issues online, for example.) Ctz 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toba (computing)

[edit]

Defunct software of no demonstrated notability; previous deletion discussion was not extensive and did not reach concensus. Delete --Peta 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Berman

[edit]

No evidence of notability provided. --Peta 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says "The United States Jewish Federation", but the Wikilink doesn't mention the existence of any such entity, and a Google search brings only 21 hits. wikipediatrix 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, delete. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Allen (country singer)

[edit]

Reads like a press release, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Peta 00:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Millett Danaher, Mallory Millett, Mallory Jones (redirect)

[edit]

Appears to be a very minor actor. IMDB profile is limited [8], not much in google either [9] & [10] & [11] NMChico24 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you realize that one of the key functions of afd is actually checking the claims the article makes, rather than not ony believing whatever the article says to be of encyclopedic notability just because its written but also adding further claims of imagined notability not mentioned in the article (Broadway??)? Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She seems to be notable, sort of, but the article as it stands is little more than a list of Mallorycruft. I suggest this article would have a much better chance of surviving if those interested in Danaher's career simply turned it into a one- or two-paragraph stub. --Aaron 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, failure of WP:V for much of article, WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM issue with resume abuse of Wikipedia. Aarticle creator is a single purpose account with Danaher's resume pasted into the user talk page[12]. This account also created a resume spam article here:Mallory Millett. The article subject is a very minor actress who has had various bit parts - only some of which were notable enough for IMDB (e.g. "Girl No.1" in the movie Tootsie). Theatre career details contain no claims about notability and no verification. Claims that she wrote two books are based on nothing - zero hits for the two book titles with her name (trying both Millett and Danaher) on google and amazon[13][14] [15][16][17][18]. Claims about photography career unverifiable as notable. Zero hits for searches for mallory/millet/danaher + any of the galleries listed [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. (And I'm sorry but I have to say that the photos on the photo website linked in the article are quite nice but not believably of a professional gallery exhibition standard in terms of content or theme). I also ran a Factiva news and magazine database run - there were only a couple of hits. One hit was a LA Times profile about one of this Mallory's sisters - Kate Millet, a notable anti-psychiatry feminist author. The other was an insurance industry magazine obituary about Mallory's mother, who was one of the first female insurance agents (does not seem to be encyclopedically notable). In both articles, Mallory was only used as a secondary reference. Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what its worth, she writes (and does photography) under the name of Mallory Jones, which is why you couldn't find any record of her works under the name of Millet or Danaher (one of them does show up at Amazon, which is why I added to the article. For what it's worth, I'm not a strong advocate of keeping it, I'm just an editor who likes to try to improve articles I come across while new page patrolling, rather than automatically deleting them. I'm a little bit bothered, though, by putting so much emphasis on Ghits...that's not even remotely a criteria for notability, although being a published author is. Akradecki 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the wariness about the google test, I would also emphasize that being a "published author" is not sufficient grounds in itself for encyclopedic notability. Also a listing on Amazon or an ISBN does not guarantee that a book is published by a legit publisher or even if it exists. (Its not that hard to get an ISBN or an Amazon listing... its probably even easier than getting on IMDB.) Bwithh 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the Mallory Jones photo site. Sorry again but this is just not believable professional photographic art - the website is very amateurish and the photos, while nice, are all of themes like sunset, sunrise, flowers and animals (e.g. "Ducks" - a set which includes several birds which are, well... not ducks) and vacation snaps ("Spring Break '06", "Montana Trip 2005"). She labels one set of quite standard sunset photos "Armageddon" and that's about as edgy as it gets. As for the book on Amazon[28], this appears to be an obscure, short 1970 children's book about a black restaurant owner's struggle with racism[29] but with no indication of notability. I just don't see any possibly of an article with substantive encyclopedic notability here. Bwithh 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Baptist College

[edit]

An unaccredited "college". Fails notability. I get 558 yahoo hits for "Providence Baptist College," which includes wiki mirrors. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. This was proded for deletion in March, but was removed without comment.[30] Arbusto 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, musician with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 9 (British music group)

[edit]

No indication that this group meets WP:MUSIC.--Peta 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (pressure group)

[edit]

Removed prod on this, mainly because it has been an article for a long time, and the group seems like it might be notable. I can't tell quickly if the group really isn't notable, or if the article just isn't giving them a proper treatment in that area. Looking for community input. Original prod reason given was, "No assertion of anything other than local notability. No external verification apart from a cryptic free website. Reads like a rambling vanity article." Luna Santin 00:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be a non-notable group, one of countless such groups, and this one doesn't seem to have made a significant impact that would cause them to stand out and deserve an encyclopedia entry. Akradecki 04:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't see much more than self reference here. If there could be some indication of how they are notable in the outside world I would change my mind. JASpencer 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is this group related to the bicycle-riding Critical Mass? While I've been in an exchange with editors of that article who have adamantly denied that their Critical Mass is some kind of eco-anarchist political or pressure group, I had a friend in London as a teenager who regularly went on Critical Mass bike rides in the belief that it was an edgy anarchist protest group which was contributing to the environmentalist/socialist movement by causing traffic obstructions and so pissing off motorists. Bwithh 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Project

[edit]

No evidence that this project meets WP:WEB. --Peta 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as an internet meme it should have more then 3 Google results.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL season-by-season assist leaders

[edit]

Listcruft. The article outright states that the NHL doesn't have an award for (or even honor) season assist leaders, as opposed to the goal-scoring and overall scoring leaders, so this isn't rather significant achievement (and most of the players posted on this usually won the scoring title anyway, so it's also redundant). Additionally, it should be stated that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak tendency listcruft of the most pointless kind. Delete doktorb wordsdeeds 09:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LEAVE IT ALONE.
Here is a list of NHL records held by Wayne Gretzky that relate ONLY to assists.
Career Assists -- 1,962. 
Assists by a center -- 1,962. 
Assists-per-game average (300-or-more assists) -- 1.32. 
Overtime assists -- 15. 
Assists, including playoffs -- 2,222 (1,962 regular season, 260 playoff). 
------ 
Single Season 
Assists -- 163 in 1985-86 (80-game schedule). 
Assists by a center -- 163 in 1985-86. 
Assists per-game-average -- 2.04 in 1985-86. 
Assists, including playoffs -- 174 in 1985-86. 
------ 
Single Game 
Assists (tied) -- 7 (vs. Washington, Feb. 15, 1980; at Chicago, Dec. 11, 1985; vs. Quebec, Feb. 14, 1986). 
Assists, road game (tied) -- 7 at Chicago, Dec. 11, 1985. 
Assists by a player in first NHL season -- 7, vs. Washington, Feb. 15, 1980. 
------ 
Playoffs 
Single Year 
Assists -- 31 in 1988 (19 games). 
Single Series 
Assists in final series -- 10 in 1988 vs. Boston. 
Assists in one series, other than final (tied) -- 14 in 1985 conference finals vs. Chicago. 
Assists -- 6, April 9, 1987 vs. Los Angeles. 
Single Period 
Assists -- 3 (five times). 
------ 
All-Star Game 
(18 games) 
Assists, career -- 12. 
------
There are many other articles that actually deserve to be deleted. This is NOT one of them. Gee with all this extra information, maybe I'll ADD to the article in question. James Warner-Smith 20:07, 7 October 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 was delete. Glen 10:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temperate forest survival

[edit]

Odd how to, not encyclopedic, delete --Peta 00:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaido Flanvel and Calarite

[edit]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flanvel Steel Corporation.
These are hoaxes, some of which have lain here undetected since May 2006. They claim to be plot elements from a book entitled The Chronicles of Zalfos. Searching Amazon turns up no books by that or any similar title. Google Web turns up nothing, either. The articles link to a web page on a free web page site that tells us that the title is in fact The Serpent of Zalfos. Amazon doesn't have that, either, or indeed any books by M. Gremillion at all. Most tellingly, even the purported vanity press, Inkwater Press (a.k.a. First Books), that the web page claims publishes these books, comes back empty handed when asked for these titles.

All of the articles were created by Egbooks (talk · contribs), which is the same account name as used at the free web page site and also the initials of the purported author. Uncle G 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Glen 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakpoint City

[edit]

This webcomic, seen here had been tagged for months with the notability sign. Unsurprisingly on Wikipedia, it's a non notable webcomic, with no Alexa rank, and ghost town forums. "Breakpoint City" brings back less than 75 unique Googles, none of them from a reliable source. Does {{db-web}} extend this far? - Hahnchen 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. abakharev 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGAF

[edit]

Renominating after the previous AFD failed to elicit any improvement since then. The article fails to assert its notability and also, as brought up in the previous debate, has absolutely no way to verify any of its statements. Axem Titanium 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted Both per CSD G11. Naconkantari 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoomSqueaks

[edit]

DoomDaze is also nominated. One is a webcomic, the other a comic, neither seem to be comedic. The articles were written by the comic author User:Trev M.. I don't usually like to go purely by Google, it seems so lazy, but DoomDaze comes back with 7 and DoomSqueaks comes back with 15. I'm not sure if these fall under CSD, but I'm pretty sure this nom can be closed early. - Hahnchen 01:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funalasi

[edit]

Seems to be Star wars related fancruft. It also seems to have no relation to the title. Tarret 01:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hellsing media

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It provides no useful information to readers, as it as absolutely zero prose. Delete as listcruft and possibly fancruft. Axem Titanium 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this appears to be a section split off from the original article. Almost all articles on TV series and movies where there have been multiple releases of the media have a section exactly on this topic. As Hellsing is a very popular anime and manga series both in Japan and in the United States, there are all sorts of various releases of it, including all the volumes of the manga and various formats and versions of the TV series and movies. Thus, it was split into a second article to be more reader-friendly rather than covering the original article with this list-like information. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page because of Wikipedia guidlines, not in spite of them. This comes straight from the WikiProject Anime and Manga page:

"Lists of episode titles, manga volumes, voice actors, theme songs, etc., should be placed towards the end of the article. If these lists take up a large amount of space, consider moving them to a separate page titled List of (series) media. Other list-type information (such as soundtracks that do not merit individual articles) should also be placed on this page. For an example implementation see Cowboy Bebop and List of Cowboy Bebop media."

It states that we should have a seperate page for the Hellsing media rather than having it take up all that room on the main page. So what's the problem? --- Hellspawn

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foe Pa

[edit]

This article was previously deleted as a prod, and was recreated, which seems to mean someone disputes it; so I'm taking it to AfD. It claims notability by citing Yuri Lowenthal and Tara Platt as part of the original troupe, who have careers of note outside of this. However, it also claims Corey Blake, who is the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't delete Foe Pa! They are awesome and all of the actors are of note. You can also find the careers of Shelley Wenk, Zena Leigh and Aaron Lyons listed on imdb.com among other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) as it currently stands. --Aaron 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless/until the awesomeness and of-note-ness claimed for them is written up in independent sources. -- Hoary 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipediarules2221 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe it's too early for Foe Pa to have its own article, but I also believe it's too early to claim that they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. They seem like a local improv group who have just branched out to an internet show. I watched it, and it certainly has potential, but it's not yet at the point to have its own article. Since it just started this last week, it needs time to build an audience (how much of an audience did Homestar Runner have when it started?). Once it builds an audience and gets some outside sources talking about it, then I hope someone will be able to recreate this article. - Lex 03:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone will be free to recreate the article again anytime they want. If, at that time, there's been any change to their notability, the new article will stand. --Aaron 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was editing the original article to add the internet show info when it was deleted, which ended up re-posting/resurrecting it. I didn't originally create the article. Entertainment/comedy notability aside, the show's level of interactivity is unprecedented and unique on the Internet, which I think deserves note. And Lex, thank you for checking us out! --CoreyBlake 23:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm happy to see the notabiliy requirment I created is being used appropriately. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zuman Affair

[edit]

del nonverifiable (original research?) based on some facts from Nuremberg trials. As written, the article cannot be deduced form its only reference. `'mikka (t) 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Xio Jade

[edit]

A SuperShadow created, non-canon character (i.e. hoax). Not even worth merging to a list somewhere. BryanG(talk) 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Wolfpack

[edit]

Asserts notability, but it's a flag football team, for heaven's sake. Even a good flag football team, as this one appears to be, isn't notable. NawlinWiki 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's (Flag Football) sponsored by the NFL at many levels! Secondly the bulk of our players played NCAA college football, as have teams who compete competitively nation wide. Winning the longest game in USFTL "United States Flag & Touch Football League" history is why I believe it truly deserves retention. I see other teams & sports listed as well. Most cities across the USA have competitive teams & frankly after playing 4 years of Division I-AA College ball, Flag is more dangerous. Guys often suffer more injuries because you fly around full speed with no pads & defenders collide, linemen physically "strong arm" each other on full speed pass rushes and so on! So you can push for deletion, but one should respect the game & those who play it I guess. Save the girly touch and tennis lessons - It's physical. Just being honest and friendly, but if we need to add more flag football (how to play) detail about the game, then certainly we can do that 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 was deleted as copyvio. --RobthTalk 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hyams

[edit]

Nom & vote ...
Del: n-n - "146 of about 410 " GHits
--Jerzy•t 03:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article is currently tagged as a copyvio, so probably should be processed through that means rather than here (two parallel processes can muck up the works). However, if the copyright issues can be resolved, keep, as subject is notable, both as an author published by a major publishing house and as a film producer. If article is deleted under the copyvio process, it should be able to be recreated as original text appropriate for Wikipedia. Akradecki 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether del or keep, two parallel processes are desirable despite the effort of keeping them from being mucked up (and perhaps i should have facilitated coordination, tho those closing either will see on the article page, and be aware of, the other):
      1. Copyvio processing of the individual article is a legal obligation of WP. It is also a Good Thing for WP in the long run, as part of a pattern of overall care re copyright issues. Both of these remain true even if AfD's lopsided presumption of retention results in keeping.
      2. Copyvio deletion is deletion w/o prejudice, while AfD deleteion is with prejudice & impedes re-creation if the copyvio issues are resolvable. (Which is in fact likely, altho not so certain that we can ignore the damage to WP's copyvio reputation that accepting the slipshod efforts to (irrelevantly) "grant permission" would do.) In light of the perhaps clueless and in any case nasty misbehaving IP, AfD deletion will get this sick puppy off our front door step more effectively than simple copyvio deletion.
    --Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merely being published does not make one notable. Very little public discussion occurs about this author. He is simply not notable. Quatloo 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There may be very little public discussion in the U.S., but in Canada and Israel it's a different matter, as a careful reading of internet resources shows. Once the copyvio issue is resolved, I'd be happy to provide the refs. Akradecki 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further info: The anon in question is an attempted covert vandal, via talk-page personal attack, which IMB[iased]O impugns their judgement (e.g. re notability) -- even if generous editors fail to impeach their credibility (re identity and facts re PH).
    --Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pro-Keep Comment: Article was originally approved as conforming to Wiki biographical content. If biographical content is found elsewhere, this would be entirely plausible. If tagged as a copyvio by a Wiki editor for this reason alone, issue should be resolved by a rewrite. Subject is known both as an author published by a professional pubishing house and film producer. Shraga Ben Ami 18:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pro-Keep Comment: If tagged as a copyvio issue should be resolved by advising total rewrite. Who determines the degree of fame required to be famous or "infamous?" Jon Balleti 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about violence

[edit]

Small, self-referential, plus a list that could grow a lot. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing Great Guns:bootleg (album)

[edit]

Also: White Heroes:bootleg (album). Per admission those are bootlegs, not officially released albums. ~ trialsanderrors 04:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deleted, Closing as per snowball, strong policy argument --Improv 07:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House Made of Dawn (analysis)

[edit]

Fails WP:OR Naconkantari 04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlowFighting

[edit]

Contested prod, so bringing it to AfD. Yet another attempt by B-ham to advertise for RMAX and Scott Sonnon. The bulk of this entry seems like original research, with no indication of notability. fbb_fan 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD is about FlowFighting, not Scott Sonnon. And as has been mentioned to you in previous AfD discussions, it should not be assumed that the existence of other entries (that you regard as similar) sets any precedent or standard. Also, as has also been mentioned to you previously, it is considered proper AfD etiquette to indicate if you are the primary author of the article in question. fbb_fan 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabilis (band)

[edit]

WP:BAND John Nagle 05:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Non-notable "almost famous" band. Only one CD in Gracenote; the limited edition self-titled 7" EP demo doesn't count. Wikipedia requires two CDs or other major notability. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #211,105 in Music. --John Nagle 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Summer Bowman and Dru Allen, based on their contributions to This Ascension and The Machine in the Garden easily meet this. Since it is a joint side project, a redirect is unsuitable. The article should stay. --Eyrian 05:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kalla

[edit]

No evidence of notability, delete per wikipedia is not a memorial. --Peta 05:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus/default keep. The addition of sources has removed the basis for Hoary's vote rationale; Capitalistroadster and Uncle G both suggest that the subject exhibits some level of noteworthiness. If expansion doesn't occur, this could be brought back to AfD after a few months. Xoloz 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Pendar

[edit]

Conspiracy theory about a person with no evidence of fact or notability.--Peta 05:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could be a hoax. If it's true and worth saying, the editor could easily have explained. Even if it's not a hoax, I guess it's a troll: somebody's chuckling as he looks forward to watching the earnest Wikipedians fall over themselves "assuming good faith", etc. The amount of effort already expended on this AfD easily exceeds that spent on the article, so the hell with the article. -- Hoary 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dot dot dot Danny Lilithborne 06:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. This article has been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and apparently has never had a single source. The article does not indicate why either the subject's official activity or his alleged undercover activity would justify an article about him per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, Kenneth W. Pendar is the author of 2 books, Adventure in Diplomacy: Our French Dilemma (ISBN 1932512004) and Adventure in Diplomacy (World War II) (ISBN 0306707748). The blurb for the first book claims that the author is a "Harvard librarian turned U.S. diplomat in French North Africa during WW2". Uncle G 08:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kenneth Pendar is also mentioned in conjunction with the Office of Strategic Services, a search reveals, in Winks, Robin W. (1987). Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. New York: William Morrow. ISBN 0-688-07300-X., although that could be based solely upon Pendar's own book. Uncle G 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]
    • You can also find Pendar mentioned in David H. Lippman's World War 2 history here and here. Uncle G 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently appears well-referenced but the question is whether it can be expanded beyond a stub. A Google book search comes up with 80 references in 10 books including one in the Hinge of Fate by Winston Churchill. [33]

Apparently, he hosted Churchill and Roosevelt after the conference at Marrakesh. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Alive

[edit]

Verification is my first concern. Google returns quite a few times the phrase is used, but not as the subject of a report by a reliable source. Google news has it lots of times in lists of organisations, or CVs, but not on it's own. If we cannot write an unbiased article due to a dearth of sources, we can't have an article. I'm also unconvinced as to this organization's signifigance. brenneman {L} 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As far as the links go, I think you'll find lots more links to their old website at youthalive.org.au or various state sites (since it's more done state by state) than the new web site which only started earlier this year. I'm not sure how relevant that is anyway. Agreed that it did read like an advertisement, but Nath's edit today makes it read a lot better in my opinion. -Jasonb 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm probably biased because of my involvement with Youth Alive :) but I think it's notable because it is the largest interdenominational youth ministry network in Australia I believe (definately in Western Australia) - in Christian circles pretty much everyone at least knows about Youth Alive. I'd be happy to expand it with my knowledge (however I believe that might qualify as original research? Can someone clarify that?). -Jasonb 13:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group puts on the largest youth oriented events across Australia every year. The article isn't up to standard but it's inclusion in wikipedia is notable. If this article is worthy of being deleted what about other Christian youth movements in Australia like Planetshakers? Nath85 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Not clear that this group is notable. I think that it could be, but the article does not convince me. If the article is improved to fix this concern that my vote would change. Vegaswikian 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recent changes to the article and the apparent notability of the subject matter seem to merit its inclusion into wikipedia. would like to see more sources though. Jaems 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable. Pedia-I Project St.Theres a 21:12, 24 October 2024 UTC [refresh]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dramatic Life (song)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nehwyn 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Topaz

[edit]

Fan-made Pokémon game Nehwyn 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Culture of the Philippines - Yomanganitalk 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Society

[edit]

Article is extremely POV, has tons of original research, and generally not encylopedic Chicbicyclist 06:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mvnforum

[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google hits out the wazoo (3.6 million!) and while that by itself isn't reason enough to keep, looking through the first few pages of results shows it's widely used (for example, the official Puzzle Pirates forum uses it). Google Books shows it has a paragraph in Dan Woods' Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks Reaping Rewards (O'Reilly, ISBN 0596101198) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind, but the article needs work. - Lex 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macabre (guild)

[edit]

This online guild's only claim to notability is that "the majority of it is made up of Holywood [sic] actors". No sources are provided for this, of course, but the article asserts that "this fact will be the cover feature of an upcoming issue of Entertainment Weekly." Sure. Delete as non-notable online megalomania (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB etc.). Contested PROD. Sandstein 07:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game animals

[edit]

Previous AfD. The concept of this list is hopeless, as animals have been a staple of video games arguably since Donkey Kong; so either you add a "notable" disclaimer (and open up WP:NPOV issues) or the list becomes unmaintainable. Frankly, I'm baffled how it was voted a Keep so strongly the first time around, so I'm throwing in my own Delete vote. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob64

[edit]

Delete as being NN. Nice article, Extremely interesting take on chart success, but unfortunately fails WP:MUSIC by our boring conventional definitions. Case precedence: debate on MB (singer). Ohconfucius 07:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Firstly, in WP:MUSIC, it is stated that an artist should release two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). It fails to meet this criteria (and other criterias as well) as the artist in question has only released one album so far and the other two albums are just singles. Secondly, a google search provides almost no links to the subject in question (correct me if I am wrong about this). Lastly, the major problem with this article is that it is not verifiable, which is a key policy on Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, musician who has only released music online (which takes little effort and doesn't require anything you release to be thought of as good by anyone else), and yet, just over 800 google hits for the name. Two online charts aren't really a claim of notability, when one of them is a geocities website (www.geocities.com/pb_chart2003/), I couldn't find any mention of the other anywhere. - Bobet 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Swanson

[edit]

Previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Swanson with not much input and before the discussion on pornography bio inclusion guidelines. According to IAFD this person appeared in four titles. Not listed on IMDB at all, no verifiable biographical data whatsoever, and actually not much evidence of unverifiable biographical data. It's pretty hard to verify anyhitng beyond her existence, which is, by common consent, not enough to allow a biography on Wikipedia. Guy 08:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Newsome

[edit]

Non-notable and poorly written article --Sirex98 08:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoPets

[edit]

GoPets doesnt appear to meet the WP:WEB notability standards required for listing in Wikipedia. Notability certainly isnt asserted in the artcle. In its current form therefore I suggest it should be deleted MidgleyDJ 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AquaZone

[edit]

Doesnt appear to be a notable software by Wikipedia standards (WP:SOFTWARE), the website 1 doesnt seem notable WP:WEB either. It's notability certainly isnt asserted. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 08:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage liquidators

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable spam or quasi-spam. No categories. Only internal link is incorrect (wrong type of liquidation). Only external link is a commercial site. Legis 09:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus/default keep. The closeness of her defeat makes an exception to the typical candidate requirements seem at least somewhat reasonable; since definitive consensus isn't here, this is a "when in doubt, don't delete" case. Xoloz 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Brinton

[edit]

Non-notable failed candidate doktorb wordsdeeds 09:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus - Yomanganitalk 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Reale

[edit]

Not convinced about the notability of the subject. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep beyblade entry is notable. NormR 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Yomanganitalk 09:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James K.A. Smith

[edit]

Contested prod, reason was "This may not be the best-formatted article, as it is my first. However, I think that it is necessary because while Smith holds the title of Associate Professor, he is relatively a young scholar with an already impressive body of work. In addition, he is publishing increasingly recognized popular works in his field." I still don't feel the article is notable. MER-C 10:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Bhatti

[edit]

This is a question as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient notability when there is no other coverage. If there has been an AfD on this point about Parliamentary candidates, please point me to it. Is a parliamentary candidate inherently notable? JASpencer 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. There was a comparable case recently, but it wasn't Carleschi. It was a Scottish candidate, though. BTLizard 11:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination)?
Yes, but I rarely say what I mean. It takes away all the surprise value. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, already transwikied. Xoloz 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buggins's turn

[edit]

The Phrase category and its subcategories tend to attract articles of questionable worth. I'm listing three here in order to generate some discussion. The first of these is 'Buggins turn', a phrase which attracts a grand total of 12 Google hits[36]. It's completely non-notable, as well as being a dicdef and a (mild) attack on Gordon Brown. Nydas 09:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. We have 4 delete/1 merge/1 keep/1 comment which has arguments for the retention, so this is in discretion area. I am calling this a delete decision, although evidence is sufficient to show that it is not a neologism invented here on Wikipedia, there is no evidence that this law or phrase has any widespread or popular use. As such, I cannot see that sufficient evidence for the term's notability has been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McLurg's Law

[edit]

The second of three phrase nominations I'm doing today. This is a 'law' referring to the bias of the UK media towards London, which gets 26 Ghits.[37] There is an article to be made about media bias in the United Kingdom; this isn't it. Nydas 09:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I agree that a page on media bias regarding main centres (and not just in the UK) is a good idea, this article seems to be either a neologism or a term in extremely limited use and as such it doesn't really belong here. Grutness...wha? 10:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure looks like a troll to me, but I have no familiarity with Journalism. Google shows only mirrored wiki content. /Blaxthos 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Half those hits are just Wiki mirrors. -Patstuart 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with news values. I've heard the "law" mentioned here in Australia in a journalism context, though not as "McLurg's Law", and with different proportions to those mentioned. "McLurg" might just be a journalism student who started the article. Or perhaps it was an editor who decided to convince some new underlings that he was particularly insightful. The concept may well deserve an article, but the name doesn't seem to be justified in recording. matturn 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unlikely that the name of the law has anything at all to do with Wikipedia editors, given that the documents mentioning the law, cited in the references section of the article, pre-date the very existence of Wikipedia by several years. Uncle G 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, the name does seem to appear in an independent article. On the other hand, there's not anything to indicate that the article cited is actually from 1994, other than the fact that the author put that in the references section. Dekimasu 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modifications if necessary. At least for a while. This is a touchy area, particularly for indexing. At least three index labels seem to apply to the entire area with plenty of conflict between "trade" and "academic" applications.
    • News Values From a journalist or editors prospective - sifting through potential news stories and rejecting most based on low news value. Selecting only stories that offer high “news values” improves circulation/audience. Since the profit to the media comes from monetizing that circulation/audience base there is a strong motivation to select content that maximizes News Value.
    • Gatekeeping - perhaps a broader, more academic topic.
    • Journalism – Objectivity This an index entry applied to the main academic article used to create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_value. Again, this may be broader in the “objectivity” sense but more narrow or more “professional/trade” in the “journalism” sense.
    • To further complicate maters most of the content on the News Values page is from cognitive psychology/perception/mind-brain research, etc. The "street smart" application of which is called, in the news trade, "news value."Rick 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imbesi's Law of the Conservation of Filth

[edit]

Another non-notable 'law', this time with 28 Google hits.[38] The article freely admits that there are no sources for this adage, but claims that it is 'quoted extensively' in the context of environmental cleanups. I would suggest that little-used environmental jargon is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Nydas 09:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Bleakley

[edit]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion as nn-bio. Put it on AfD instead abakharev 10:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kutty

[edit]

Was on Speedy. I think it should go through AfD. abakharev 10:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Crompton

[edit]

The article was on speedy as NN-BIO. I think it should go through AfD abakharev 10:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, unsourced hoax. NawlinWiki 12:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Souperman

[edit]

Looks like Hoax. The article was on speedy abakharev 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep - afd is not a forum for content disputes; nomination possibly WP:POINT-making. Thryduulf 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

[edit]

Previous AfDs:

Angela Beesley is not a notable individual, especially since she left the Foundation. On its own this would not be enough to justify renomination for deletion (as it has failed several other listings under this reasoning}, but the double standard inherent in creating a bio of a non-notable person has allowed very close patrolling of this article to prevent addition of material perceived as negative (for Angela Beesley or Wikipedia) using the argument that it is not notable, while maintaining wikicruft (e.g. here). This has made editing the article unworkable and it would be best to just accept the non-notability of Angela Beesley and delete it. Coroebus 11:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Too many people editing the article is not a valid reason for deletion. If this is a problem that the article could be protected. Catchpole 14:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is that the double standards in having an article for someone who isn't really notable makes maintaining the page impossible - no reasoned arguments can be had as to what aspects of the individuals biography are worth including (notable) because the subject isn't notable in the first place. --Coroebus 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion nomination is spillover from a content dispute between Coroebus (talk · contribs), Thebainer (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs) and others over whether content sourced from a web log, an opinion piece, and from Andrew Orlowski belongs in the article. For the full discussion, see Talk:Angela Beesley and the article's edit history. The article is being nominated for deletion by an editor who wishes to add to it, an inherent contradiction. The editor even re-added the disputed content at the same time as adding the AFD notice. AFD is not a means for resolving content disputes, for which Talk:Angela Beesley and Wikipedia:Requests for comment are the venues, and clearly the nominator, by xyr very actions at the time of nomination, does not in fact want the article deleted. Speedy keep. Uncle G 15:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have always been opposed to the existence of the article (e.g. here) but didn't nominate for deletion before because it had already been listed (and kept) under the non-notability objection. I am listing it again now as I feel that the content dispute is a direct result of the non-notability of the article subject, and is an additional reason to delete (i.e. not only is she non-notable, but that non-notability makes sourcing the article and resolving what should and shouldn't be in it impossible). So the article contains discussion of where she went to university, but not her attempts to get her article deleted, despite no references for the former, and mentions in the Register and The Guardian for the latter ([40][41][42][43]). --Coroebus 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - her notability hasn't changed since the last AFD and this is not a forum for content disputes. Yomanganitalk 16:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Jack

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Much of this article is trivia, with the claims to notability unreferenced. There are claims of being covered in non-trivia works, but they are unreferenced. The releases are unavailable on Amazon and Ghits is zero (or well hidden). Probably vanity. The JPStalk to me 11:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under new CSD. No assertion of notability, and is spam. The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Save Real Estate

[edit]

Spam. Speedy is contested abakharev 11:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooched

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The album cover doesn't look exactly professional, and the article doesn't claim it's charted. Unreferenced, and obvious tone problems (the latter could be fixed, but not worth it). The JPStalk to me 11:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was. Delete, unsigned anon discounted. Xoloz 21:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Before It Happens

[edit]

Fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (songs), having not being in the Top 20, and has not been in the Top 100 for six months. Not even the author(s) of this article have bothered to write anything about this. Largely a contentless article about a song that no-one's heard about. Not even its singer has an article!! Delete The JPStalk to me 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRCQuotes

[edit]

IRCQuotes nominated for deletion per the following reasons:

  1. Notability - WP:NOTABILITY (unnoteable)
  2. References - WP:CITE & WP:WEB (zero citations)
  3. Original Research - WP:OR (no references exist, that i can tell)

/Blaxthos 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever-Team

[edit]

Seems like corporate spam, but company is assertedly large enough that I figured there needed to be discussion here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NawlinWiki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites by number of visitors

[edit]

As the article says: "These figures are not authoritative", "self-selected group of web users", and "may not accurately represent internet users as a whole". In any case, the date given is 6 August 2006, so it is already out-of-date. Is there an intention or possibility of updating? This seems to be another pointless list. Emeraude 12:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Step

[edit]

Reasonnn Dfoley51 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 13:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read in my crystal ball that this will be deleted as crystal ballery. Whispering 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can understand the interest in this actually-performed song. However WP:MUSIC/SONG appears to tie our hands. Unless perhaps it is frequently discussed in the press, that could save it. Curiously, you can hear the song at [45] which appears to be a 'quasi-legal' download because a connection between the site and Radiohead is hinted. However, since the song is not in a released album we don't normally make an article for it, and even then, perhaps only for the album. EdJohnston 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Geary

[edit]

Not notable in any way.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Intent

[edit]

Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. Google finds no adequately reliable sources for this subject.--M8v2 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 13:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:RS. This was de-prod'd about a week ago by someone saying they would find sources; however, they have not done so. Googling only brings up the usual FilePlanet links and forum links every mod brings up. Wickethewok 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I only have a limited amount of time I can dedicate to Wikipedia, I've been spending most of my time at the Arch Coal DRV, because frankly, it's a lot more interesting. No, I haven't come around to Hostile Intent yet, but I'd prefer a few weeks, it's not like I live here. In the meantime I have multiple print references in PC Zone for Front Line Force and a full page roundtable discussion on Urban Terror. Note that I only have PC Zone magazines archived from around 2000 - 2003. - Hahnchen 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Untill some sources (outside of vanity website) are added... PC Zone would do if some articles ABOUT hostile Intent are added. (just a mention is inssuficiant) ---J.S (t|c)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Co-op

[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE. None notable. Vanity. --M8v2 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - OK this is a malformed AFD, but I'm going to comment on it anyway. Will you please give me some time to integrate reliable sources into the article. This was and is one of the most popular Half-Life mods around, being that it was the only mod which catered for cooperative multiplayer for Half-Life. It still has some residual popularity now, with currently 200 players in game this second (this is during a trough in general player numbers on Steam, I do not know what the peak is). I've made similar comments on your AFD for Science and Industry. Reliable Sources for this can be found, and I will be integrating them into the article when I have time. Just a quick Google threw up these links on PCZone, a print magazine which archives a lot of their stuff online [46][47][48]. - Hahnchen 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Defintely notable amoung Half-Life fans. Delta Tango | Talk 04:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Most delete votes argue that it's original research and unsourced, yet references have been added and the concept is really old. And it's provenly not a neologism since google scholar gives you hits from the 1950s. - Bobet 10:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full-reserve banking

[edit]

Delete I'm going on a limb here but I *think* this is OR - all of the links I can find are either to places sourcing the wikipedia entry or places which cite it as how we can get full employment - that sets off my crank detector. However I could be entirely wrong and this could a very well-known theory. Charlesknight 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which citations? The first seems to be to what appeared to a paper hosted on a university server (and as staff are generally given space that doesn't mean an awful lot) and the second takes us to a site that claims The Trade Reference Currency (TRC) TM is a new currency privately issued by the TRC Alliance, with a built-in circulation incentive that could play a significant role in getting the world out of recession. Its unit of account is the Terra. It would systematically stabilize the effects on the business cycle and re-align financial interests with long-term sustainability. I don't quite see how either are particular reliable in the context they are presented. --Charlesknight 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
further to my earlier comment - I cannot find any reference to "full-reserve banking" within the academic literature. Anyone else? --Charlesknight 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Full-reserve banking" generates 1 hit on Google Book Search [49], but this cannot be viewed. It also generates 3 hits at Google Scholar [50]. However, from what I understand of these, they appear to be passing mentions. Weak delete. Thryduulf 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply some references where it is discussed in economics peer-reviewed journals and the like? --Charlesknight 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be merged with "currency board" article, if it exists. Think http://www.dollarization.org maybe a source for contents. (vitor py, vitopy at gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.156.96.235 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Full-reserve banking is a proper topic in economics. If there is any problem with the content of the article, fix the article, but do not delete, for God´s sake.Randroide 11:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent so you can point me towards a source in the academic literature - just rhe first one or two that comes to mind will be fine. --Charlesknight 09:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to better-sourced recreation. It seems this is a fringe economic theory with some crankish-sounding proponents, as pointed out in the nom. Determinative, here, is that what sources we have are the proponents' websites and a HTM paper on someone's server somewhere. We find no reference to any mainstream media or serious economic literature that discuss it (if only to refute it). Until any such sources appear, it must be presumed non-notable. Sandstein 09:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept of full reserve banking is an essential one at least to understanding economic history and banking systems. It is plenty debatable to what extent it has ever existed, ought to exist, exists, or will exist, but as a concept it is pretty well defined, and the debate is interesting enough to be documented in its own right.
Notice how I'm asking the same question over and over without answer? so YOU can point towards it's mention in the academic economic literature or a economics textbook or something similar? --Charlesknight 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak) only with banners - added banners NPOV / unreferenced (to a good academic paper) - this would appear to be either a core piece of economics (hence good paper easy), or vapourware - let the editors decide
  • Delete as unverifiable. It's WP:OR or WP:NEO or both. Most GHits for this term are wiki-mirrors of these article, and the references provided in the article are not credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Treat

[edit]

I initially prodded this article based on non-notability. The Prod tag failed because someone thought Casey Treat was notable. He had a local radio show in the 70s. He started a redlinked Christian Center in the 80s that had a 30 person congregation, some redlinked local Christian schools, and a redlinked lecture series. He also has authored a dozen books and audiotapes (all redlinked I presume). Maybe I am missing the notable part, so I am taking this to vote. I sincerely apologize if I have missed something, but I still feel this individual is NN. Andrew c 22:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder no one had commented. Sorry about that, I've done this a few times before, and I was following instructions so I must have done something really dumb. Thanks for fixing it, DumbBOT. (ha).--Andrew c 14:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. He has a huge following with 2 churches and local tv coverage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.66 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 October 2006.

  • Delete. Google did find one article about Casey Treat in the Seattle Weekly for 11/5/03. [51]. I think that multiple mentions in the mainstream press would qualify him for inclusion, but this one reference in a weekly paper is probably not sufficient. EdJohnston 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - the only thing that seems clear here is nobody is advocating outright deletion. Merge discussions can take place on the talk pages. Yomanganitalk 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twila Tanner

[edit]

Not notable outside the show, like many other contestants TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 13:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am also nominating the following related pages because these contestants aren't notable either. Most only have their birthdate, job, and Survivor history. Also, as a comparison, most seasons of The Amazing Race only have one to three contestants with pages, if any (seasons 2 has none). That's 2-3 out of 22. Most Survivor seasons have at least 15 out of 16 contestants with their own pages.:


I am also nominating Anh Tuan Bui, because it is a copy of Cao Boi, his nickname, which is also up for deletion.


In almost all the articles, all it has is name, hometown, birthdate, job, placing, and alliances. If the person looking for info know their name, they most know their alliances and placing from seeing the show. The rest of the info wouldn't even be there if they weren't on Survivor because before it, they were never heard of, and after it, it's not like they started acting or did something major. The ones that did, I didn't nominate, like Janu Torell, who was in some beauty contest. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your main concern is that there isn't enough information for articles on these contestants, then why don't you work to improve the articles instead of deciding to delete them all? - Lex 04:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why they make articles about fictional character. Also, there are some articles like "Locations in [name of TV show]".TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whom to keep and whom to merge with their season?

[edit]

Because Survivor is a much more noted show than the Amazing Race, it is easy to see why there are so many more pages devoted to its players. Incidentally, there has been only one season following Pearl Islands in which there were 16 contestants.

Keep:

Delete (or merge with the pages linking to their respective seasons):

Just because someone is notable only for the show means does not mean no significant history can be provided on them. However, the show has regressed to the point where it is little more than a jungle version of Your Big Break. Messy Thinking 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Contribs[reply]

  • Keep: (1) As I read WP:BIO, the nominees are subject to multiple non-trivial media coverage, and are therefore notable. See generally my comments to Cao Boi.[52] (2) The fact that they are only notable for one thing doesn't make them non-notable -- a lot of people are only notable for a single thing. (3) Maybe a few of them should go, but there's no way to debate individual merits on a list this long. (4) [[Anh Tuan Bui should certainly be redirected to Cao Boi, but we can't erase the article and replace with a redirect while there's an AFD tag on it. TheronJ 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand where you're coming from, Teckwiz, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse. IMHO, if you think that reality show contestants who competed in a single show should not be notable, I would personally prefer it if you first (1) put together a consensus in favor of your proposal at WP:BIO; (2) edited WP:BIO to reflect the consensus, and then, (3) nominated the pages that didn't meet the new consensus. TheronJ 00:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with User:Messy Thinking (Delete vote tables in all articles; who voted for whom is not relevant, even in the context of the episode.) List only those in more than one season, those who won the season, those who have significant notability in the play of the season, or those with some other reason for notability. (In other words, I'd probably delete Matthew Von Ertfelda if the reasons given for keeping are correct.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete/merge selected list per Messy Thinking. Otherwise, this is destined for a train wreck. Most of the articles are of very poor quality in general and in serious need of rewrite if they are to be kept. Furthermore content is highly trivial, mostly about their antics on the show, and temps me to delete the lot, but I'll bite my tongue. Ohconfucius 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All: Survivor is extremely popular. And, with a few excpetions, most of the Survivors with pages made the merge and are among the more well known from their season. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment the show may be deserving of an article, but does each contestant ? Based on the quality and content, one summary article which outlines their interactions in each episode would be preferable, tell the story more coherently, and be a lot less messy. Ohconfucius 03:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. In terms of ratings, Survivor is the most successful reality show of all time. Love it or hate it, the show is still a pop culture phenomenon. Therefore its contestants are notable enough to have articles on this site. -- Freemarket 03:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To you they may be notable, but look at their articles. They're small and contain almost nothing. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they're stubs. So leave 'em be, and they'll be expanded when they can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Survivor contestants are notable enough to have their own articles. If The Early Show dedicates a segment to each contestant each week, then obviously they're well-known to a wide range of people. Sure, some contestants are more famous and well-known than others, but every single contestant gets an interview on The Early Show, so I feel that all of these contestants are notable enough to have their own articles. A-Supreme 23:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this segment is pretty small (5 min usually). Also, this is only because Survivor and Early Show are both CBS shows. You don't see the contestants on ABC, NBC or anything. In comparison, when the president speaks, his speech is carried on CBS, even though he has no affiliation with them. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 01:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - Yomanganitalk 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asphyxiant gas

[edit]

under the definition given, all non-toxic gases except oxygen are asphyxiant, which makes the term fairly useless, and dooms the article to be either forever a stub or a huge, pointless list of gases Sam Clark 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - in its current form, it looks like a list which can obviously never be complete as per the intro dicdef. However, asphyxiant gases have medical/toxicologic importance and an article which discusses more of the effects and precautions necessary to avoid asphyxiation would actually make a valuable article. I will work on it! InvictaHOG 14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what we get when editors don't cite sources. An asphyxiant gas has a specific definition, in the worlds of medicine and safety, distinct from a respiratory irritant gas, a flammable gas, and a toxic gas. See this, this, and this, for examples. A merger to an article whose scope is broader and incorporates all of these is probably in order, however. Uncle G 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article. It can certainly have some linkage from hazardous material and dangerous goods, which themselves should be merged! InvictaHOG 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for deletion is WP:WINAD. I've rewritten the article now, and the definition is basically an elaboration of a gas that causes asphyxia. Despite my and your efforts, the article remains a stub (as predicted), and if you now compare with asphyxia, it's mostly duplication. Further, if we were to remove all asphyxiant gas from asphyxia, it becomes weak. Widefox 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also -it's worse than Sam Clark says, it's not just non-toxic gases, but toxic too (to some extent), which I'm guessing opens the flood gates. I've updated wiktionary, as it had a clearly false definition. I'd appreciate wikionary being fixed up with a better definition than my fix. Widefox 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also, just fixed Asphyxia page, and while re-putting in link to this page, made me realise that article is also incorrectly named Asphyxiant gases. Asphyxiant gas as per guideline. I came across the page from anti-vandal work. Widefox 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the move of this page to simply asphyxiant gas. I'm not sure why we should consider merging this with asphyxia - we have separate articles about erotic asphyxia, positional asphyxia, Ondine's curse, etc. I do not have much knowledge about these areas, but I think that this article should include information about proper storage, relevant handling rules, and other mechanisms used to prevent exposure to asphyxiant gases. I don't feel that can (or should) be adequately covered in an umbrella asphyxia article. InvictaHOG 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten whole article, and while it has some merit, the more I researched it, the more I can see that the only way to grow the article is to list examples of types of Asphyxiant gas deaths. These are also repetition of Asphyxia. Despite being the major author now, I still say merge, and only when Asphyxia it too large, split off. Note that we're exposed to these gases with every breath! It is a misnomer that this is some category of gas, but rather defined by what causes Asphyxia. That is the best definition I've found. Widefox 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion for expansions sake, or to justify an article is not warranted as far as I can see. Already, this article is misleading people into thinking this is a separate issue to asphyxia, a property of a gas, which it isn't, the definition is asphyxia, the article should be in asphyxia, else it is misleading (like thinking that it is some kind of toxicity). Similarly we do not need a page for asphyxiant liquids, asphyxiant solids (mining accidents), asphyxiant activities - all lists. Right now, at your keyboard, you are breathing mostly asphyxiant gas! Widefox 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asphyxiant solids and liquids are neologisms created by you for the purpose of this debate. Asphyxiant gas, however, is a valid and useful scientific and medical concept. InvictaHOG 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless the article is rewritten with a different definition. The definition in the article includes every gaseous substance in the universe except pure O2. While it is true that any of those gases could cause asphyxia, do we need an article stating that gases which are not oxygen reduce oxygen concentration? -Amarkov babble 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition: It is just a gas that causes asphyxia.
"that causes asphyxia" seems to be unneccesarily complicated. "It is just a gas that isn't oxygen" is much clearer, and means the same thing, as any gas can produce a lack of oxygen. -Amarkov babble 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are 2 ways to look at this article. Chemistry or Medicine. The latter is used, as per term usage (health hazard). In terms of chemistry, sure I agree with you, which is why to balance the article, I've added as much chemistry in as possible. If there was any chemistry to the term, it would be valid as a separate article from Asphyxia!. Widefox 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to include sections on handling and the history of asphyxiant gases. As can be seen, the article is about much more than simple asphyxia and would simply not be appropriate as a subsection of that article, which should have much more accurate information than it does now. The recognition and identification of asphyxiant gases goes hand in hand with the history of respirators, mine safety, and OSHA regulation of industry. There is still quite a bit that can be added to each section and I invite everyone to add what they can! InvictaHOG 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's still stupid. An article whose subject includes every single gas in the universe but one is too broad. If the definition of asphyxiant gas in the first sentence is wrong, then by all means, fix it so we can end this stupid debate. But if it isn't, any information in this article belongs Asphyxia or Gas. We do not need a page for gases not called oxygen. What's next, List of Asphyxiant Gases? -Amarkov babble 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on things - first of all, it sounds like we need a rewrite of the definition if you are coming away with this understanding. Many gases that are not oxygen are toxic to humans and are not the subject of this article. The number of gases which truly are asphyxiant risks is actually quite small - in practical terms, only gases which occur naturally or are concentrated and used in industrial/scientific purposes have a chance to cause asphyxia. No one is asking for a list of asphxiant gases, so let's please avoid straw men. And, whether it makes sense to everyone or not, asphyxiant gas is a medical and industrial concept which is the subject of both medical research and industrial oversight. Opposition to an article on such an established concept should automatically, IMHO, lead to opposition to many of the pages linked to the asphyxia main page such as erotic asphyxia, positional asphyxia, breathing gas, pulmonary agent, etc. Take a look at breathing gas - it is the exact opposite of this article. In essence, the definition is simply a mixture of gas which contains oxygen and inert gas. The same arguments could be used in its deletion. Yet, as you can see, a nice article discussing the common breathing gases (as opposed to every single possible combination in list form) and their uses. I believe that the expansion of this to include governmental policy vis a vis asphyxiant gases and the history of asphyxiant gases now added to the article are not likely to fit well into either the gas or asphyxia article. In short, I think that redirection/deletion is misguided. InvictaHOG 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not rewrite the definition. That definition is the best one I've seen, combining partial definitions from a handful of sources (encyclopaedias, gas suppliers, dictionaries). In the end, the article has no merit in itself - It is just a gas that causes asphyxia! but has merit in asphyxia - Some non-oxygen gases will kill you before that, so it is not all gases but 1! Widefox 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear your thoughts about the points that I raised in my discussion. In addition, it would be nice if you would avoid bolding as you did above. It can be construed as rude or yelling and it's much nicer to have a calm discussion about the merits of the article. InvictaHOG 00:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite a good source for an alternate definition, then do so and rewrite the article. Nobody can prevent you from doing that. However, the fact remains, the article is useless as it stands. -Amarkov babble 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will just use italic today! block-capitals = shouting (per norm), and emphasis vital (for brevity) - see the line below this text box as example. InvictaHOG's new definition is fine, although the toxicity is a distraction (but correct in term of a verifiable definition). I bet there's a load of toxic gases that kill you slower than Asphyxiation! That's why it's such a bad article - it has asphyxia at it's core. As to the number of gases, you're not narrowing it down by saying natural or man-made! So, just because you've got me going now, is a vacuum an asphyxia gas? (or part-vacuum) it's non-toxic, not enough oxygen. See what I mean, it's not a property, but more a lack of life-supporting property. There's a borderline case which is interesting that I don't know the answer to - exhaled breath - does that count? InvictaHOG - you included a ref about this - about avalanches - and directing exhaled breath away from separate air intake pocket. There wasn't enough info in the online ref, and I wasn't sure if that counts, so I removed it as discussed before. Surely it's asphyxia (not gas), because it's using the oxygen, not displacing/replacing the atmosphere. I'd like to know the answer. OK, back to your comments above... as to the other articles, I'll check them tomorrow. You've done a good job justifying it, but you must know yourself it's a bit speculative, what with the overlap. regards Widefox 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see that there's much overlap in the subjects. Asphyxia is about the medical condition, and this article is about the gases which cause it. I mean, the article on asphyxia would have no buisness mentioning handling procedures for asphyxiant gases. -Amarkov babble 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exhaled breath in a closed space actually creates a gas mixture which can be considered an asphyxiant gas. The same is true of other chemical processes in an enclosed space (such as rusting!) I'm going to be adding references soon about the oxygen and carbon dioxide amounts which are inherently dangerous in gas mixtures. I have a different (and more to the point) reference on avalanches that I was looking to add back into the article. As for a vacuum - no it causes trauma in a separate way. There are obviously always gas molecules in any vacuum, so I can see where it might be confusing. InvictaHOG 09:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(exhaled air) - sure creation, but it's also using the oxygen up (same as a fire), so it's not a displacement or dilution of the air, but a selective processing of it, hence not fitting the wording of definition (or the spirit of it), and is a borderline case. There's 2 separate cases - 1. using up the oxygen (asphyxia) vs. 2. displacement of air due to gas flow in situation (CO2 from a. fire sinking into a basement one may be sheltering in, b. porous (snow with small breathing holes) with the exhaled gas. This 10% CO2 ref I put in also comes into it - not sure why 10% lethal as logically if CO2 is an asphyxiant gas the % is irrelevant (cf. Nitrogen 78%!). This is a question for the interaction of CO2 with body that is not for me. Widefox 13:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge - Yomanganitalk 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History (Madonna song)

[edit]

A non-album Madonna song relegated to the B-side of an upcoming single release. No music video, no chart action, no notable reason for an encyclopedia entry. eo 13:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the single's page. Is the B-side of a charting single (according to the page for the A-side) notable? Is it POV-pushing to assume that the chart action is due to the A-side? I don't know. Anyway, the page for the A-side isn't long, and there's no reason this can't be cleaned up and moved over there as interesting information about the single release. Dekimasu 10:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We don't need separate articles for every single B-side ever released, and Madonna songs are not automatically notable enough for their own pages. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course it can be mentioned on the "Jump" page as the b-side, but there's really very little content to merge. All singles can have their b-sides mentioned, but what is there to say about this one? Delete and just set up a redirect in its place. GassyGuy 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chooka

[edit]

Dict def can can never really be more than that. Possibly even attack article, but it's borderline. Contested prod, by the author, and this is the only article to which he's contributed. eaolson 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Brooks

[edit]

Non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF Sam Clark 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (energy dispersal)

[edit]

One person's theory, out of line with textbook physics. --Pjacobi 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That the thermodynamic arrow of time goes from macrostates with lower number of microstates to those with (enormously) higher number of microstates is standard textbook stuff. This can be attributed to any number of Nobel laureates and should not be attributed to Lambert. How the energy comes into the picture seems to be the private part of this private theory, but even if the meaning can be illuminated, the notability has to be assessed. --Pjacobi 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As others have noted, this is not original research in Wikepedia policy terms. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - per original research; the author of this concept has been pushing his views onto talk pages (see Talk:Entropy and Talk:Entropy/Archive3) and articles for two months now. Articles about his websites also went through the Afd process (click here) a month or two ago ago. --Sadi Carnot 15:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Afd process just cited by Sadi was the deletion debate [53] for Entropy Sites that closed July 1. EdJohnston 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep and re-write with references citing the article and books this concept is used in (I see it is already going in that direction). I did some research and this energy dispersal theory was conceived by Oxford physical chemist Peter Atkins sometime before 1984. His 1984 very popular book the Second Law is entirely devoted to the non-mathematical interpretation of entropy in terms of “energy dispersion.” I saw this book referenced at least five times in other books before I actually bought this book. The book is written assuming the reader has no scientific background; thus the theory is based on verbal conjectures. He conceives of a intelligent being called “Boltzmann’s Demon” who relentlessly runs around re-organizing and dispersing energy and then goes on to show how Boltzmann’s “W” from his probability equation relates to energy dispersion, which transmits via atomic vibrations and collisions and other verbal arguments. Atkins restates the second law as: “energy tends to disperse”. He states: “each atom carries kinetic energy, and the spreading of the atoms spreads the energy…the Boltzmann equation therefore captures the aspect of dispersal: the dispersal of the entities that are carrying the energy.” This is all I can add for the moment. My internet service will be down for two weeks due to phone-line rewiring issues. I’ll put a good presentation of Atkins’ theory into the article when I’m back. To summarize, I suggest we keep this article; although the concept is not mainstream and although it is only a verbal approximation, skipping over any mathematical details, I think it needs to be kept so that the novice or new student to the subject knows who started this idea. --Sadi Carnot 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As others have noted, this is not original research in Wikepedia policy terms. The AfD was for a stub giving only links to the websites (created by a user not involved in these articles), and as such was rightly deleted..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though the description of entropy as "useless energy" cracked me up. There may be a point in here related to accessibility of microstates, but this is OR, essentially vanity, and self-admittedly inaccurate ('in complex cases the qualitative relation of energy dispersal to entropy change can be so inextricably obscured that it is moot'). Opabinia regalis 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep for now and rehash the appropriate presentation of this material elsewhere, per FrankLambert's list of textbooks and the fact that the worst of this article was apparently added by one of the delete voters. This still strikes me as a particularly egregious Lie-to-children but if it's notable, so be it. Opabinia regalis 05:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Deletion is not the way to go, as this idea is becoming important in the way entropy is taught to chemists. I am inclined to keep until we can sort out a better way to incorporate this material. It may be out of line with textbook physics but it is not out of line with current textbook chemistry. --Bduke 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a common textbook that uses this concept? The article claims it has been adopted in textbooks but doesn't cite which ones (never a good sign). I haven't run across this idea before but I hope that, if it is becoming common, the article is just a poorly written explication of it. I can't see that this concept is even intelligible for any serious application. Opabinia regalis 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that info is forthcoming...had Jacobi not been so hasty in nomming this article ( less than 24 hours after Sadi created it), the issue of publication history would have been resolved without all of this nonsense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Damn, seems like the idea has "infected" (to use Sadi's misplaced term) entropy: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].
That's fine, but where are the published and commonly used textbooks? A few professors mentioning the words "energy" and "dispersal" in the same sentence doesn't mean this idea has wide currency. Opabinia regalis 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're avoiding the question. Are there any textbooks in common use that explain entropy this way? Opabinia regalis 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the list as requested and have noted that these books are aimed at school and undergraduate use. Several appear to be in widespread use, and in particular "Atkins" published by Oxford University Press in the UK and W. H. Freeman in the U.S. seems to have international standing. In all cases the analogy is used to introduce entropy as part of a more comprehensive course. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I sympathise with the desire to find intuitive ways to explain entropy, which is a thorny concept if I've ever encountered one. However, I can't see any use for this particular viewpoint except perhaps a couple sentences in another article: "One can roughly imagine a system's entropy as a measure of the degree to which its energy is 'spread out' or not available for useful work," etc. Unless I see evidence that this viewpoint has been adopted as the primary definition of entropy in a significant number of textbooks by different authors then I say we spread this article out itself. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out the merits of different vague analogies; let the people who are paid to do that try for that dubious prize. Anville 17:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the list which has been added as requested: reputable science authors have adopted the analogy as suitable and as a significant improvement on their previous use of "disorder". ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is not one person's view, and this crusade needs to stop. Interesting that the creator of the article has voted to delete it -- official sanction for suppression, perhaps? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense and claptrap. Although entropy may seem confusing to young students, it has a very crisp and unambiguous definition. Actually, it has several; starting in mathematics, one has topological entropy, information entropy, Kolmogorov entropy and the like and these have all been shown to be essentially one and the same thing as the entropy measured by chemists and physicists. Entropy has a deep and broad and established theory, and trying to argue that its somehow "wrong" is declaring intellectual kinship to "Einstein was wrong about relativity". linas 04:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Special or General? The point is not that the theory of 2LOT, or of entropy, is wrong, but that it has been taught incorrectly (the same has been true of both theories of relativity). Entropy is taught as equaling (an increase in) chaos and disorder -- and that definition is patent nonsense.
  • As an aside, relativity never became what Eistein had hoped -- the great theory of everything. Within a generation, relativity was in a battle with quantum theories, with Einstein strongly opposing these theories for quite some time. Today they live side-by-side in relative (no pun) peace, although string and M-theory cast some additional doubts. (Oh, BTW, less than 120 years ago the mantra would have been, "that's like someone saying Newton was wrong about his three laws". Well, in a sense he was -- relativity better explains the same phenomena -- and yet his formulae are still used today because they are close enough for general purposes.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps a more focused critique: The article itself has objectionable language:
... he proposed that the confusing portrayal of entropy as "disorder" be abandoned.
!? Entropy as the logarithm of "disorder" is the fundamental definition entrenched in mathematics, and in mathematical physics, and in information theory, and etc. How can this be abandoned? What is it to be replaced by?
In this approach the statistical interpretation is related to quantum mechanics, ...
This appears to be a vacant, mumbo-jumbo appeal to mysterious science. Yes, its true that, in deep, subtle ways, statistical mechanics resembles quantum field theory; however, the exposition of this resemblance is pretty much beyond the reach of any undergrad, much less a beginner chem student. What purpose does such an appeal serve, other than to try to bask in the glow and aura of quantum mechanics?
The subject remains subtle and difficult, and in complex cases the qualitative relation of energy dispersal to entropy change can be so inextricably obscured that it is moot.
Ouch. Classic weasel words, frequently found in the apologia of cranky writings. Can usually be paraphrased as "the author got confused by the difficulty of the topic" or "the author has no clue what they're writing about". Highly inappropriate for beginning students.
And finally, the idea seems ambiguous for the classic textbook example of a refrigerator. Say I'm releasing hot compressed gas through an expansion nozzle. So I'm "dispersing energy", right? The gas cools. Have I increased entropy? Decreased it? I don't know what this intuitive idea is supposed to offer here ... linas 05:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of my earlier paraphrasing for the entropy article and Sadi's edits in creating this fork has evidently lost the clarity which appears in the much longer explanations on Lambert's websites. Article revised in a first attempt to address such misunderstandings. ..dave souza, talk
  • Delete -- the viewpoint is worthy of note, and not OR (in the WP sense). It has been presented in journal articles, taken up as a general gloss by some chemistry textbooks, and is widespread on the web. ("Entropy can be roughly understood as disorder; or as dispersal of energy"). Both of these rough understandings are worth a short discussion of their usefulness, applicability and limits, and/or a discussion of how a more sophisticated understanding of entropy may require words to be specifically defined in perhaps rather non-intuitive ways. However, the place for that discussion is in the main article on entropy, and it should be possible to summarise it well in a few lines. Devoting a whole article to it here is inappropriate overkill; equally inappropriate would be to try to ghettoise all discussion of it to here. The existence of this article is both unnecessary, and unhelpful. The discussion should return to the main article. Jheald 04:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may have a point regarding where the discussion should take place, however, given the manoeuvring by User:Sadi Carnot, one wonders if it wouldn't be best to leave the article as it is until the issue is resolved. See, Sadi Carnot created the article as a way of moving the discussion off of the entropy page, then voted to delete the article he created -- seeking, apparently, an official sanction for squelching a view with which he disagreed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I look at the article, besides the one reference to a 19th-century work by William Thomson, there is no citation of anything but Frank Lambert's own work. Wikipedia should report dispassonately on theories that have already managed to attain credibility. If the struggle is happening in the Wikipedia talk columns, then there must not be enough citations from the outside world. Come back when the struggle is won elsewhere. EdJohnston 16:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you looked at was a POV fork and attack article created by an opponent of the ideas. Revisions have made it clear that it is a teaching approach, not in any way an alternative theory. Others have used similar approaches involving "dispersal", for example Teaching about Energy Degradation is a Spanish work package prepared for the European Commission. Pleas reexamine the article as revised. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to a thorough rewrite. As Jheald rightly says this approach does not contravene WP:NOR. As an introductory teaching method presented as being fully compatible with standard textbook stuff it has achieved notability both on the web and in a significant number of chemistry textbooks. I agree with Jheald that there should be a brief discussion of the usefulness and applicability of this method in the main entropy article, pointing to any critical analysis and limitations of this approach as well as noting what usefulness it may have for those who find thermodynamic entropy easier to understand when directly related to energy and temperature. This page has been cobbled together by "Sadi Carnot" as part of a vitriolic campaign to hide these ideas. It misrepresents the ideas at present, but can be improved to give a reasonable properly sourced explanation of the merits and demerits of the approach in more detail than is appropriate on the main page. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and WP:NPOV requires that notable views should be represented fairly, proportionately and without bias, not censored so that only a particular orthodoxy is shown. ....dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See list in revised article. ..dave souza, talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This way of presentation doesn't make much sense. The text defines entropy as "energy dispersal", but it doesn't say what exactly "dispersal" means. More than once, this issue was discussed in Talk:Entropy, but Lambert wasn't able to give a precise definition. It seems that he gives the word "dispersal" different meanings in different cases, so that the connection between entropy and "energy dispersal" becomes not a scientific one, but only psychological. Because of the ambiguity in what is meant here by "energy dispersal", this content is not encyclopedic so it shouldn't be included (and it doesn't even matter whether it's original research or not, or whether it's appropriately referenced or not). Yevgeny Kats 20:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This AfD debate has been rushed through on the basis of a new article cobbled together by "Sadi Carnot", an opponent of the ideas presented. He included extracts from the entropy article including a wildy innaccurate statement presented as though it represented the "dispersal" view which had actually been introduced to the entropy article at 03:13, 6 October 2006 by 172.129.75.141.[66] and [67] He also included an unsourced biographical claim about Lambert conceiving "of a new view" which contradicts the presentation made by Lambert on his website, so I have commented it out. I've revised the intro to give a more neutral description in line with the cited sources: this is just a start on the revision work needed to make this an accurate well sourced article. I would hope that those who based their comments on the previous article will examine the evidence and reconsider. ...dave souza, talk 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - First of all, I am not a Wikipedia lawyer. The only thing that interests me is the validity of the theory. As it is presented in the web pages and the peer-reviewed journal articles, "energy dispersal" is never precisely, quantitatively defined and so its relationship to entropy change is never precisely described, at least for the entropy of mixing case, which presents the deepest problem for the theory. If energy dispersal could be defined satisfactorily, the question of whether it would give the theory a more solid grounding or less, I don't know right now. If I had to bet, I would say it would not (forgive me Frank Lambert).

As to the question of whether to keep the article or delete it, this is a lawyers question. In my mind, if the theory has gained as much currency as some have suggested, it would be worth keeping. If not, it should be deleted. If 70 percent of the people doubt the theory of evolution, that is enough to warrant a Wikipedia article discussing their doubts, whether those doubts are well founded or not. PAR 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: As far as i know, the number of biologists that doubt the theory of evolution is in the region of <0.5%. We have a whole suite of articles outlining the creationist position. Are we really up to 70% of all people doubt TOE? David D. (Talk) 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability - I've spent years studying entropy and never run into this vague notion of "entropy as energy dispersal". There are reasons why. One is that entropy is a fundamental notion that does not presuppose any concept of energy for its definition; the concept of "energy" or "Hamiltonian" applies to classical or quantum systems with time translation invariance", while "entropy" applies to all classical and quantum systems. So, no complete definition of entropy can refer to energy. Another is that no way of quantifying "energy dispersal" is given (at least not here), and entropy is above all a quantitative concept! In short, the explanation of entropy doesn't really explain the concept, so few people use it. I see only references to a few poorly known texts. John Baez 04:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've never heard of it" is a very poor basis for a delete position. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That very much depends on the person who states it. --Pjacobi 12:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. However, the list of textbooks and publications citing the work suggests Baez simply missed this. I'm with Opabinia regalis, above - whether its a lie-to-children, a notable presentation, or something else does not make it non-notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for everyone to note, two of those who want to keep Lambert's article and related theories (e.g. "entropy=dispersion not disorder"), i.e. User:Jim62sch and User talk:Dave souza, seem to be only doing this, based on their edit and comment history, for intelligent design purposes, what ever they are? On the second law of thermodynamics talk page, for example, User:Dave souza has stated that the second law of thermodynamics as stated by Rudolf Clausius in 1854, i.e. “heat cannot of itself pass from a colder body to a hotter body”, is now incorrect due to recent talk page discussions. He seems to think that Lambert's website theories are the correct ones rather than Clausius and he is the one that started this mess by adding 9 ref links to Lambert's website. Whatever the case, Souza’s views and edits are not scientific. Moreover, today I looked through my collection of entropy-related textbooks (70 thermodynamics textbooks, 7 physics textbooks, 5 biochemistry textbooks, 4 chemistry textbooks, 3 physical chemistry textbooks, and others) and the “energy dispersal” concept is not there neither is Frank Lambert. This is entirely a sideline website theory that happens to have good search rankings because the author has bought up all of the URLs related to entropy, e.g. ‘entropysimple.com’, ‘entropysite.com’, ‘2ndlaw.com’, ‘secondlaw.com’, etc., and in which he uses these to push out his own personal theories. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But, self-published website theories do not justify scientific correctness nor reasons to be included into the Wikipedia entropy article, which is from where all this mess is stemming. --Sadi Carnot 10:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadi, you have been warned before about personal attacks. Further, as you posted this after the long list of textbooks and notable papers was listed at Talk:Entropy#Non-notable?, you are aware it is NOT "self-published website theories". You are on thin ice here between your tag use vandalism, personal attacks, attack article creation and misleading posts. I suggest you back off and consider your attitude a little - perhaps edit something you don't have such a strong personal bias about. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for everyone to note -- Wow, this is the first time I've ever been accused of being an ID proponent....generally speaking, the criticism of my position on ID is at the other polar extreme. For those of you who've not paid a visit to Sadi's (Libb Thimms') personal web page (accessable through his Wiki user page) I suggest that you do so -- quite the eye-opener, his article on evil and thermodynamics being especially so. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, thanks for that link Jim, quite an eye opener. It appears that Sadi has started his own institute (Institute of Human Thermodynamics ) as well as started publishing his own journal. [68] He reminds me of Kary Mullis in many ways. Are his supporters here all from that institute too? David D. (Talk) 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't watch the mathematics and physics pages of Wikipedia much, if you raise this. And you don't watch anything much, if you accuse John Baez on this. And for the record: I consider User:Sadi Carnot's creation of both the articles Entropy (energy dispersal) and Frank Lambert extraordinarily stupid: The first one a POV-fork, the second one a WP:BLP of someone who for his own good would better be without a biography here. --Pjacobi 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accuse? if you read below i agreed with Baez, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. And i am fine adding this back to entropy with the appropriate disclaimers. By the way, it would not have been stupid of Sadi to create the page if the long term goal was to delete it. When I see organisations such as the the Institute of Human Thermodynamics (basically a glorified dating service) i start too wonder about motives and vote stacking. Why don't you educate me about the events on the mathematics and physics pages, one can't be everywhere at once. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The long-standing gloss of explaining entropy as a measure of "disorder" has been used so often by proponents of ID to confuse or mislead (eg:life shows so much order, there must have been a designer, otherwise it would conflict with the second law), that it is understandable if heartfelt opponents of ID are attracted to discussions of entropy that promote a focus on the "dispersal of energy" instead. Because life (and evolution) certainly disperses energy - so it's much more obvious that if ID people try to run this argument they don't have a leg to stand on. That I think is why ID opponents are so strong about wanting to see dispersion of energy as the way to roughly understand entropy (and it does seem much more tangible, too). But for all the reasons discussed in Talk:Entropy:Archive4 and elsewhere, IMO the "dispersal of energy" talk is a shortcut too far. Instead, IMO the thing to stress is that the (spatial) dispersal of energy by living things far outweighs the apparent increase in their internal order as they grow. Both contribute to the accounting for the second law. "Disorder" (or "disorderedness"), if used as a gloss for entropy, has a very specific meaning, namely "the total number of microstates compatible with the macroscopic description", the microstates reflecting not only the internal orderedness, but also a single state of the external arrangement of energy too. So to anti-ID crusaders I say: you don't actually require a definition of entropy as "dispersal of energy" to knock this particular ID-sponsored confusion down. Jheald 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to be blunt, deal with it. Strawman? Red Herring? Whatever it is, it's bullshit. If you think my life revolves around the fucking crap IDists spew and that I want to find some way to explain entropy in a way that does not fit in with their delusions, then you yourself are deluded. The two discussions have nothing to do with each other (other than the strawmen erected by IDists, and apparently feared by others. Perhaps you lack the sufficient intellect to see that, but it is the case nonetheless. And quite frankly, even if the elementary teaching of entropy deals with energy dispersal, and even if this "plays" into the hands of the IDists, so fucking what? Their arguments are still wrong. One cannot simply decide that because a definition might inconveniently be used by someone else to further their inane gibberish is not a reason to exclude the defiition. Idiots will always find some succor for their stupidity in any theory, concept, idea, etc., you propose. Frankly, I'm tired of reading all this ooh-i'm-afraid-of-id shit. Grow some balls. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, if you care to read my comment, you'll see you appear to have the point I was making exactly back-to-front. It is entropy as disorder that IDists are misinterpreting. But that is no reason to blind yourself to shortcomings of descriptions of entropy exclusively as energy dispersal. Jheald 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point that the need for a clear and accessible explanation arises when, for example, at Talk:Evolution/Archive 016#Kinds, 22:04, 14 May 2006, User:Sangil drew on his degree in Bioinformatics to advise us that "It is true the 2nd law deals mainly with energy. However, many other types of systems have used the 2nd law as a "guiding principle", since many natural phenomena appear to behave in a similiar way (i.e. that with time the disorder in a system increases). It is in this broader sense, and note in the strict energetical sense, that I refer to it." In trying to improve the Evolution article to deal with such reasoning I revisited the entropy and 2nd Law articles and found that they no longer provided a useful explanation. (see Self-organization and entropy for my proposed explanation) It's certainly important that articles should be fully correct at an advanced level, but the evidence is that "energy dispersal" is a recent but well established way of introducing the topic to beginners, something which Wikipedia also needs to achieve. To the extent that the approach has limitations, these should be made clear....dave souza, talk 14:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some further remarks on entropy versus energy dispersal:

As I mentioned above, the concept of entropy is useful even in systems where energy is completely irrelevant. The concept of entropy does not logically depend on concept of energy. So, one can't explain entropy very well using "energy dispersal".

Conversely, one can't understand the tendency of systems towards "energy dispersal" unless one understands something called free energy. This quantity is related to entropy, but it's not the same: it's the energy minus the temperature times the entropy.

If you want to know why water is a crystal (low entropy) at low temperatures, but a gas (high entropy) at high temperatures, you need to realize that the water is not maximizing its entropy. It's minimizing its free energy. So, free energy is very important in chemistry.

And, to see why energy tends to disperse, you need to see that this process is how a system moves towards a lower free energy.

So, energy dispersal might be a good way to explain free energy, but not entropy. If some textbooks are using it to explain entropy, and this therefore merits a Wikipedia article, then I pray that the article say why this is a poor explanation, and point the reader to a better one. I can also suggest a lot of other articles on lousy explanations I've seen in textbooks. John Baez 15:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If you can improve the article, and have verifiable sources which say "this is claptrap" or whatever, please do add them. We have an article on Intelligent design, which is... well, I'd say crap science but it isn't even science at all, so um.. We have an article on Kent Hovind. Notable, and definately nonsense. I'm not saying Entropy (energy dispersal) is nonsense, I'm simply saying that "This is wrong" ≠ "This should be deleted" as a one-to-one relation. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- it might be a good idea to think this all the way through: If you want to know why water is a crystal (low entropy) at low temperatures, but a gas (high entropy) at high temperatures, you need to realize that the water is not maximizing its entropy. It's minimizing its free energy. If at its freezing point water has low entropy, and at boiling it has high entropy, and if the issue is the difference between minimization and maximization of potential energy, then it would seem to follow that at minimum little energy is being dispersed, and at maximum much energy is being dispersed. (Of course there's a chicken and egg argument in here, I just happen to think you have them reversed, especially as external energy is required to move from min to max). In any case, this method of teaching entropy is quiter sound, a good bit moreso than an argument that an attempt to measure distance more accurately than at the Plank length would cause a black hole.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the difference between this and James Kay's published ideas on dissipative systems? Wouldn't this idea of dispersal be the similar? Possibly we are getting caught up in the sloppy terminology and missing the notable idea by using pubmed with the wrong search terms? David D. (Talk) 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page is a description of a pedagogical approach that has been popularized to teach the concept of entropy. Whether is is right or wrong does not matter, it exists, it is not OR and students clearly find it useful since it is popping up in textbooks. If this is not part of the sum of human knowledge that wikipedia is trying to collate then I seriously think this encyclopedia is getting off track. i do agree that with John Baez that the weaknesses of this idea should be presented and be used as a springboard to more sophisticated ideas of entropy. In fact, to me, this seems like a primary reason for keeping the article. Deleting this page will not make the concept go away in the real world. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (back) into [[Entropy]] (but not where it claims to come from at Entropy#Ice melting example), and split out into Entropy (pedagogical approaches). A move to Entropy (pedagogical approaches) would be wrong. Keeping would be wrong. (It is claptrap, but my thermo textbooks are in storage, and might deserve a mention on faulty pedagogical approaches, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that it comes from Entropy#Ice melting example presumably relates to a "main article" link there added by "Sadi Carnot" when he set this up as a POV fork to denigrate the approach. I've removed that link and have considerably revised this article: your suggestion of moving an improved article to another title has merit, though "pedagogical approaches" seems rather clumsy. Evidently a number of eminent authors providing textbooks for those beginning to learn about entropy don't feel that it's claptrap, though the talk here is evidence that those educated in other systems can find it hard to accept. ...dave souza, talk 14:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Box Forums

[edit]

Article is unreferenced and not verifiable. However more importantly the subject website/forum is not notable... Thanks/wangi 15:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to UC Riverside. Xoloz 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

[edit]

non-noteable, not encyclopedic ElKevbo 15:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that this merger has been proposed and was rejected largely for lack of discussion (I think only three editors participated in the discussion with one voting for merger and the other two, one being myself, opting not to merge and instead wanting to see this article deleted). --ElKevbo 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup or Merge I think that a college, as part of an university, is notable. This is, after all, the largest school at a well known state University.-- danntm T C 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Amerique 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC) As is, the article is only a list of departments, which adds nothing to information which can be easily found on UCR's own website. While at some point a genuine article could be written about UCR CHASS, I see no compeling reason to keep this list around for the time being.[reply]
    • Comment Remember the official policy of WP:DEL. If an article needs improvement, it's not necessarily a reason to delete, but rather to clean up. Since you've been involved in the UCR article and have good knowledge of the institution, perhaps you could spearhead the editing. SliceNYC 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I would, but I'm kind of busy with academics right now... I don't forsee being able to write an article on UCR CHASS in the immediate future. I don't object in principle to an article on CHASS, but I don't think the current itteration provides an adequate starting point. However, as deleting the article might send an inappropriate signal that the subject is outlawed for future WP articles, and as the information provided would probably be replicated in some fashion in a future article anyway, I'll reluctantly support keeping it. I should be able to find some time to work on it some time before 2 weeks from now. Best,--Amerique 01:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - The existence of a similar article is not a basis on which to keep this one (please nominate it if you feel it should go) and although it is argued that a cited list is worth keeping this list is not cited. Yomanganitalk 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of male porn stars

[edit]

A list of all male porn actors. Unmaintainable. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Brown

[edit]

Delete. I can't find any sources to verify any of the claims made in this article. The two references given do not mention "Jenny Brown" at all. The cited book, The Life of Jenny Brown, does not result in any Google hits. There's a book authored by a Jenny Brown and published by Gaia Press, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with plants or ballroom dancing. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Macabre (2nd nomination)

[edit]

This webcomic has no external third-party sources of any kind, making it WP:OR by default, and no indications of meeting the notability criteria of WP:WEB. The first AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Macabre, appeared to hold that it had sufficient Alexa rank and/or Google hits, but these are not sufficient by and of themselves to establish notability, and cannot override the WP:OR problem. Sandstein 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Correction applied, Sandstein 19:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not persuasive in the light of WP:WEB, especially because his notability seems to stem exclusively from the fact that he does webcomics. Sandstein 13:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'm not compelled by WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Xoloz 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 7th Coalition

[edit]

Event advertisement; non-notable with no third-party reviews. Melchoir 16:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete A8 (copyvio < 48h) by User:Nishkid64. ColourBurst 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Quest Limited

[edit]

{{prod}} for more than 5 days, but I can't determine if it really should be deleted, so I figured I'd throw it to the masses and see what the flagpole says. UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. The reason it reads like an advertisement is because it is one. Copyvio of [69]. eaolson 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This company does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. For example, the company in question has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The proof of my statement is in this google search. The company is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications as well. On top of this, the lack of sources cited in this article is a concern as well. Lastly this is a copyvio of the above mentioned website by Eaolson. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, this afd wasn't very useful since the only problem brought up was a copyright violation. It's still listed at WP:CP, and might get deleted through that. - Bobet 12:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ergo Proxy episodes

[edit]

Speedy Delete copyvio from [70][71][72][73][74][75] Godsk 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)— Godsk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • The images all have fair use rational write-ups for them. When there was / will be content for each episode they will be used in context and related to / significantly contributing to the article. Passes all points of WP:FUC. However, personally, I would choose some more distinguishing images. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, what relevance does a nearly-2-year-old discussion on undeleting revisions have to do with the article in question? —TangentCube /c /t  20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot subculture

[edit]

Like Recurring jokes on Slashdot (listed here) but worse. A total pile of memes floating around slashdot, based entirely on original research, without a single secondary source to back up the existence of any of them as memes. Fails WP:NOR and WP:V really really blatantly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dill court rockets

[edit]

Non-notable sports team. Zero hits in Google. eaolson 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Cohen Moseley

[edit]

Non-notable local politician RedRollerskate 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my stance to regular Keep per Starblind.--Húsönd 22:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep She's the mayor of a city of 100,000 people. In my opinion that's absolutely no-doubt-about-it notable. Charlene.fic 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is below my threshold of notability as Miramar just isn't a major city (not even in our top 200). Additionally, Miramar has a city manager/city council form of government [78] making the "Mayor" the equivalent of a city council president, definitely not notable. (In such a city, the executive function is performed by the council or commission as a whole.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mayor of a city of 100,000 people is pretty notable. Dhartung probably has a good point out the mayor's power relative to that of the city council, but come on... compared to the webcomics, forum trolls, and garage bands we usually delete on AfD, just about any mayor is notable in comparison. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of passing WP:BIO. Keep Local politician without significant press coverage. Pan Dan 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. All mayors get lots of press coverage, even though most of it is local/regional. "Lori Moseley" gets 578 Google News Archive hits, mostly from the Miami Herald. She's apparently better known without the Cohen part of her name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right that the local press coverage is enough for WP:BIO here. Above, I suppose though I was typing the right criterion to apply to local politicians--"significant press coverage"-- I had in my mind the more stringent standard we apply to non-politicians, viz. "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." (my emphasis). Though I don't think she meets that standard, I suppose the coverage of her as mayor counts as "significant" per the criterion for local politicians. Have changed my vote above. Pan Dan 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Looking at the archive results, I definitely see some of them in which she is the primary subject. For example, this one involves some sort of ethics complaint filed against her. But you're entitled to your opinion. I thank you for considering my findings and for having changed your vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The topic and the position are notable and press coverage has been established. Dekimasu 09:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a mayor of a city of 100,000 is notable per se. NawlinWiki 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed early and kept by overwhelming consensus. No need to prolong this, esp. in light of the aforementioned "screwup." El_C 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth

[edit]

This article was restored after a speedy deletion was reviewed and overturned. A prior AfD, in April, ended in no consensus. Procedural listing, so I abstain for now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big bold notice - original speedy (by me) was due to a Google screwup, apparently Google is case sensitive (so be warned) and I had googled WikiTruth instead and so google decided that 150 hits was all it was going to pop by. That being said, it would have gone to AfD had I seen some propser results -- Tawker 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll back up Tawker here, we had a conversation on IRC and I can verify the bizzare google results...
Lowercase search for "encyclopedia dramatica": Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400 for encyclopedia dramatica. (0.07 seconds)
Uppercase search for "Encyclopedia Dramatica": Results 1 - 10 of about 195,000 for Encyclopedia Dramatica. (0.06 seconds)
I have no idea whats up with google, but I can certainly see how Tawker might have gotten a wierd result in a search for "WikiTruth" ALKIVAR™ 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I first thought maybe google has problems with it. After all, there's a web page all about it and it recommended yahoo. So I tried Yahoo and noticed no difference in capitalization. Then I tried google and no capitalization different either.

Google:
Wikitruth - 102,00
WikiTruth - 102,00
"encyclopedia dramatica" - 133,000
"Encyclopedia Dramatica" - 133,000

Yahoo:
Wikitruth - 11,400
WikiTruth - 11,400
"encyclopedia dramatica" - 135,000
"Encyclopedia Dramatica" - 135,000
I tried in different web browsers and got the same result. I got radically different numbers for both sites than you two. Anomo 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google returns different results depending on which server you happen to hit. For what it's worth, here's another google test excluding the sites themselves:
Zocky | picture popups 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has been covered in respectable media outlets, looks like. Edward Wakelin 18:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but it deserves a mention on Criticism of Wikipedia. 1ne 19:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:WEB in terms of multiple media mentions. No reason has been given to delete, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a well-known critic website about a notable encyclopedia, and its criticisms have been commented on in public by the said notable encyclopedia. All this has gotten into newspaper stories like the one in the Guardian, making the whole thing notable enough. Zocky | picture popups 19:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in a number of mainstream publications, thorn in Wikipedia's side, amply meets WP:WEB, no reason given for deletion. JASpencer 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, newsworthy and interesting --Bedders 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plus deleting it makes us look juvenile (not a criterion, I know). --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage and being somewhat widely known among critical sites. Also, the article, the AfDs, and the countless public debates have, over time, given me a profound zen revelation: We're All (speaking now of both us and them) Wasting Time. It's got to count. Perhaps by keeping this article Wikipedia can contribute to our implied mission of enrichening human minds and knowledge. Because life is too short for people to truly know anything. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia as realized, as opposed to idealized, is an essentially farcical undertaking. Wikitruth is notable by objective – and even Wikipedia – criteria as well as an appropriate response, whoever lies behind it, whatever their motives. Arcsincostan 21:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has recieved multiple non-trivial mentions in major media outlets. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Tawker was just trying to get himself criticized on their site :) I oppose deletion, but I wouldn't be against merging into the longer Criticism of Wikipedia article, where sites like Wikipedia Watch and Wikipedia Review are mentioned and discussed.--Cúchullain t/c 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "speedy" that erased this page declared it failed "WP:WEB." However, "WP:WEB" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. The majority of negative commentators on it's overturning simply said they didn't like the site because it was negative, or because it was (they asserted) created by a banned user. However, like them or hate them, whether they were started by a banned user or by Jesus Christ, the fact remains that killing the messenger doesn't change the message. The bottom line is that Wikitruth meets all criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. One of Wikitrith's largest criticisms of Wikipedia is that pages can (and very often are) deleted without warning and leaving no trace, despite the GFDL. Speedy-deleting the Wikitruth entry on Wikipedia does not delete their criticism, it validates it. Xaa 21:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Websites that fail to assert notability per WP:WEB are subject to CSD A7 these days. However, this was introduced very recently and applying it to old articles with considerable history and would likely to cause debate if unilaterally removed is iffy at best, dubious at worst. CSD is primarily intended to remove new articles in case where it's entirely uncontroversial (as in "every user should know that it doesn't help to create articles that fail CSD, because those get deleted"). If there's even tad bit of possibility the site is at all notable, it's an AfD case. I wouldn't go enforcing the "new" A7 on old articles unless it's extremely clear-cut and there's not been significant improvement since creation. This article clearly isn't an open-and-shut case and it should be AfD'd. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeff and others, and my comments at DRV. --W.marsh 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we've been here before and there's no new information suggesting it should be deleted. --Spoom - Talk 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. The mentions in the media are sparse at best and mostly in the context of Wikipedia. Just because it criticizes Wikipedia doesn't make it any more or less notable. If this was a site criticizing Microsoft, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. It would have been deleted already. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply removing their page on Wikipedia does not make their criticisms any less valid, especially about the powers of admins deciding things by themselves. Notable, no original research etc. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
  • Keep Tawker speedy deleted it, its redirects, and its talk page, and then salted the article--all while never giving communication about it on the wiki. Then despite it being early October, he claimed he was going on Thansgiving holiday. Maybe he deleted the article due to emotional turmoil, but yet his wikistress level says good on his userpage. Is Tawker's account hijacked? Anomo 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. First, sarcasm and abuse aren't appropriate here. Second, do be careful to do a bit of fact-checking before you wield sarcasm and bad faith in the future—while the United States celebrates Thanksgiving in November, this is not the case everywhere. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I considered assuming that the account would be hijacked before Tawker would ever do what he did was assuming good faith. Anomo 11:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my opinion, this anti-Wikipedia site has been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias User:NightCrawler and his many other sockpuppets. DW was under a hard ban since 2003 (see [79]) and "has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales", etc. in 2005. See [80], [81]. One of the criticisms against Wikipedia centers on Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia:Office Actions page which deals with certain legal issues. Ted Wilkes claimed to have much legal knowledge and used this knowledge in his mud-throwing campaign against arbcom member Fred Bauder. Wilkes, who plumed himself on being one of the best and most active contributors to Wikipedia, was blocked by arbcom ruling on 19 March 2006 for one year. See [82]. Is it just mere coincidence that Wikitruth was started shortly after that date, on 20 March 2006? His alias NightCrawler had much trouble with administrator Angela, ironically wishing Angie "WikiLove," etc. See [83], [84]. Significantly, Angela Beesley is attacked on the Wikitruth pages. Furthermore, administrator FCYTravis is one of Wikitruth's whipping boys, perhaps because Ted Wilkes had some trouble with this administrator on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See, for instance, [85]. Wikitruth also frequently claims that too many vandals and trolls "game the system" on Wikipedia. Is it just by chance that Wilkes and his supporter User:Wyss frequently accused user Onefortyone of gaming the system, being a troll, the "most dangerous vandal", etc., falsely claiming that this user's edits were fabricated, unfounded, or unwarranted and therefore must be removed. See [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. Wyss even accused administrator Mel Etitis of being a troll. See [91]. For a summary of the facts, see also [92], [93]. Significantly, Wikitruth is recommended on Wyss's user page. See also [94]. So much for my suspicion concerning the origin of Wikitruth. Therefore, any reference to this biased anti-Wikipedia site should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.141.247.48 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment Who created Wikitruth and their true aims are irrelevant. Their notability and publicity pass muster IMHO. See my keep comment further down for my opinion. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, this is not the right venue for discussing who started Wikitruth, and it has - and shouldn't have - any bearing whether or not this article is kept. (Nasty mean people get articles too!) Unless you can demonstrate this article was created by the user in question (or any other permabanned troll), which I haven't investigated myself, but I'm relying on the assumption that someone might have caught such detail much earlier - and even in such case, deleting it would be a controversial enough move to warrant discussion here. Fascinating tidbits, though, if demonstrably true and could be included to the article while avoiding OR. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons it was kept in the first AfD. --Myles Long 23:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the notability of this group has only increased since the first AfD. Silensor 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arcsincostan. Morton devonshire 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as in NOW! Not only is this more than worthy, but deleting it is exactly what Wikitruth wants, so they can libel Wikipedia further and use it to fuel their arguments against it. We should keep this article and do our best to make it fair, honest and NPOV, as we do with the rest of Wikipedia. That is the best way to discredit their arguments. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleting this article just gives wikitruth one more feather in its hat... yet more proof wikipedia doesnt accept criticism. Kitch is quite right, keep it, npov the hell out of it and show them that we take criticism seriously. ALKIVAR™ 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 02:29Z
  • Keep as per all above. Notable and well-written article. Vivelequebeclibre 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Why the Wikipedia communuity keeps articles like these is one thing I don't understand. Naconkantari 03:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Strong Strong Delete - this fails WP Web hence an A7 delete. We deleted ED's page per the same criteria (and it's had google hits too...), we do not feed the trolls on Wikipedia. Hence Wikitruth needs to go to /dev/null -- Tawker 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A DRV result has already decided that A7 was not valid for a speedy deletion in this case. --67.71.78.201 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, isn't that just a tad obvious - why else would it be here. Apparently a google screwup gave me odder hits for my original search so hits might not be as big of a facor originally. ED and Wikitruth appear to have similiar hit counts but one exists and the other does not. Anyways, technical screwup led to the first speedy, but my reasoning still stands here. BTW, may I suggest logging in.. it makes life easier -- Tawker 06:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tawker, as I've demonstrated above, it does meet WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, this depends on how we read multiple and non-trivial. Orlowski's piece is merely repeating the arguments he made on the Reg for the benefit of the sandal-wearing lentil-eating Grauniad readers. Wikitruth is merely a hook on which to hang this (and if you get paid by the word, it's a pretty good idea to recycle earlier work). Ebiz just regurgitates Orlowski, so that can't qualify towards multiple. The Village Voice piece is independent, and presumably non-trivial, and an unbalanced rant into the bargain. No doubt you see this as meeting WP:WEB's requirements, but I don't. So we disagree, no surprise there. However, the impossibility of this ever being NPOV means that we'll be back here again, after a decent interval, repeating exactly the same arguments. "Avoid writing or editing articles about [Wikipedia], since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned." Good advice that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tawker, I think that speedy deleting it, speedy deleting the redirects, salting the article, and especially speedy deleting the talk page and then remaining silent about it on wiki until it was restored really hurt this AFD. Before you did that, not that many people were paying attention to the artcle and then suddenly the news of what you did spread everywhere and lots of people came to vote to keep it. So the actions hurt your cause and you would have done better by AFDing it through process.Anomo 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Hastings, Nebraska. - Yomanganitalk 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Fountain

[edit]

Not really sure that this is notable enough for an article. Fightindaman 18:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Dictionary

[edit]

Advertisement/promotional; fails WP:WEB; most of creator's contributions have been external links (mostly to this site); author's changes (in response to prod tag) did not convince me that subject meets WP:WEB (being mentioned on a couple of small websites does not establish notability). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WEB and ADVERT. QuiteUnusual 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a site is not owned by a conglomerate like Webopedia (which is included) should not determine value and if you decide value based on creator contributions Wikipedia becomes elitist. If this site should be deleted so should Webopedia. On the point of only being mentioned on small websites is elitist but when I checked some the small websites that consider it useful enough to mention and link are the US Army, grade schools, high schools, and universities (search google link:sitename). I see this addition as valuable to Wikipedia. But what do I know I'm just a Wikipedia user not a big time contributor. Kkrimmer 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I think it's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.62.201 (talk • contribs)
Note that anon IP is sockpuppet of this article's creator; see Webopedia afd. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - those expressing keep opinions have not sufficiently addressed the reasons for the nomination to allow this to be kept. Yomanganitalk 00:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot trolling phenomena

[edit]

Nomination for deletion Full of original research with poor sourcing (seems to be using slashdot posts and spinoff slashdot troll sites only). The article does not show how the "Slashdot trolling phenomena" (such as "crapflooding" (I'm sure far more of this happens on wikipedia than slashdot), anti-semitism, homophobia, racism, plagiarism, flamewars, "karma whores" (many web forums/communities have a comment scoring system)) described here are substantively unique and distinct from trolling phenomena elsewhere. Claim that Slashdot has particularly "bizarre and complex" subculture is ungrounded (and incidentally compared to what? Scientology? Birdwatching?) Memes described are ephemeral in content and unsourced ("Hot grits", "Stephen King is dead"). There is no claim for encyclopedic notability here.

NOTE: Please see previous vfd:

Also see related afds:

Bwithh 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Probably the worst of the 3 Slashdot culture articles, although the "subculture" one is close. Loads of external links to various slashdot posts, absolutely zero reliable sources even though the article has been around for years. For what it's worth, while I'm sure Slashdot does get trolls just like any forum does, the moderation system is set to hide trolling by default, so the vast majority of readers never even see such posts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most good trolls get moderated up, not down, because the moderators don't realize they're trolls. It's crapfloods that get moderated down, not real trolling. When Trollback was running, many of the best-crafted trolls were at +5. 4.253.43.8 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not even forks - I think they're automatically generated mirrors of wikipedia Bwithh 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Sorry guys, but Slashdot isn't as important as you think. Danny Lilithborne 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slashdot#Trolling. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 02:27Z
  • Delete. Don't redirect to Slashdot#Trolling as redirects to sections doesn't always work. Interesting work here but it's clearly WP:OR. Mangojuicetalk 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's all original research and there aren't any reliable sources that could be added. GassyGuy 08:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan; original research and a large helping of vanicruft is not what makes encyclopedic content. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was already listed on AFD. It received nearly unanimous Keep votes, roughly in the range of 95% with extremely high voter turnout. Please consider this precedent and the fact that the Wikipedia community considered it poor form to list articles on AFD multiple times. Furthermore, if a person does insist on skirting this guideline by re-AFDing an article that had a strong Keep consensus, it's expected that he will at least link to the previous AFD so it doesn't appear he's trying to sneakily cover up the previous AFD. 4.253.43.8 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) I did check through the talk page (too hastily) and did not see the previous VfD (the general practice now is to highlight these in a colour shaded box - I was looking for one of those; also the link to the afd nomination screen from the afd tag led to a blank screen rather than the first AfD, so this also led me to assume there were no previous ones.). My bad. 2) Please see WP:CCC - which is an actual official policy as opposed to the made-up "guideline that I'm skirting" which you suggest is implied by the GNAA talk page (I disagree than such notion is implied, and certainly not as a guideline). Please also see WP:AGF. Also, I don't consider a second nomination "multiple times" (I also think GNAA (which has been nominated 18 times or something) should continue to be open to afds). It's also been more than 2 years since the vfd, so its not like we haven't given the article time to improve or people haven't been adding to the article (there's actually been a few hundred edits since then). And I'd like to think that in those 2+ years, Wikipedia's standards and expectations have gone up a bit. Bwithh 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notably different from trolling anywhere else. Delete -- The Anome 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with the subculture main article. --- RockMFR 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't even been on Slashdot for very long and these folks are very well known. It'd be a mistake to delete it outright; at least merge into Slashdot trolling phenomona. Chayama 01:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep. This is very useful resource for old memes, so one can dig them up and reuse them, or modify them. Any one who has been involved in slashdot subculture will appreciate this article, and any one new to the trolling scene who wishes to learn about the history of some of these will find this article most useful. And also as wikipedia is a online project, having articles on

internet subcultures seems most apt. If the eventual is to delete, then this would have to be preserved as a section in the slashdot main article because the content is worth keeping. Alexs 11:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is very useful resource for old memes, so one can dig them up and reuse them, or modify them." So... you're saying this article should be kept because its helpful to people who want to troll on Slashdot? I don't think this is what Wikipedia is for. Encyclopedia Dramatica is probably the more suitable site. Bwithh 12:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think this article in within the spirit and nature of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not.

    Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

    and

    Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.

    -68.81.100.139 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... I'm a bit surprised it survived this long... This is basically one big piece of original research about trolling behaviors on one website. Maybe Dramatica would accept this, but other than a brief mention at the Slashdot article, I don't see how this in any way is encyclopedic material, and I'm a longtime /. reader.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Part OR, part of stuff not particularly limited to Slashdot. Yeah, it's old, but it started the march with the wrong foot, so to speak. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is worth keeping, just because the article lacks citiation does not make it invalid. It just needs cleanup, not deletion. Janizary 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to come clean why I feel we should keep this article: plain and simple, its just a fun and fascinating read. Honestly, this kind of article is a great example of why I love wikipedia - we don't mind a page of subculture munitiae. As more and more of our lives and interactions move online, the history and culture of our experiences become depressingly ephemeral and temporary. I ran into this recently with an obscure opensource game I've played for a few years (MAngband) - I decided it was time for an article about it (its been around for coming up on a decade) and was saddened to find that old archives of the early-days-development mailing lists had eventually been deleted and the site they were on closed. Is it obscure? Yes. Does the Greater Populace really care? Nope. But it was and is a small but persisting phenomena that has had an impact on a small, quite group. How sad it would be to think that so many of these things, on a larger scale, suddenly vanish from all lasting knowledge with the click of a mouse button at a webhost. Is the article clunky and messy? Then let's commit to cleaning it up! The quirky, funny, and oddly interesting subculture that arose in a community of hundreds of thousands of people is certainly worth keeping with us. Dxco 03:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of depressing to me. It's like the signal of the end of real life in place of Internet culture; however, as that hasn't happened, this article remains not part of our history, but rather the history of a small minority, and as such needn't be covered in an encyclopaedia. GassyGuy 07:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia's primary purpose is to become an authoritative encyclopedia, not a free archive space for your favourite internet forum. Articles like this which make multiple claims that are not proven or verifiable (these kinds of trolling are specially associated with Slashdot, and this is an encyclopedically notable phenomenon) are detrimental to Wikipedia's purpose and are out of line with official guidelines and policies. WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep 2) this article has been around for 4 years (2 years since its first vfd). The article has had plenty of time and plenty of edit to become sufficiently encyclopedic. It hasn't. Bwithh 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is well-written. I found the information very intriguing reading through, and I post there once in a blue moon. Slashdot is important; there's a reason it's so notorious for running sites out of bandwidth. Twin Bird 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have articles on Slashdot and the Slashdot effect. The article is not well-written in terms of Wikipedia standards as an encyclopedia which excludes original research and requires verifiable sources of an article's encyclopedic claims. Bwithh 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is not that it's badly written but that its claims are based on unverifiable original research and are unencyclopedic in nature. It's been around for 4 years with plenty of editing but no signs of improvement. Bwithh 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as also per above (Dxco's comments). JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepish, pare it down to what is verifyable, notable and distinct. If there is nothing that remains, then that is what will happen. But it can be edited down to what we need; and what is encyclopaedic. (btw, reading it was informative, I cannot make a personal evaluation on how distinct slashdot is from the rest of the internet, but it did seem there was some slashdot-specific info therein) Just get the information that is regurgitation from other trolling articles out. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 07:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is what would happen if you cut out the parts that couldn't be sourced and the parts that weren't unique to Slashdot: "Trolling occurs on Slashdot." Not much of an article. GassyGuy 07:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The claims that this material is unverifiable is unfounded. The majority of this information can be found on Slashdot itself within its archive of comments. Also the majority of this information is common knowledge within the Slashdot community. 68.81.100.139 10:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fark has a similar list of "Farkisms" which the majority are not cited from a "reputable" source. I think if the topic is the culture of a specific Internet community, the citing of specific examples from the site itself should be enough to warrant verifiability. 68.81.100.139 10:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I just looked at that Fark article. Cruft-tastic. I am not familiar with Fark.com at all (had to read the article to see what it was...) but I hope you or someone else better able to judge will go through and weed out the original research and needless crap. However, I feel that cleaning up that article is a better solution than just letting all Internet communities have unsubstantiated minutia documented. GassyGuy 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can go to Slashdot and see that people are trolling this way. But here's the thing: Slashdot postings are basically unrelated instances of random happenstances. They don't necessarily interrelate with the bigger picture. Anyone could post a couple of postings there over a time, come here, and claim it's a "minor trolling phenomenon". Thus, we can't really use Slashdot itself because correlation doesn't mean causality: To determine whether the trolling phenomenon is notable and specific to Slashdot, we'd need to draw educated, weighted conclusions based on a lot of Slashdot comments, which is original research. In Wikipedia we don't draw educated, assertive conclusions, just simple deductive conclusions based on already published research. You could probably do this if the body of work was entirely available in simple form (as in "a moderate amount of postings that aren't edited, purged, and made disappear automatically by most peoples' browsing settings"), and drew only simple conclusions ("there's 2000 articles that have the GNAA spam, as anyone can plainly see"), but in current form, this demands too much from the reader who wants valid, easily verifiable information. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure that "bored teenagers" is the most accurate way to describe the Slashdot readership, and leads me to wonder if you are actually familiar with the site you are voting against and the significance it holds. Dxco 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. A lot of them must be in their 20s by now. Recury 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting against the site (I have a low 5-figure Slashdot user ID, incidentally) but against a pointless WP:OR article chronicling trolling on the site. I do assume the trolls (not, of course, the Slashdot readership) are mostly juveniles. Sandstein 16:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Slashdot is the "Grey Lady" of tech news, and one of the precursors to the entire blogging phenomenon. Articles concerning her unique culture are therefore notable, if properly referenced.—Perceval 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have articles on Slashdot, the Slashdot effect and Slashdot's founders. The article presents no verifiable evidence that Slashdot trolling is unique. Slashdot subculture has recently been deleted for failing verifiability and original research policy. Bwithh 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... but it's not. GassyGuy 06:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Articles aren't notable, if they were we'd be writing articles about them. Notability isn't the end-all and be all of inclusion, it's not even policy. This fails the fundamental and basic policy of verifiability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is self-defining it's own phenomenon. That in itself, like this page are all important historical records, of which another article could be written. Widefox 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is exactly the definition of original research. You've just provided an argument of why this article is inappropriate for wikipedia, not why it should be kept (except perhaps in an archive somewhere). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, I nominated the other two piles of slashdot OR for deletion but haven't gotten around to this one. I wish the nom hadn't mentioned notability, because that's not the issue here and has turned into a terrible distraction for debate. The problem is that the article is fundamentally unverifiable original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I though I was foregrounding the original research and unverifiablity issues in the nom. the Strong Keeps seem mainly to be arguing from "i like it", "this article is actually well-written" and "anything about Slashdot is important" perspectives rather than from policy grounds (and I see encyclopedic notability as a function of WP:NOT, though I agree that WP:OR and WP:V are the most important here). Bwithh 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Keeping information on trolling is very difficult. Websites go down, links get lost, troll posts get deleted. Regardless if you read any of the trolltalk archives it is pretty apparent that trolling slashdot is definately a phenomenon and definately occurs. With trolling you can't really hope for external sources from the community being trolled because people documenting the trolling usually are heavily involved in the communities. In this case much of the trolling is immediately verifiable via trolltalk. There is evidence, you might not like it. --TrollHistorian 17:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply This not acceptable evidence for wikipedia - you're asking that all the evidence comes from the trollers themselves . Even leaving aside the questionable acceptance of information from self-proclaimed trollers, this counts as unreliable original research which is not verifiable because of its unreliablity. You also need to prove reliably that slashdot trolling is substantively different from other trolling on other websites in an encyclopedically meaningful way (i.e. not "they make jokes about X on Slashdot while in comparison, they make jokes about Y on Fark - we know this because of the original posts on the websites".) Bwithh 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpretting/misrepresenting what I said. Regardless, Slashdot trolling created the GNAA. I don't see their article getting deleted anytime soon. --TrollHistorian 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, if a group of people get together, think up an imbecile name for their group and then insist on behaving like idiots as much as possible and as long as possible and go out of their way to irritate as many other people as possible, at some point they may be "successful" enough to get some media coverage for being a minor irritating pop culture phenomenon thats marginally and debatably notable enough for a wikipedia article. But that doesn't help this article which doesn't prove anything unique or significant Bwithh 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 10:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will You Tolerate This?

[edit]

I don't think the new Robin Hood series from the BBC is anywhere near established enough yet to merit articles for its individual episodes. And I say that as someone who has been primarily responsible for building up Wikipedia's page on the show over the past few months. Give it time — months, maybe even years — and if it sufficiently establishes itself in popular culture then perhaps it will merit articles for each episode. But not yet, I think. Angmering 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to write a plot summary for those interested. Wiki-newbie 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep it i guess

  • Keep - There's a good start and room for improvement. Add some non-plot-related material to flesh out the breadth, critical and ratings response, etc. and there should be a decent article of appropriate length. Radagast 03:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Jost

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Ghits are not exactly prestigious, and his company is up for AFD. Has entry on IMDb, which is not exactly in depth, and doesn't even mention the film talked about here. The JPStalk to me 19:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea zone

[edit]

Was nominated for speedy deletion, and I had deleted it, but after reading the talk page, I decided to restore the page again. See Talk:North Korea zone for old VfD vote. North Korea zone doesn't seem notable itself, which can be seen with a simple Alexa test. It ranks 1,064,881, and fails WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Catto

[edit]

Non-notable. Everyone who have edited the article so far is people who have come across him (badly) during his involvement with EUSA. KTC 23:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubting the sources being verifiable and from reputable sources. However, I don't see how Mr Catto qualify as a public figure. Sure he's known to those involved with EUSA and the unfortunate Mr Fleming and family, but anyone outside of those circles, not really. KTC 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sentencing of Mr Catto was a front-page story for a national newspaper. A combination of his political career (as a Lothian Region Councillor and, in the words of the Evening News, "a man once seen as a future Tory leader in the Lothians" [97]), his students' association notoriety and his crime evidently make him notable in the eyes of The Scotsman, so why not Wikipedia? MichaelMcNab 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be POV issues here which may need to be addressed, but claims of non-notability are total rubbish. The local and national media certainly took a different view 129.215.218.4 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BBC News Online: [98]
    • Edinburgh Evening News: [99] [100]
    • Daily Record [101]
    • Law Society of Scotland [102]
    • Other coverage included The Metro, Daily Mail, Daily Star, The Express and The Mirror. If you want Lexis Nexis links for those I can provide.
  • Delete. The only claim for notability is in the four years he spent on Lothian Regional Council, where he was not Conservative leader but a few people thought he might get to be in the future. He is not notable as a criminal. David | Talk 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it should stay. This man had the necessary contacts to get Boris Johnson to stand for Lord Record of Edinburgh University. He was a local politician, a well-known contributor to the students' association and was involved in a think tank, through which he gained recognition by writing on drug legalisation and ID cards. This work was also quoted in the local press. If the press is interested, then I do not see why a Wikipedia entry is unreasonable.128.189.146.11 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clear delete. Obviously not a public figure. Jefffire 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This minor fraudster is not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a police report archive nor is it a news report database . Media coverage - even widespread international coverage by major news media - does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. No ex officio encyclopedic notability for local councillors. Bwithh 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - it can be recreated if and when information is available. Yomanganitalk 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Day Ever

[edit]

Non-notable. There is no content on this article. Just a basic layout of episode format for SpongeBob, no references, no info, nothing. Just like an article that was already deleted, Uncle Sherm's Visit. Delete. Aquafish talk 20:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's content, there's nothing to the article. Add it when it's aired. Also can you direct us to an excat source? Aquafish talk 20:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
people should be aware this is the known puppetmaster forrest2 - while I will assume this nomination is in good favour, people should be aware he has been involved in all sort of games where spongebob articles are included (upto and including trying to run a wikiproject with at least 5 of his sockpuppets) - therefore I am simply suggesting that people be on the lookout for any odd behaviour in regards to this vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.133.151 (talk • contribs)
People should also be noted that me and Mangojuice have talked this out. I am HIS brother. I will state this again. I AM his brother. I am editing politican articles. Totally different stuff than him. I AM different than him. What username are you btw? I sense you are an actul logged in user....If you have any comments take it up with Mangojuice. What odd behavior are you talking about? Are you Ral315? Foxearth? AMK152? Mangojuice? Taretone? Charlesknight? Aquafish talk 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes so different in style that you are editing spongebob articles...
My brother and me share the same love. SpongeBob SquarePants. Other than that, he edited Harry Potter which I don't like at all. Drake & Josh which I can't stand and Ned's Declassifed which I know enough about that it's o.k. There's no law on Wiki that says two people can't edit and their brother can't edit the same subjects. BTW, I only marked The Best Day Ever article for deletion because I came across it through Random articling. By the way, who are you? Ral315? Foxearth? Taretone? Aquafish talk 22:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing there. And, I already have an issue with articles about individual episodes of television shows unless they have a significant importance. Regardless, the article title ("The Best Day Ever") seems quite misleading. I'm certain almost anyone looking for an article entitled "The Best Day Ever" would not be looking for an article on a Spongebob episode, but rather an article about the best calendar day ever (not that I think there should be such an article). If the episode does indeed air and has some level of significance, the article can be re-created at that time. -- tariqabjotu 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have been more clear about this, but you can vote for what ten episodes should be shown at TurboNick and TurboNick will thank you for your vote and say this: "And tune in to the BRAND NEW SpongeBob episode "The Best Day Ever"," Friday, November 10 @ 8 pm/7c!" Squirepants101 00:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to say about the content of this page? Shouldn't it be deleted until it airs or per Kitch if we get source info as to waht this episode which be about and stuff like that? Aquafish talk 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of deletion if it is going to be recreated when the episode airs(if a source is provided)? The Dunces and Dragons article was created 4 months before the episode actually aired. -AMK152 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was probably content on the Dunces and Dragons page. There's not much on this page expect for the episode layout. Aquafish talk 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forum User (talk • contribs)
The point is that it isn't notable enough. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If we have a synopsis of what the episode is about, it will be viable. If not, it's just wasting space. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Blank the page and wait the marathon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forum User (talk • contribs)
I don't see any point in doing that. A blanking page can be confusing to be someone per Wikipedia policy and someone else might delete it. See WP:BLANK. Aquafish talk 00:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 10:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Olasky

[edit]

Nomination for deletion Fails WP:BIO and likely violates WP:VAIN (article created by single purpose account[103]). Subject is a standard-issue junior Manhattan corporate lawyer who once wrote a few articles of modest length[104] for MTV's pro-voting campaign in 2004 (when he was still a law student). In 2005, he co-wrote an op-ed with his father (that's what the article's "close ties" are), Marvin Olasky[105](a journalism professor) about Harriet Miers' candidacy for the Supreme Court for the LA Times[106]. This op-ed was reprinted in about 4 regional newspapers, and blog mentions of this oped make up the bulk of subjects ~170 google hits [107]. A Factiva database "Peter Olasky" search only returns hits for this op-ed plus a 1995 local newspaper article about scholarship winners in which he appears in a list of ~30 names of high school students. This is not an encyclopedically notable or even newsworthy political commentator. Subject also seems to be using wikipedia article as space for comments better suited to a personal webpage. Article was nom'ed for speedy delete previously but was contested by another editor. Bwithh 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler Middle School

[edit]

Non-notable Kat, Queen of Typos 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the oldest middle school in Tigard district and theres a whole lot of other middle schools that are on wiki that are less notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other less notable schools on the Wikipedia project, the appropriate action would be to nominate them for AFD. "Because there are worse examples" is not a reason to keep. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Entry fails to explain and source the subject. El_C 08:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High life

[edit]

This article is about the directory of the French High Society, which I could not find anywhere on Google. There are no sources for any of the information given. Seeing as there is no French High Society, it is kind of hard for a "directory" of this group to exist. Also, even if it did exist, what encyclopedic value does it have? Wikipediarules2221 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riders of Theli

[edit]

Not notable song. Visor 21:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr

[edit]

This person tried bring a pipe bomb onto a plane, and was then arrested and subsequently released. That's it. He might have been covered by the news at the time but I fail to see how he warrants an article. —Xezbeth 21:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No encyclopedic notability assertable. Wikipedia is not a news report database. Media coverage - even widespread international coverage by well-known channels - does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability Bwithh 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weird shit happens (how do you bring a pipe bomb onto a plane by accident ?) and is reported but we don't need to have an article on all of it. As per nom and Bwithh, no basis for an article here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Making the news once is not by itself notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Seo Won

[edit]

Yet another entry that belongs in a business directory and not an encyclopaedia Emeraude 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth L. Kuttler

[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable conspiracy theorist. No reliable sources cited in the article. Violates WP:BIO Morton devonshire 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gringy City

[edit]

This page is unnecessary, and it does not live up to its name. The article does not talk about the city, it gives a summary of the episode. The city was only in one episode of the Pokémon anime, is completely irrelevant, and all of the episodes are being merged into one list by the WP:PCP. Seeing as this page is supposed to be about the city and not the episode, this page should be deleted rather than merged into the episode lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Hybrid Its a Cow! 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable graffiti posses

[edit]

This list claims notability but most names seem to be red-linked (many blue links lead to disamb pages). There is no criteria for inclusion either in this list or in a posse. The list is translated from a French list and is unrepresentally biased towards France and the US with no prospect of extension. Simply unencyclopaedic, Delete. BlueValour 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too fluid and impossible to verify. Extract from some document or a book may be useful but not such a raw list who knows from where. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redlnk farm, and the few links that are blue are mostly other stuff with the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fundamentally subjective. Dekimasu 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopaedic. Useless list with no real links. Emeraude 11:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverifiable source of red links Marcus22 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should be relocated to a wikiproject or talk page as it is a good reference list for investigating articles to be written about notable graffiti crews/posses. Someone should start a graffiti crews category sorted by nationality just as there is a graffiti artists category functioning properly on wikipedia. MediaClemz
  • Comment Should be merged with List of graffiti artists, under the new title 'list of graffiti artists and graffiti groups. A very similar debate arose over the artists page, the result was no consensus (keep). I feel most of the arguments for that page would be very similar for this page... PeterPartyOn 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Furthermore, pages such as these with many red links should not be seen as a waste of space, but as an opportunity for growth. I understand the need to delete articles, however I think some people are very hasty when it comes to deletion, especially towards graffiti articles for some reason. Instead of deleting like mad men... try and turn some of the red links into the blue links, that's what we're here for...PeterPartyOn 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's part of the problem, though. The red links encourage people to create these articles, when in reality the articles, if they existed, would be deleted for sure. Creating them would just waste time on both ends, as Wikipedia would have to go through the deletion process, not to mention the time wasted by some poor sap writing the article. That's why articles with massive amounts of redlinks aren't generally a good thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what you're saying is no article on graffiti posses deserves to exist? Anyone creating one would be a sap? And by extension an article on say the CIA or Chrome Angelz (both of which are currently redlinked) is less deserving than say one on Cookie Puss? Doesn't that display systemic bias?--duncan 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, let's grab three random redlinks off the list:
          • "Cold Minded Killas" or "Chicago Mind Kontrol" = no Google hits at all for the former, one hit for the latter, and it's a forum thread. No Google news hits fo either. No Google Books hits for either.
          • "Time 4 Some Krime" = one Google hit, and it's a mirror of this article. No Google news hits. No Google Books hits.
          • "Yoghurt Culture Kids" = one Google hit, and it's this article. No Google news hits. No Google Books hits.
        • None of the above meet our current standards for verifiability using reliable sources as far as I can tell, and none would be likely to survive an AfD. Can I make the authoritative statement that "no article on graffiti posses deserves to exist"? No, I cannot. But anybody going through that list and writing articles on all the redlinks is likely wasting their time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no conspiracy to remove or delete graffiti art articles. I imagine most Wiki editors are in full support of having graffiti art properly covered. But with the emphasis on 'properly'. This article - as is the other - is just a frequently abused spam magnet. Much better to let each posse have an article on their own merits. Marcus22 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm not suggesting a 'conspiracy', but more of widespread attitudes and misconceptions. Also, as I've argued repeatedly, google hits are a poor measure of graffiti artist's notability as many high profile graffiti artists avoid any publication of their identities...
    • I know what you mean. You want to further the cause of graffiti art on Wikipedia and change people's negative attitudes? Fine. I'd support that. But you can't and won't succeed by bending the rules or setting-up special criteria by which the 'worth' of a posse or artist is to be judged. Sure google is the not the best judge of these things, and graffti art is harder to substantiate - but that's all the more reason you need to dig deep and provide proper sources. If you don't, then time and time again graffiti articles will be up for AfD. In the meantime this article should go. You need to recreate all/any/most of the posse articles with proper sources. Once that is done this article could be recreated - so long as it is then properly maintained to keep the spam out. Marcus22 08:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without criteria for inclusion lots of groups listed are nn, unmaintainable, and ultimately unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 05:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 10:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prowrestling.com

[edit]

Article is unreferenced, not verifiable, and forum is not notable. Thanks/wangi 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT!This is what I have to say. If people can have personal pages, then why can't an entity that represents 6000 users? Personally I think that the editors here don't want to put it on because they themselves don't like wrestling. I don't like anime, so could we then say to delete all the anime pages? I mean I've seen stupid-ass shit all over wikipedia, so if this page is maintained in a serious manner, then whats the issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssp1 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Ssp1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Comment "If we have that crap article, why not this crap article" is not a valid argument. Danny Lilithborne 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because it just doesn't work that way. There are tens of thousands of websites that have several thousand regular users. If we listed all of them and all the "garage bands" that record a CD and sell it on their own website and a few other such things, WP will be totally useless. To be included in WP a website has to have some special "claim to fame", such as being the first at something. (For instance, Altavista.com was the first Internet search engine.) RickReinckens 08:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. RickReinckens 08:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Dekimasu 09:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many things being overlooked about this article, that seem to be overlooked due to the bias nature of the those who oppose it, and the lack of knowledge on the details by the people who posted this. This has been up for less than 24 hours and already it looks like it will be deleted solely because some feel it is not notable. However the site in question exceeds the popularity of notible entries on this site, which serve as a brief bio and advertisement plug for paid services set up by wrestling journalists. Now this arguement is abvout notablity from everything I read and that is the issue stopping the people who should be updating things here from doing so. First off, Prowrestling.com as seen by it's name was one of the first wrestling websites, dating back to 1997 or even earlier. A rapid change in ownership and issues with the early site gives little info on the pre 97 state of the site. Now the reasons this site is important enough and deserves to stay here as an asset to many of the wrestling pages listed here. First off, we have an active columnist community both on the main page and the forums. These people provide up to date indepth commentary, as well as orignal research such as the quarter hour draw power of stars. Second, we are slowly becoming on the best places for independant wrestling federations to gain exposure. The main site on PW.com gets about 250k unique hits a day at last count, so that means a regional wrestling federation can expose themselves to a variety of people, with minimal effort on their part. Also in this area, we are bringing in interviews with wrestlers in a unique and detailed manner in the forums. Much of the content we seek to share with the people here, and moreso the wrestling network here, would be these features, and help link up people and regional feds through our page to help them self-promote, and help would be columnists find a place to expand there work. Since we do not charge for these services or limit who can do them, along with provide a possible change to get their work or promo stuff seen by 100k or more people, I feel this offers a source of infomation that will be very helpful to people have do not know were else to turn for these services, much as pages about programs help people who do not know where to term for file sharing infomation. Well that is my arguement for this. Not sure if it will matter or not in the end, since alot of the complaints come from one or two people and the rest are just delete comments claiming the site is not notable, although through the very own notable section on this site, it will show the problems of claiming if this site is notable or not in the wrestling community, which would be the group who would edit and update the information here. Also sorry about the wall of text. One of the reasons I never edit pages although this account is older is because I never know the exact format stuff should be in so I do not wish to ruin a page through faulty formatting. Engel 10:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Coldwavekid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete nn webforum. Eusebeus 11:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To elaborate on what Engel has to say, I believe this is worth a shot most definitely. This is not near as bad as some stuff. I mean come on. Personal pages? How is a website around since 1997, that has gained 6000 members in 4 months and that is the 4th most popular search result on Google when 'wrestling' is entered (the first sole Internet company) less worthy than 'personal pages'? We are pointing out the facts. Why ignore them? ThePWGod 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: ThePWGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete spam for non-notable forum. Leuko 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm guessing Leuko didnt read the excellent points posted above his 5 word response, if your going to delete us please make a conscious effort to debate the figures and claims of notability that have been presented so well Brezzy 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Brezzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Comment You know if the true way of finding justice here is by considering valuable, objective, factual responses more useful than tons of 'non notable'/'spam'/'not valid' crap, then we wouldn't even be arguing this right now. Like I said. Go to Google. Type in wrestling. See the fourth result. It's pretty simple. Lithborne is the only guy making an argument and even he is losing all credibility by ignoring the FACTS. You want a discussion on this then you got it. But right now we're the only ones not taking it as a vote. ThePWGod 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhile I forgot to mention it above, since for many notability needs a unique or big fact, the domain name for the is the single most hit one in the wrestling world, even higher than WWE on most search engines when people look for pro wrestling. As for it being adverting spam, the precedent was already set for these pages to be allowed to exist when the PW Torch page was allowed. That page is not notable as it was not the first, not the most read, nor is the wiki link anything more than an ad for the website and paper sheets that Keller sells. I know we do not yet have alot of content, but within hours of trying to set this up, we got the call for it to be deleted which as I mentioned above encourages people not to spent a few hours to get a detailed list of the site and it's history up, only to have it deleted anyway. Also not to mention during those first few hours the page was heavily sabotaged repeatedly. While the first people to edit this up were misguided, more people have shown interest in this that know how wiki does work and we are slowly adding to it, but cautiously, as why would anyone waste time editing an article that a non-democratic site may delete based on a democratic opinion? Engel 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is not about the content of the article, it's about the website/forum not being notable enough to have an article. The article does does not assert the notability of the site, see Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria for web content for how you can address that. Additionally how can the content of the article be verified without any reliable sources? This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Thanks/wangi 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The forum information was non notable and thus I removed it. The content of the article can be verified by going to the home page. The new covered and information on the page can be verified by following the required source citations provided for all news coverage, in the forums or on the main page. Using Google's back links currently 800 back links to the site and forum. This is on par with the 1000 found backlined to the Wade Keller PW Torch page which we used as out president in creating this site. Using www.linkpopularity.com we have over 2000 redirects back to our site that is active now. Neither of the site have won an award, and while Keller claims national exposure, it is only in the products or services he personally sells, which only reaches a small group. Much of the current content will be seeing reprint on other wrestling websites, mostly the interviews and the quarter hour power ratings. I do not personally know at this time were they are reprinted, as I do not personally deal with the power ratings, nor is the girl who promotes the interviews online at this time. We have notable people providing information to the site, namely Dory Funk Jr and Dave Prazak who do work on the main page and forums respectively, along with Vincent Clark providing information from time to time. Since there is little precedent information I could find via wiki pages on what makes a wrestling site notable and what does not as it is randomish it appears what can and cannot be allowed here, a list of what exactly you are looking for given the sub genre of websites would be needed, so we know what exactly to provide you with. It is confusing when some articles are deemed notable when they are in regards to professional wrestling in general, which they are listed under, while this one is considered not. Also the guideline is very vague and hard to apply to this sort of site, as there is no community to give wrestling site awards, and we assumed the site would be notable due it to being the most desired name for all wrestling websites as well being hte first site that returned when typing pro wrestling into most search engines.
  • Comment: The original AfD was for the forums, which are not at all notable. However, the page has been moved and substantially rewritten since this AfD was started to cover the entire site -- not just the forums. I'm not sure the entire site is any more notable than its forums (Alexa rank in the 14,000 range is borderline-ish), but it is something to consider to prevent an apples-to-oranges debate. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laying the smack down. Anomo 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any decision yet? or has everyone ran and hid now that some decent points have been made, if your not intelligent enough to go against Engel thats ok guys we wont hold it against you.Brezzy 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal conditions, AFDs last for 5 days. In this case, until Thursday, 12 Oct. Please stay civil in your comments. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep al those debating over notability and sources try http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=prowrestling.com Theendprt 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. El_C 08:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQ by country

[edit]

POV list with completely arbitraty criteria, dubious source. Punkmorten 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no point in redirecting. Emeraude 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To quote from IQ and the Wealth of Nations ... Central to the book's thesis is a tabulation of what Lynn and Vanhanen believe to be the average IQs of the world's nations. Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies. ... Since "national IQ" is admittedly bogus, just Delete and don't bother with a redirect ... nothing points to this stupid list, anyway. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IQ and the Wealth of Nations . The disputed status of that list pointed by the unregistered user is irrelevant, because the fact is that the book "IQ and the wealth of Nations" uses that list.Nonetheless, the criticism made by the unregistered user should be added to the article about the book.Randroide 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete all as recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2 in baseball

[edit]

I beleive that this article, a list of people related to baseball who were born on 2 June, is too narrow for a general purpose encyclopaedia. A broader article at this title, which was about events rather than births, was transwikied to the baseball Wikia wiki baseball.wikia.com. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball. Thryduulf 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete, anons and new users discounted and not much prove that is meets WP:V. Jaranda wat's sup 23:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation fetishism

[edit]

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote It's real, although quite bizarre. I would have figured sources probably exist for this somewhere, since it isn't all that uncommon, but perhaps not. A Google Books search didn't seem to pull up anything on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but look for sources and trim unverifiable material. I'm quite well aware that verifiability is important, but this kind of subject is generally hard to find good sources for - give it a bit of time. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Nv8200p talk 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its real, and its a very detailed article, not a current event or anything. But as for verifiability, thats always going to be hard when wikipedia's value of what counts as a reference limits "internet based" cultures from being verified. Zevensoft 02:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "real", if it is not verifiable and I can write a detailed article about any nonsense. As far as "internet based" cultures, they tend to be anecdotal. -Nv8200p talk 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something isn't real because its not verifiable is very dismissive and calling it nonsense is being very offensive to many people I'm sure. However since this article does not qualify as per wikipedia policy, perhaps a Merge into Inflatable fetishism would be more appropriate, since the two subjects are both minor and related. Zevensoft 06:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless reliable sources are added. Is it real? Yes. Is it a notable fetish? Yes. Is it a decent article? Yes. Is that enough to overwrite policy? No. If it can't be reliably-sourced, it has no place here. GassyGuy 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Dekimasu 09:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree this is WP:OR and not WP:V. Eusebeus 11:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it verifiable? JASpencer 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is verifiable, There are two books out on odd fetishes, the first is called Deviant Desires, and was published in 2000.Amazon book page There is another book, a French one, but I'm not sure on the name. --Dragon6860 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. WP policy is absolutely clear on this type of situation.
    • Articles must be sourced. It is one thing to not cite sources on things like "William Jefferson Clinton was a President of the United States" that are common knowledge and can easily be confirmed either by checking the Internet, a library, a map, or other common research tools. It is another thing to not cite reliable, credible sources for this kind of material that is virtually unknown.
    • Almost everything about this on the Web is copied from this article.
    • There are all sorts of psychologists, sociologists, etc., who come up with all sorts of "new" illnesses, syndromes, etc., that never wind up recognized by their field. The fact that one or two books may mention an idea does not make it "recognized".
    • Verifiability is not the sole criterion. Even if something is true and verifiable--even with sources--that does not automatically make it notable and "encyclopedic" under WP policy. If there is virtually nothing about this on the Internet, most likely that disqualifies it from being "notable" enough to meet WP policy--even assuming it is true.
    • The Yahoo link is to their "Inflatables" directory, not "inflation fetishism". (I changed the description.) No one disputes that blow-up dolls, etc., constitute a fetish. But that does not qualify as "inflation" fetishism. There is already an article on Inflatable fetishism.
    • Without verifiable recognized credible sources it constitutes original research. The fact that something is mentioned somewhere (even in a published book) does not automatically qualify as both "recognized" and "credible". The author(s) cited has to have reasonable credentials and the work must be accepted by peers in his field as reasonably reliable and of some significance even if the majority of his peers reject it. RickReinckens 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote I'm just too disgusted to vote. Really. There are certain things you should not do, not ever do, with blueberry juice. That's just disgusting. Waste of a good antioxident.Noroton 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One cranky author's book isn't sufficient material for an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; probably real but WP:V prevails. Sandstein 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progging

[edit]

Neologism that was apparently invented by the author. Progging is a proper word but its meaning is not as defined here. See Progging at dictionary.com. Note this diff in which the author admits he made up the definition in commented out text. Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:VANITY, WP:V, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 09:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duet I&I

[edit]

Unsigned band in the process of writing their third song Nehwyn 22:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: they are unsigned, unpublished, and the award they won hardly qualifies as a "major" award (compared to the examples in WP:MUSIC, but one of their songs was placed on playlist by a radio station that apparently broadcasts nationally. Maybe that should satisfy WP:MUSIC. Nehwyn 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish delete. A song played once on the radio should absolutely not satisfy WP:MUSIC; however, it's hard to judge from this whether they are really known nationally. The fact that they appear to have written two songs leads me to a delete, though. bikeable (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links about them::

That's a new duo - but I found that on the top bulgarian newspapers, sites, zines and magazines

http://www.novinar.net/main.php?act=news&act1=det&sql=MTg4Mjs5&mater=MTg4MjszMw==

http://www.bgradio.net/news/story/7718/

http://www.bgradio.net/music/artists/190/

http://www.iandi.info/

http://music.gbg.bg/page.newsone.php?n=6485

http://music.pop.bg/article6014.html

http://trud.bg/app/showarchive.asp?statid=29560&rubr=0&izd=2&fsize=&swidth=800&tr=1&im=03&id=28&iy=2006

http://www.netinfo.bg/index.phtml?tid=40&oid=864688

http://avtora.com/news/nowini/upsurt_grafa_i_karizma_s_nai-mnogo_nagradi_ot_bg_radio._rokendrol_vip_golota_i_oshte_neshto

http://zonataonline.com/novini9.htm

It's not in English - but the name I&I - is :) !

Their songs will be published on a CD - Various artists called "THE BULGARIAN TALENTS".

Their two songs were placed on playlist by 15 from the 31 radio stations that broadcast nationally (and two others radios - http://www.svgbc.com/ - from St. Vincent and Grenadines / and http://www.hit94fm.com/ - from Aruba ).

That's all I know for the moment. I'm not a part of that Duo. I'm a fan. Vonrohr

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -- nae'blis 23:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (creator agrees) - Yomanganitalk 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMXP - Underground

[edit]

Website advert Nehwyn 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is there something I can do to not get my wikpedia removed? I spent alot of time on it and I read all the policies, I just don't want my page removed. Is there anything I can do?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConstanceAvixen (talk • contribs) .
Personally, I do not think the website in question meets the notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(web) (where by "content", it is meant the website)... just that. Sorry! Nehwyn 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for taking the time to write back. If I work on this really hard and change the content to meet that content specified, would my article continue to stay? I really don't want to advertise my site, I just want people to get the best out of the game making experience. Can I still edit my article? If there's some things you think I should put on there I'll do it graciously.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConstanceAvixen (talk • contribs) .
Yes, you can continue to edit your article during the AFD process. If you can, please add references from reliable sources that show that it meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Yomanganitalk 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do the best I can to fix these problems. Thanks again!

ConstanceAvixen 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -- nae'blis 23:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried rewriting but no luck. It didn't even look remotely what you guys are looking for so I never edited the page. Could I ask of a few pointers before this gets deleted if it does?

71.87.182.30 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a delete, but it also seems like biting a newbie trying hard to figure out Wikipedia. Constance, try putting the page into your Sandbox and bring it back when you can establish notability. Dekimasu 09:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I will try that instead. I will return and hopefully be better at this thing. You may delete this article then. Sorry for the trouble.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already merged, redirected. Please note that AfD is not the place to list duplicate articles, they are merged by policy. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonology (book)

[edit]

There is already another article on the book this article is about, which is Dragonology: The Complete Book of Dragons. That article is also more comprehensive.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Energie (talk • contribs) .

Delete. Agreed. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to merge based on this afd but it's still an editorial decision that anyone can do if they want. - Bobet 10:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumeirah Islands

[edit]

A nn housing estate. Reads like an ad, and its location is unspecified, so it's almost within range of speediable for lack of context. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 02:20Z

Lovi Poe

[edit]

Looks like a clear case of Ecclesiastes 1:2, and does its best to put the "un-" in unencyclopedic. This is not a teen magazine. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_7&oldid=1081097704"